Minutes from Meeting 2
Present:
Vanessa Jones (UW),Gill Renfree (UW), Alma Papic (COC), Solveig Straume (Molde), Marianna Pikul (EUSA), Adina (minutes) Inge Derom, Hebe Schaillee, Helmein Rambaldo have joined us on Skype at 9.30
Lucy Rist (SSC) joined at 13.00
Charlotte Wasilewski (UW Research Funding Officer) 12.30
Apologies: Simon Toots, Sara Rozman, Rikard Hoog
VJ welcomed everyone to meeting and introductions were made to representative from EUSA( MP) and the minute taker from UW A. VJ outlined the focus for the meeting and identified the key aim: which was to establish a plan to Implement the research programme; and the structure and timeline for the educational resource Waiting for sign-off from Brussels for the money; An update on the state of the transfer of contract (Project Coordinator) from AUAS to UW was given – awaiting Final Grant Agreement and for funds to be transferred.
Agenda Item 1 Minutes from previous meeting
Agreed – no amendments
Agenda Item 3 :
Matters Arising and Actions from previous meeting. All actions which had been completed were identified
- 1-1.3 – were identified to be addressed later in the Agenda in relation to structure of MOOC
- 2 Boiler plate and guide for Handbook have been sent to VJ by Rikard Hoog(RH)
Action: VJ to circulate to all partners
- 3-3.4 Creation of logo and Website – discussion about timescale and expertise
Action: Investigate use of professionals to develop and design the website.
Action: UW Media Lab for digital creation; try and get a quote from them for the branding (Logo and website) webpage etc.
Action 2: Discuss with the Finance Team whether the whole budget allowance for Zagreb will be transferred to them or whether they will claim receipts.
- 1 VJ identified that the Partnership Agreement still had to be finalised but as soon as Grant Agreement had been finalised then all agreements would need to be signed in advance of next meeting
Action: Grant Agreement and Partnership Agreement to be circulated (One Drive) and Partnership Agreements signed and returned by each partner within the time scale set by Project Coordinator
- 2 Timesheet timescales – expected completion dates to be were identified as quarterly returns from each partner to UW.
- 3 Electronic timesheets now available on the GETZ OneDrive
- 1 The Project Management funding of £9,000 euros would be given to partners(see Project Description) to manage as soon as finds were available
- 2- Adjusted budget; AUSA still have budget and work allocation to be resolved UW are working on this currently and will contact AUAS to make necessary changes so they reflect HR workload.
Action CW (UW) to contact and liaise directly with HR (AUSA)
- 2- AP (COC) the majority have agreed on 20th of November. AP has sent a proposal of the concept of the seminar; it would be good to finalise that by the end of June, so they can send invitations to official speaker; they need to agree on who we are going to invite. Potential guests suggested: a Government representative, the President from the Commission for Women from the European Committee;
- Budget needs to be established it will come out to at least £1000 per person. It was decide to discuss further under agenda item 7
- 11GR still waiting – Waiting for contact list to be completed
- 14- Not confirmed yet
- 1 final Grant Agreement has still not be sent by EACEA for sign off, but it is imminent. Action: Grant Agreement will be put on the OneDrive once received
Agenda item 4:
Research Proposal, Ethics and Study/Publication Plan
Ethics – HS informed meeting that she had further developed a plan from last meeting and discussed all the possibilities. Second Paper is mandatory the other ones are optional. HS advised there were some general principles to establish in relation to publications. It was decided that each university has to have at least one publication. There are four major papers; presented on Publication Paper. It was decided after much discussion that VUB would lead papers 1 and 2, UW paper 3, Molde Paper 4. AUAS would be involved in identified papers but would not lead at this stage. VUB would lead Paper 1 due to necessary speed in which Ethical Approval could be granted.
VJ reiterated what ID and HS had proposed namely that a Principles of Authorship was established and a document/record of this was produced which was based on:
The lead on project would be named as first author the last author would be the other most significant contributor to the study. First project VUB as leaders and AUS, UW and Molde will be authors as they will conduct focus groups.
Action Point- Draw up a Publication protocol which identifies a basic principle of authorship; first and last author have the greatest input; but we have a rotation.
Action Point- Include AUS.
CW confirmed that each country would need to produce the Ethical Consent documents for the study they lead. Each country participating in data gathering would need to gain Informed Consent form participants
HS agreed that the 1st Project will be a collaborative project with UW; VUB to complete Ethics proposal and the UW to lead literature review
AP suggested involving students from Croatia or Sweden? It might be a case of involving these students informally; might be able to present these findings in Zagreb.
After discussion it was decided on the following:
A general survey and then a focus group with the universities involved (each university does a survey and the other 4 universities conduct a focus group). A qualitative methodology, semi-structured questions to be embedded a topic guide. A thematic analysis will be conducted, each university will be responsible of the transcription. The preliminary results could perhaps be ready for the conference in November. The literature review needs to be conducted over the next 2/3 months and identify the themes that we aim to explore in the data collection phase. All can contribute to the literature review (UW). Time pressure has been identified.
Timescale decided:
Aim for data collection at the beginning of October; pilot at the end of September. VJ could take charge of the pilot at UW.
VJ: UW to conduct a literature review by second week of September and then formulate the survey. Discuss around the literature review papers; all papers to be uploaded to One Drive PDF.
HS and ID identified that that the survey is a priority; it needs to be analysed by November for the conference.
There was discussion around the literature review papers that all countries in the partnership needed to be reflected in the literature review therefore that all partners should do a literature search and upload papers to One Drive PDF with a summary sheet that contextualises the main themes and findings
Action: All partners to do a national search and upload papers to OneDrive complete with summary sheet which will formulated and made available by VJ
ID requested UK, Norway and Amsterdam share the informed consent with Inge and Hebe so they can produce a document that is consistent for all partners (VUB).
Action: all partners to send their institution/organisations Informed Consent documents to VUB
Action: Produce document which outlines AP reminded that we needed to include papers from EIGE in the literature review.
Participants and Data collection – GR stated that in relation to compensation to be none would be offered. It was discuss whether the student committee should be a pilot but dismissed as by time they had been established the initial data would have been collected.
Participant criteria: Decide on the profile of the participants e.g. Sports student, first year; first year students (18/19 year olds) at UG level involved in sport or studying sport .
AP believed that she would have access to students in local universities to involve them in this project and it was suggested that this needed to be explored with EUSA and SSC as well
Sampling Process – students in first year classes to be invited to participate – Gatekeeper would be lecturer or Course Leader. VJ: suggested that they we could invite them to be part of the student committee.
Action: Ask each of the university partners to target first year students; send the survey to the other partners who can identify participants themselves. Every university should have between 3-5 students to form a student committee. Pilot the questionnaire with other student groups (second or third year). Explore the expectations from the students committee. Action point -8.5 from meeting 1
Agenda Item 5 and 6 –
Structure of GETZ Toolkit units – identification of partner’s contribution to content with a timescale
Action 1.1. 1.2 1.3 8.1 and 8.6
VJ explained that the idea is that all partners will be involved in creating content for 6 modules/units but the WP will be led by UW. Therefore it is important to decide on decide on the structure for the units- the guidelines from the examples in Project Description were decided as a good model to follow. VJ stated that what we can do pre initial study is to establish a common framework for the MOOC and individual modules so we can decide on the context/draft content. AP suggested that depending on the progress, we can use the conference to get content for the MOOC. Perhaps a focus group to look at the draft of the online platform. Perhaps utilise influential people for interviews.
An example of what we could start to work on would be creating country specific case studies which align to the content of each module e.g. case studies from each university. Each module should have different case studies- Each unit will have one case study. It will be good for students to see what happens in countries that they do not generally look at. Case study: e.g. an example of something that’s happened in a different country. There was a discussion about whether we can change the units around and reframe them. Leadership and Management will need to be brought in into the units; bring into specific terms such as Participation, Culture and Society. Each participant in the MOOC will have to complete 6 modules to gain a certificate; A discussion around whether the last 2 units will have separate assessment for those students who wish to get ECTS credits and therefore they will get assessed by the university resulted in a no – all should be available to whoever would like to take them – if universities want to give ECTS credits they can as part of their courses. VJ suggested in line with the previous agenda item that the Timeline for the MOOC draft to be created should aim to be the beginning of November. LR (SSC) suggested preparing material now particularly using work from some ongoing relevant projects (she referred to the one she was working on) GR stated that that was a good idea but we need to make sure that the research we are conducting pre MOOC will inform the content so anything we prepare now may or may not be used depending on outcome of the research
VJ: Implementation and Monitoring.
It has to be presented in 2020 September therefore it has to be written up before that so an aim for the beginning of February 2019 for Implementation of MOOC was decided. This will coincide with all universities Semester 2 and allow for a follow up and refinements to be made for the next cohort in September. The Intention is for the universities is to take the flexible units and drop them into appropriate modules (for first year students). For sports organisations the idea is that the platform is accessible to coaches etc. Therefore, we need to ensure that we have clarity and explicit information available to those outside university settings about how they may use it. Leave marketing for each individual country.
Monitoring: Monitoring in Canvas it’s easy to collate data from; it will be easy to recognise their origins as the system is not anonymous.
VJ stated that UW will be setting the platform (MOOC) up and we will be drawing on to Rikard’s ideas. Participants from universities college’s sports clubs can sign up, but only certain individuals will be able to monitor the platform and the progress (appointed individuals from each Institution). How you use the modules s as a lecturer is up to you; how COC and the SSC are up to them. It was decided that on completion of all 6 units they get a certificate. Evaluation and self-assessment/electronic assessment for successful completion of each topic and unit will need to be embedded in the content. SS made the point that ‘Is it a good learning if we ask them to deliver something and not provide them with any feedback? ‘Therefore building assessment and feedback into the MOOC is essential. AP explained that COC has developed gender equality online education resources. VJ made the point that the idea is to make it self-sufficient. Each institution will choose their own mechanism of how they deliver it. Monitoring will be easy in terms of timescale.
Action AP to ask COC to provide her with some information.
AP asked if there is a budget allocation for Canvas. The creation of the website- exceptional causes will have to cover external people, staff will not be allowed.
Action: to clarify any financial element of using canvas
Action: Investigate the awarding system for people who are not in the university. -4 universities, 3 sports associations, how we can make it a joint platform- using Canvas.
Action Discuss how we can join certificates at the end and how to build a marking system (see Nicky Smithson UW)
In response to the following actions from meeting 1 the following was decided:
- Practical and academic. Either/ or task. Try and build competence to be able to see what the problem is. Get the activity into the content (reflections). Evaluation form after each unit/module. One after each unit and one at the end.
- Additional resources- Within the universities or a resource pack for coaches. Or it could be an outcome of the project. Develop it at the second half of the project; ask the specific sports federations about advice and for feedback on MOOC
8.1 Youth Pass from Erasmus. The badge is a certificate that we decided to award. We must encourage people to complete all the modules. Engage the participants on a bigger scale.
Action: establish exactly how the Youth Pass could be utilised.
AP suggested that we would definitely add another case study to governance. Maybe also use resources from different projects and put some context to it.
Action: Each partner will have to upload resources onto the One drive to create the units. Populate the folders with ideas and resources. Contextualisation of the resources in order to shape the units.
A template will be created to put the resources into the context and put on One Drive.
- Zagreb Conference 10th of November 2018:
Title of the event “GETZ Gender and Sport Governance Seminar”
Venue: Hotel Zagreb
Participants: Sports Organizations, Key Stakeholders, NOC members
Drafts of the timetable: A lot of panel discussions (event description in the word document- draft programme).
Alma will invite as many people and representatives as possible.
