FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W4323649901> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W4323649901 endingPage "32" @default.
• W4323649901 startingPage "15" @default.
• W4323649901 abstract "Abstract Gender equality plans (GEPs) are currently the preferred approach to initiate structural change towards gender equality in research organisations. In order to achieve structural change, GEPs have to be more than just a formally adopted institutional policy. Effective GEPs lead to a transformation of gendered practices and thus to structural change. This chapter presents the innovative approach developed for an H2020 structural change project and its theoretical background. We argue that due to the dual logic, which characterises academic organisations, the organisational logic and the academic logic, change is a complex endeavour. To deal with this complexity, one of the main functions of a GEP is to provide space and initiate reflexivity at an individual as well as at an institutional level. A theory of change approach supports reflexivity in all stages of a GEP as it ensures that basic assumptions of the institutional change process are questioned and reflected on by the different stakeholder groups involved in the implementation. Keywords Gender equality in research and innovation Institutional transformation Gender equality plan Structural change Reflexivity Resistance Theory of change Citation Wroblewski, A. and Palmén, R. (2022), A Reflexive Approach to Structural Change, Wroblewski, A. and Palmén, R. (Ed.) Overcoming the Challenge of Structural Change in Research Organisations – A Reflexive Approach to Gender Equality, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 15-32. https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80262-119-820221002 Publisher: Emerald Publishing Limited Copyright © 2022 Angela Wroblewski and Rachel Palmén License Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited. This work is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this book (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode 26th April 2021, signed by Angela Wroblewski and Rachel Palmén Introduction Academia is characterised by persistent gender inequalities like the underrepresentation of women in top positions (management or full professoriate). In several European countries, academia is divided into male-dominated and female-dominated subjects. Furthermore, the gender dimension in research and innovation (R&I) is often neglected, which leads to gender-biased results or products. To tackle these inequalities, European (Council of the European Union, 2015; European Research Area and Innovation Council (ERAC), 2015) as well as national gender equality policies address a multidimensional gender equality objective that aims at (1) equal participation of women and men in all fields and hierarchical levels, (2) abolishing barriers for women’s careers and (3) integrating the gender dimension into research and teaching. To achieve these objectives, research-performing organisations (RPOs) need to commit themselves to an institutional change process that aims at adapting gendered practices and structures (European Commission (EC), 2012). In Europe, the use of gender equality plans (GEPs) is currently the preferred method to promote gender equality through structural change (EC, 2012). Over 200 organisations have been supported in developing GEPs through 30 structural change projects funded in the 7th Framework Programme and Horizon 2020. In the upcoming Horizon Europe programme, GEPs will become an eligibility criterion for applicants. Numerous institutions throughout Europe have therefore developed and implemented GEPs in order to initiate structural change. However, gender inequalities still persist. Research explains this paradox in several ways: commitment to gender equality remains merely rhetoric, support by top management is lacking (EC, 2012), problems with the implementation process (Bergqvist, Bjarnegård, & Zetterberg, 2013; Palmén & Kalpazidou Schmidt, 2019;) or a lack of gender competence (Wroblewski, 2016). These reasons for the ineffective implementation of gender equality policies share an underlying common aspect. RPOs are embedded in two conflicting institutional logics – the academic and the organisational logic. Successful GEPs have to address both these logics. The aim of a GEP is to initiate institutional transformation through change in gendered organisational practices. The approach developed in the context of the TARGET project is based on feminist institutionalism (Kenny, 2014; Krook & Mackay, 2011; Mackay, Kenny, & Chappell, 2010) as well as on practice theory (Schatzki, 1996, 2003) as a conceptual framework. This chapter describes the approach that supports research organisations in developing and implementing a targeted and reflexive GEP. In the following, we describe the theoretical background to the approach, which defines reflexivity as a precondition to change gendered practices. We argue that due in part to the dual logic which characterises academic organisations, change is a complex endeavour. Based on this argument, we outline our concept of reflexivity, which links it at the individual and institutional levels. We argue that one of the main functions of a GEP is to provide space for and to initiate reflexivity at individual as well as at institutional level. A theory of change approach supports reflexivity in all stages of GEP development and implementation and can provide a space to facilitate an organisational reflexive process for GEP implementation. In the concluding section, we discuss how taking a community of practice (CoP) approach can (a) provide an arena where the dual academic and organisational logics (and subsequent practices) can be mediated, (b) enable a space where gender competence and gender expertise can be combined and reconfigured and (c) provide a potential arena where resistance to gender equality interventions can be successfully tackled (Verloo, 2018). Universities as Gendered Organisations Involving Dual Logics Universities can be described as highly gendered organisations (Acker, 1990). Structural barriers for women are a consequence of practices that developed at a time when women were explicitly excluded from universities. These practices are oriented towards scientific merit and define success on the basis of a typical male career. Accordingly, their point of reference is an excellent scientist who is free of any obligations outside university and able to devote his/her entire life to science (see also Max Weber’s essay on science as a profession; Weber, 1919). This ideal not only dominates the perception of excellence and related selection criteria but also defines the practices and procedures that constitute this profession. These practices rest on the assumption that good science is gender neutral, although women are clearly less likely to be able to fulfil the requirements. It was not until a significant number of women entered this male-dominated domain that practices which had previously been taken for granted were exposed as gendered in their effects (e.g. European Commission (EC), 2004; van den Brink, 2010). Gender equality polices in universities tackle such gendered practices by formulating regulations that increase transparency in procedures and reduce the relevance of informal networks on selection decisions. These attempts follow an organisational logic but do not focus on the academic logic of universities. Institutional logics are socially constructed sets of material practices, assumptions, values and beliefs that shape cognition and behaviour (Besharaov & Smith, 2014). Each distinct institutional logic provides a coherent set of organising principles that define the ‘rules of the game’. Universities are prototypical examples of hybrid organisations (Jongbloed, 2015), which are based on multiple institutional logics. As a consequence, they are confronted with a multitude of logics and face the challenges of balancing different missions and dealing with seemingly incompatible demands – a phenomenon that leads to a hybridisation of universities. Jongbloed (2015) argues that in the context of neoliberal reforms the economic logic gains significance when universities become entrepreneurial universities. Bettina Heintz (2018) identifies two distinct logics that characterise a university in her discussion of the implementation of gender equality policies: the university as an organisation and the university as part of the scientific field. Both functional systems of a university are based on specific logics in which gender plays a different role. While the relevance of gender is denied in the scientific field, it might be accepted in the organisational logic (e.g. when positive action measures are taken to promote qualified women). These two different logics also entail different power structures. While decision-making powers regarding strategy and resources are exercised by top management in a research organisation (e.g. the rectorate in the case of a university), decision-making in academic contexts is assigned to the highest scientific positions (e.g. full professors). These power structures exist in parallel and remain in most cases unconnected. If they are not coordinated and work against each other, a change in gendered practices is unlikely to happen. Referring to the concept of stealth power (O’Connor et al., 2019; Webb, 2008;), we argue that it is necessary to include not only top management in GEP development and implementation but also stakeholders representing the academic logic who are able to resist change. Research has identified how gender equality initiatives and policies in R&I often fail during the implementation phase (Palmén & Kalpazidou Schmidt, 2019), thereby resulting in an absence of deep-seated change and the failure to effectively challenge gender norms (Powell, Ah-King, & Hussénius, 2018). Resistance in the implementation phase has been identified as one of the main reasons why gender equality initiatives in R&I may fail to create and sustain effective change. We argue that resistance is more pronounced when the academic logic is addressed especially when gender equality is seen as a threat to excellence. But what is resistance? In the context of the implementation of gender mainstreaming in European Union (EU) research policy, Mergaert and Lombardo (2014, p. 3) describe it as follows: Resistance generally means the refusal to accept or comply with something….it specifically means opposition to the change that gender mainstreaming promotes (Benschop & Verloo, 2011; Lombardo & Mergaert, 2013). Resistance is thus meant here as a phenomenon aiming to preserve the status quo rather than question a particular dominant social order. Resistance to change can be intentional and ‘explicit’ or subtle and ‘implicit’. The latter is often difficult to detect as it can be deeply embedded and ingrained within the gendered organisational structures and stem from gender-blind organisational bureaucracies, processes and procedures (Acker, 1990). Resistance can therefore take the form of ‘non-action’, thereby reinforcing the status quo simply by doing nothing to further gender equality. It may manifest itself in a failure to allocate sufficient resources to enable real change, in other issues being deemed more important and gender equality slipping down the list of priorities, disappearing altogether from the institutional agenda or being trivialised as an unimportant topic (Verge, Ferrer-Fons & González, 2018). Hence, the coexistence of these two different logics in RPO practices generates the necessity to address them both simultaneously when developing and implementing GEPs and tackling resistance. In concrete terms, it requires involving all relevant stakeholders (including top management and full professors) in the process (Pellert, 1999). The exact configuration and materialisation of these two logics is also mediated by the myriad of contexts within which the institution is embedded. How these logics are combined in GEP implementation and the exact composition of the stakeholders involved in the process will vary according to the context. Reflexivity As far as the concept of gendered organisations (Acker, 1990) is concerned, there is no doubt that academic practices contain a gender bias, especially those related to excellence (Bell Crawford & Mills, 2011). Despite concrete interventions to tackle this bias, sustainable change remains the exception. Gender bias can be a result of a lack of procedural guidelines, for example, when there are no standardised procedures in place or ‘old boys networks’ play an important role in appointment procedures (Pasero & Priddat, 2003; van den Brink, 2010). However, even in cases where standardised guidelines do exist, gender bias can still occur (Wroblewski, 2015). Theodore Schatzki’s approach enables the deconstruction of complex university practices. Schatzki’s (1996, 2003) concept of social practices allows us to take a differentiated perspective on complex practices such as recruitment practices in academia. According to Schatzki (1996, p. 89), practices are defined as a ‘nexus of doings and sayings’, which are linked in a certain way. With regard to these links, he (2003, pp. 191–192) describes practices as […] organized human activities. […] Each is an open-ended set of actions linked by pools of understandings (pertaining to action), a collection of rules (explicit formulations) and a ‘teleoaffective structure’ (a range of normativized, hierarchically ordered ends, projects, and tasks, to varying degrees allied with normativized emotions). This requires that actors involved in practices know the regulations to be obeyed, accept them and are committed to following them. Bearing the dual logics of university practices in mind, this requires that members of appointment committees are committed to regulations both as members of the organisation and as representatives of their discipline (academic logic). We assume that relevant practices have to contain all three of Schatzki’s components (understanding, rules and teleoaffective structure) for both logics. GEPs often include guidelines for procedures that are aimed at increasing the share of women in top positions or decision-making bodies. A study focusing on guidelines for appointment procedures at Austrian universities showed that stakeholders involved in such procedures are familiar with and adhere to these regulations (Wroblewski, 2015). For instance, appointments have to be publicly advertised, and appointment committees have to actively search for qualified women in the event that women are underrepresented among applicants. This active search is conducted by sending the advertisement to the mailing lists of relevant women’s associations. However, such an implementation of gender equality regulations can also be interpreted as a ‘tick box exercise’. Furthermore, procedural regulations leave the core element of appointment procedures – the assessment of candidates and related criteria – in a black box. Regulations like the one described earlier do not necessarily accommodate the selection of the best-qualified candidate from a disciplinary perspective. It becomes evident that the procedural guidelines refer to the university as an organisation, while the assessment of candidates to find the best-qualified person refers to the academic logic. When procedural guidelines are known and followed, the teleoaffective structure is not necessarily apparent. Even if stakeholders know the guidelines and follow the regulations, this does not mean that they support the underlying goal (gender equality) or will act in a way that ensures the expected outcome is achieved. It is also possible to interpret the guideline as a bureaucratic requirement that has to be followed in the organisational logic of the RPO. And, most importantly, the regulation does not address the academic logic because the criteria that identify the best-qualified candidate are defined by the discipline. We assume that reflexivity is crucial to addressing the teleoaffective structure in both logics and linking the two different logics. The call for reflexivity is directed at both the individual and the institutional levels. Martin (2003) deals with reflexivity at the individual level and argues that a lack of reflection and reflexivity is a main explanation for the persistence of traditional – and seemingly gender neutral – practices. She defines reflexivity as ‘a special kind of awareness. To be reflexive means to meditate or engage in careful consideration; it also means to ruminate, deliberate, cogitate, study, or think carefully about something’ (Martin, 2003, p. 356). She argues that changing gendered practices needs reflexivity, intention and awareness. This includes the consideration of likely gendered effects of actions before they are set (Martin, 2006). Elisabeth Prügl (2016) highlights how a ‘reflexive attitude can help foster democratic deliberation in a context of bureaucratic rationality by self-consciously and critically interrogating both organisational processes and epistemic commitments’. In doing so, she calls for a consideration of both logics and for a combination of individual and institutional reflexivity. According to Manfred Moldaschl (2010), institutional reflexivity refers to organisational rules and practices that include incentives for organisational actors to question institutional routines, criticise established procedures, enable new ideas to thrive and thus overcome barriers to progress and innovation. Hallensleben, Wörlen, and Moldaschl (2015, p. 191) define institutional reflexivity as an analytical concept that means evaluating management practices according to the extent to which they generally, i.e., depending on opportunity, promote absorptive capacity for knowledge that may contribute to the revision, e.g., innovation of previous perspectives and practices. Organizational bodies of rules or practices that do precisely that can therefore be characterized as reflexive institutions or as institutionalized reflexivity. Thus, institutional reflexivity defines the innovation capability of an organisation. On an institutional level, reflexivity can be observed in procedures and management tools that (might) contribute to the revision of previous rules, models, assumptions and practices, e.g., by analysing the consequences of one’s own action, contentious criticism of unquestioned routines, or sensitising decision makers to path-dependent processes. (Hallensleben et al., 2015, p. 192) Hence, the application of institutional reflexivity tools assumes reflexivity at individual level. Sabine Kuhlmann and Joerg Bogumil (2018) apply the concept of institutional reflexivity to public sector innovation and organisational learning. They assume that organisational innovation needs reflexivity at the individual level even if it is not explicitly referred to as such. Innovation capacity thus refers to the ability and willingness of organizational actors to systematically generate and internalize knowledge aimed at revising or changing existing organizational rules and routines. […] Reflexive institutions sharpen the organizational actors’ awareness about their institutional embeddedness, their standard-operating procedures and the consequences of their actions. (Kuhlmann & Bogumil, 2018, p. 545) Kuhlmann and Bogumil (2018) argue that performance management and benchmarking make administrative actors ‘reflect’ on their activities, functioning and performance. In the following, we will illustrate these theoretical considerations using examples of individual and institutional reflexivity in academia.1 The first example is taken from an interview on the situation of women in appointment procedures for full professorships with a male professor in a STEM field. The professor began the interview by stating that he was not a gender expert. When asked about the challenges women face in appointment procedures, he mentioned gender-specific differences in the teaching experience of candidates. While men and women had the same general level of teaching experience, fewer women had experience with ‘big lectures’ like introductory or basic courses. He concluded that professors or mentors must tend to assign women to specialised courses to support them and provide them with their own ‘niche’. However, he realised that this also put them at a disadvantage in appointment procedures for full professors. After recognising this, he altered the traditional practice in his department and now changes the person assigned to introductory courses each term – switching alternately between male and female assistant professors. He insists on this, even though his assistants would prefer otherwise (for synergy effects). This example demonstrates reflexivity on gendered practices. Even though he did not class himself as a gender expert, this professor showed a great deal of gender competence as he had recognised a structural difference that affected the future career prospects of men and women, assumed responsibility, developed an alternative practice, implemented the alternative (changing the established practice in the process) and dealt with the resistance from his assistants. The second example came up in an interview with a female history professor. The central theme in this interview was that there was problem with women’s representation in the history discipline. Female representation among students is about 80 percent, and about 50 percent of staff at all levels are women. When asked where relevant gender differences exist in her subject and how they should be dealt with, the professor described the following situation: She had recognised at one stage that the share of male participants in one of her seminars was above average and spent some time figuring out why this situation had occurred. It turned out that the title of the seminar was formulated in a way that inspired more interest among male than female students. Having recognised this, she started to ‘play’ with different seminar titles to ensure they addressed men and women to an equal extent. Similar to the previous example, this professor had recognised a gender difference and analysed its origins. She felt responsible for tackling this gender difference and developed and implemented an alternative approach. In her case, this alternative did not meet with any resistance. These examples were found in universities where gender equality objectives are integrated into steering instruments and developments are discussed between the rectorate and faculties based on a related monitoring. For example, in one university, parts of the budget are distributed between faculties depending on the extent to which gender equality objectives have been achieved. The annual reflection on the developments regarding gender equality and discussion of reasons for success and failure lead to a climate where all faculty members know about gender equality objectives and their relevance and are aware that they are expected to contribute to their achievement. This occurred because the discussion of monitoring results and the related reflection took place not only between the rectorate and the deans but also within the faculties. The earlier examples show that individual and institutional reflexivities are mutually dependent. Tools supporting institutional reflexivity require relevant stakeholders to be gender competent in order to be able to reflect on practices from a gender equality point of view. Based on the concept of competence used in pedagogy and the gender mainstreaming approach, we define gender competence as a minimum requirement for all actors (see also BMBWF (Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research), 2018). Gender competence requires recognition of the relevance of gender attributes for one’s own field of work and responsibility. This recognition is combined with the willingness and ability to deal with these gender attributes in one’s own work context – if necessary with the support of gender experts. Gender competence also requires the ability to act on the basis of this reflection and to set actions that tackle these gender attributes and their gendered consequences. Hence, gender competence requires constant reflection on the gender dimension in one’s own field of work and is a basic competence that all stakeholders should have. Consequently, structural change also requires that university teachers, researchers, administrative staff, managers and students are all gender competent. Theory of Change A theory of change approach enables individual and institutional reflexivity to be integrated into the GEP process. This has to be tailored to the context and needs of the specific institution and may focus on the development of the GEP itself or on specific interventions or measures within the GEP. According to Isabel Vogel (2012, p. 3), a theory of change is ‘an outcomes-based approach which applies critical thinking to the design, implementation and evaluation of initiatives and programmes intended to support change in their contexts’. When developing a theory of change, an institutional audit may first be carried out to map the relevant context for the initiative (including the social, political and environmental conditions), the current state of the problem that the intervention aims to tackle (e.g. human resources data, staff perceptions, existence of gender equality policies) as well as the relevant institutional actors and stakeholders. Based on this audit, the long-term change that the initiative seeks to foster is defined though the development of visions, objectives and targets. Actions, expected outcomes and impacts are then specified. The theory of change approach requires the elaboration of a process or sequence of change that spells out the path to the desired long-term outcome as well as explicitly formulated assumptions about how this change might be brought about. This includes a check of whether the planned activities and the resources provided are appropriate and sufficient to initiate the expected change in the given context. Usually, the results of this process are summarised in a narrative account and a graphical representation. There are two main elements to a theory of change. First, it can be seen as a tool or methodology that explicitly maps out the logical sequence of an initiative from its activities to the change to which it contributes (Vogel, 2012, p. 9). Second, it encompasses a deeper reflexive process where assumptions of change linked to the programme are made explicit. Mayne and Johnson (2015, p. 419f) state that theories of change set out the framework for telling a credible performance story of an intervention. As such, a verified or partially verified theory of change can be used as the basis for reporting on what contribution the intervention has made. The process of developing the theory of change therefore includes various stakeholders (e.g., programme managers need to be asked to validate, or at least confirm, that developed configurations accurately explain impact, while practitioners must be consulted on assumptions linked to the implementation process). Articulating assumptions constitutes the main part of the development of a theory of change. Assumptions are those premises upon which programme interventions are implicitly based yet have not been proven by evidence. Using evidence to identify, check and challenge these key assumptions and map the implicit and explicit linkages of the intervention (input/resource, throughput, output, outcome/result, impact and context) also forms part of the development process (Vogel, 2012, p. 40). This approach depicts the specific components and context of each programme or initiative and its interaction with contextual variables. Funnell and Rogers (2011) stress that each programme is unique and that its development process needs to respond to the local and contextual conditions. As a consequence, each theory of change is also unique. Vogel (2012) emphasises that the quality of a theory of change process rests on ‘making assumptions explicit’ and making strategic thinking realistic and transparent. In this process, critical thinking is crosschecked with evidence from research (qualitative and quantitative) and wider learning that brings other analytical perspectives drawn from the contextual knowledge of stakeholders, partners and beneficiaries into play. The theory of change – and sometimes the simplified version of the logic model2 (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004) – may also represent the starting point for the evaluation strategy (Brisolara, Seigart, & SenGupta, 2014; Funnel & Rogers, 2011; Rogers, 2008; Rogers, Petrosino, Huebner, & Hasci, 2000). This is in keeping with a growing line of research that values the contributions, the theory of change can make to evaluating interventions (Vogel, 2012). Developing a theory of change is an iterative process that requires time to revisit, validate and refine initial configurations. The TARGET Approach to GEP Development and Implementation The approach to GEP development used in the TARGET project refers to the concepts discussed earlier: dual logics of academic organisations, reflexivity and theory of change. The TARGET GEP development and implementation process follows a complete policy cycle (May & Wildavsky, 1978). It starts with an empirical analysis of the status quo regarding gender equality and the institutional context (audit). Based on the results of this audit, gender equality priorities and objectives are formulated. Concrete measures to pursue these objectives are then develop" @default.
• W4323649901 created "2023-03-10" @default.
• W4323649901 creator A5051769500 @default.
• W4323649901 creator A5060198780 @default.
• W4323649901 date "2022-07-25" @default.
• W4323649901 modified "2023-10-18" @default.
• W4323649901 title "A Reflexive Approach to Structural Change" @default.
• W4323649901 cites W1539356808 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2012484912 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2017547617 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2047873637 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2059348646 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2067154398 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2078862672 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2086307822 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2093824361 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2101445519 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2111741047 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2127675928 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2139334689 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2141191110 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2153741325 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2299215319 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2299403527 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2341601511 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2569403877 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2766549619 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2792664197 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2937494516 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2947812061 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W2977927159 @default.
• W4323649901 cites W3122166796 @default.
• W4323649901 doi "https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-80262-119-820221002" @default.
• W4323649901 hasPublicationYear "2022" @default.
• W4323649901 type Work @default.
• W4323649901 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W4323649901 crossrefType "book-chapter" @default.
• W4323649901 hasAuthorship W4323649901A5051769500 @default.
• W4323649901 hasAuthorship W4323649901A5060198780 @default.
• W4323649901 hasBestOaLocation W43236499011 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConcept C13200473 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConceptScore W4323649901C13200473 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConceptScore W4323649901C144024400 @default.
• W4323649901 hasConceptScore W4323649901C36289849 @default.
• W4323649901 hasLocation W43236499011 @default.
• W4323649901 hasOpenAccess W4323649901 @default.
• W4323649901 hasPrimaryLocation W43236499011 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W2095962685 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W2134856857 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W2361927408 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W2941133393 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W3001001525 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W3031528029 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W3215481272 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W3216203496 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W3217021367 @default.
• W4323649901 hasRelatedWork W4293241344 @default.
• W4323649901 isParatext "false" @default.
• W4323649901 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W4323649901 workType "book-chapter" @default.