Hello everyone, welcome. Raquel, do you want to say something?
Let's start, thank you.
Okay, so thank you very much, Guiomar, for
today's webinar on the prevention of gender violence.
My name is Raquel Sánchez Ruiz, I work at the Faculty
of Education at the University of Castilla-La Mancha.
And I'm here because I'm the leader of the Spanish group,
e-tweening group, which is called e-tweening for future teachers,
which basically gathers different
initiatives for initial teacher educators.
And well, we have a group, and well, that's basically it.
Today we have Miguel Cañete with us, who is the
person from INTEF, the Ministry of Education in Spain.
So I'm giving the floor to him to follow this presentation today.
So thank you very much.
Miguel, you're on mute, sorry.
Can you hear me now? Yes? Okay, thank you. Thank you, Raquel.
Good afternoon, I am Miguel Cañete, member of the Spanish
e-tweening national service, and I manage the IT project in Spain.
I would like to thank Raquel Sánchez for dynamising the Spanish IT group.
I would also like to thank the group of teachers of the
UNED who have managed the presentation of this webinar.
Then I would like to introduce to Guiomar Merodio.
She's an associate professor at the Department of
Research Methods and Assessment in Education at UNED,
member of the research group, Grupo Inter, and she's the coordinator of the UNED
group that participates as a partner in the European TeachXEvidence project.
Guiomar, I give you the floor.
Guiomar, you're on mute as well, sorry.
Sorry. Oh, thank you. Thank you, Raquel.
So thank you, Miguel, and thank you, Raquel, again for your warm welcome,
and the support from the Tweening for Future teachers
group and the INTEF in organising these webinars.
Thank you also to the Faculty of Education at UNED and UNED Media.
So this afternoon, I have the honour of presenting
the first of the three webinars that we have organised
within the framework of the European TeachXEvidence project.
Together with the Faculty of Education at UNED
and the Tweening for Future teachers group,
we are launching three free co-created webinars on the
prevention of gender-based violence with social impact.
The TeachXEvidence project is led by full professor
Lídia Puigvert at CREA, the University of Barcelona,
and the aim of this European project is to overcome
gender violence by creating capacities and resources
for the education professionals and fostering a
European network of researchers and practitioners
that co-construct educational interventions
based on scientific evidence with social impact.
Before introducing our keynote speaker, please
note that this seminar will be recorded.
Anyone who does not wish to appear on screen
has the option to turn off their camera,
and the session will be conducted in English, but
you will be able to view real-time translations
of spoken content into captions in another language through Zoom.
To activate this option, go to the bottom zoom bar and
activate the subtitles by choosing your preferred language.
So for today's seminar, we are fortunate to have
professor Esther Oliver as our keynote speaker.
Dr. Oliver is an Associate Professor at the
Department of Sociology at the University of Barcelona
and affiliated to CREA, the Community
of Research on Excellence for All.
She is also the coordinator of the Research Network 33, Women
and Gender Studies of the European Sociological Association,
and her research focuses on preventing
socialization of gender violence.
She has been the principal investigator of the national
research project "The Mirage of Upward Mobility"
and has participated in several Spanish
research projects in this field.
Her work has been published in indexed journals,
in the Web of Science and Scopus databases,
such as Humanities and Social Science
Communications, Research Evaluation,
International Journal of Qualitative Inquiry,
PLOS ONE and other scientific journals.
She has co-authored the scientific book "Violencia de Género.
Investigaciones sobre quién es, por qué y cómo superarla"
and The Routledge International Handbook of Domestic Violence and Abuse.
She is also a member of the local and scientific committee
for the European Conference on Domestic Violence,
which will be held in Barcelona in September 2025.
After Esther Oliver's presentation, we
will have time for questions and comments.
Now, please enjoy this webinar, this session.
Thank you very much, Esther. The floor is yours.
Thank you very much to Dr. Merodio and also Dr. Sánchez and Dr. Cañete.
Thank you for your presentation. I'm very glad to be
here and to participate in this first teacher training
in the frame of this European Commission project, TeachXEvidence.
I have some familiar faces also from here,
from teachers in schools in Portugal.
So, hello, because we shared some meetings before.
It's glad to see you again.
So, first, I will share with you the screen.
I'm going to do like this and you can see that. Yes.
OK, my presentation will be structured in three presentations,
but I think it's important to have
in mind the main aim of this session,
that is to provide to you main key aspects, key elements
to differentiate between access and scientific evidence.
In our work in the frame of TeachXEvidence, in all the
work that we are doing to prevent gender-based violence,
we identify that it's very important to provide to the
citizens the scientific knowledge that we have obtained.
from many years of research at the high level to differentiate
between those arguments that are based in beliefs,
in access, and those arguments that are based
in scientific evidence of social impact.
And why it is very important? Because as professionals that
we are working in education or in many different sections
or fields of education in the university or in the
primary schools and secondary schools, whatever,
it's very important to provide to the
students evidence of what is working.
In that case, what is working to overcome gender violence.
Otherwise, we are providing information
that is not scientifically fundamented.
And as we are working as professionals, that we want to
provide credibility to our work and to help to the citizens,
to the students to have better lives, it's very important to
know which are the scientific evidence in the research community.
We have a lot of tools, a lot of ways to identify this
scientific evidence and to know how to differentiate.
in respect of what is an ox or what is just a Billy.
So my presentation is this first presentation.
Sorry. Yes. In this first presentation, we are going
to reflect in some of these oxes that exist in society
and that exist in our schools, that exist in social media.
And then we are going to see why they are oxes and
how they are contrasted with scientific evidence.
It is very important specifically to give to the students better actions,
better actions to know how to define actions that
are contributing to overcome gender violence.
One of them, the very typical ox, it's
that gender violence is biological.
Another one is the argument that gender violence is associated with
social class, with age, with educational level, with culture or religion.
Another one is the argument that is saying that gender
violence is only present in stable relationships.
Or, for example, that all men are potential aggressors.
Or, for example, another one that is that romantic
love is one of the main causes of gender violence.
Let's see why these are oxes. In the first case, for
example, this statement, no gender violence is biological.
If it is what if it was true, we should
ask ourselves what we are doing here.
If it is really true that gender violence is an attitude
that is biological and then cannot be controlled,
then the educational actions have no sense
because it's something that you cannot avoid.
But scientists said that it is not true.
And we are products of socialization.
We are people that are living in society,
in society that are interactions.
We are relating ourselves with many other people since we are born.
And there are also structures, no structures that
have that have that are promoting coercive discourses.
You are you we are you are you are going to talk about that
with in the next sessions, not with other colleagues of mine,
that they are going to talk with you about the
preventive socialization of gender based violence.
Many evidence of that, not this, this importance of society, different
aspects of society to understand why gender violence is happening.
And also we have many evidence, also from neuroscience,
for example, and also from sociology, from social science,
different disciplines that are providing
evidence that the interactions,
the kind of relationships that we are having are very important
to understand our feelings, our emotions, our actions.
OK, so many scientific evidence that are just contrasting
this previous argument that gender violence is biological.
Another example, for example, is that this statement that is attributing or considering or
focusing the attention on a specific age or specific culture or specific educational level.
And some years ago, the opinion that some
specific group of women, women from a middle age,
maybe women that are that don't have a level, for example,
are the ones that are more affected by this
kind of gender based violence, gender violence.
It is not true. We have a lot of a lot of evidence from research,
but also from reports that are collecting data, specific data
that gender violence is affecting women, girls from all ages,
from different social classes, from different levels of
education, from different cultures, from all communities.
So this is a transversal problem that is affecting the whole society.
Another important statement that needs to
be addressed is that one, that is a hope,
that is saying that gender violence
only are affecting stable relationships.
It is related with the ones that I mentioned
before, that attribute some years ago,
the gender violence to some specific women that are living,
middle aged women, for example, in a stable relationship.
It is not true. We have a lot of evidence.
You are going to see during this training process that also
this gender violence is present in a sporadic relationship.
And it's also present in dates, for example, in the nightlife, in dates,
it's also present this gender violence because it is
related, as you are going to see also in future sessions,
it is related with a kind of model of masculinity,
the dominant and despising model of masculinity
that are related also with this coercive
discourse that exists in society.
So many evidence that are just contrasting
these kind of statements that are not true.
And another one, here you have a lot, a lot of scientific
research, a lot of articles that are open and published open.
And it is a very good news. And we are going to
see that in the next stage of my session today,
that many publications are in open access, so all citizens can
access to these publications, many of these publications, not all,
explaining, for example, which are the
consequences of what is called the insane hookups,
that are the dates, that are despising, I mean, a relationship
in which a girl is having a relationship one night, for example,
with a boy that is following this model, this pattern
of traditional masculinity, violent masculinity,
and then it is despised, this girl is treated with
violence, and then it has strong consequences in her life.
So many, many evidence on that.
Also, many articles explaining how in this kind of night life,
and that is following these patterns of discourse,
dominant discourse associated with violence,
many agents are involved and women, many women
are situated in a very vulnerable position.
There are many scientific evidence on that, that are contrasting
with the idea that only just in a stable relationship,
gender violence is happening, this is not true.
And the last one is this one, that I think is very powerful,
it's a very powerful statement, that is, it's the one
that said that romantic love generates gender violence.
It has been present, for example, in some campaigns
distributed by some public administrations sometimes,
or also in different messages that are arriving
to the young people from different places,
saying that this kind of romantic love
can be associated with gender violence.
We have not found any evidence on that.
But we have found the contrary evidences.
We have found that specifically those relationships
based on feelings of love, or feelings of friendship,
but also feelings of love, romantic love, are the ones,
this kind of relationship based in this kind of evidence,
in this kind of emotions, in this kind of feelings,
are the kind of relationships that are more,
it's more possible to be far from the situations of gender violence.
So, many articles are also explaining that, that it's the
contrary, the feeling of love, the feeling of friendship,
are the feelings that are preventing young
people to fall in relationships that are violent.
So, we have a lot of work to do in that sense, because
all these messages need to arrive to the young people
in order to help them to prevent to have
violent, affective and sexual relationships.
Another hoax is the one that is saying
that all men are potential aggressors.
Sometimes it is distributed also in the
media, this feeling or this statement that,
"Ok, if you are a man, you are probably going to fall
in some kind of despising attitude towards women,
or you are going to fail in this kind of attitude.".
It is not true. The scientific evidence is explaining how
many men are always next to the women that are victims,
for example, of gender-based violence, supporting them,
at the same time that many women are also supporting
these women that have been victims of gender-based violence.
At the same time, there are men that are aggressors
and also women that are supporting the aggressors.
So, it is not a kind of issue related with
the gender, it is another kind of issue,
it is related with a kind of compromise and
the kind of attitude that people are adopting
in front of the situations of gender
violence and with victims of gender violence.
So, this is one important issue, this is one of the
initial messages that we want to share with you,
the difference between what is a hoax
and what is a scientific evidence.
Because if we don't know how to differentiate them,
it is very difficult to define successful
actions in preventing gender-based violence.
It is very important that we have tools as
citizens, as professionals, as family members,
to differentiate, to know how to find which
is a scientific evidence and which is a hoax.
And this is the point that we are going to address in the second
presentation that I am going to share just right now with you.
Here we have...
Here.
This is the main focus of the session today.
I'm sorry, I think that I have to change the
way that I'm sharing that. One moment, please.
Can you see them?
No?
Full screen.
Just a moment.
I'm doing like this, but I don't know
why I'm not appearing. Just a moment.
All the screen instead of the PowerPoint.
No, it doesn't appear.
Now?
You can see now?
Yes, now. Perfect.
So, this presentation is focused on how we can access the resources
that allow us to differentiate between hoaxes and scientific evidence.
It's important that you can know these resources
and if you have questions, you can ask me.
This is the main aspect of the presentation today.
We are starting, in fact, from a human right, that is human right number 27, that is the
right to all citizens to participate in cultural, artistic and scientific life.
So, all citizens have the right to have access to
the main scientific knowledge in different fields.
In this case, our purpose is to identify main scientific evidence on gender violence and the overcoming of gender violence, which are the scientific knowledge that is
already built by the scientific community that is contributing to, one, identify why gender violence is happening, but also how this gender violence can be overcome.
And so, the scientific community, we have this knowledge, but sometimes it's very
difficult to translate this knowledge or transfer this knowledge to the citizens.
And when we are transferring this knowledge, sometimes
this knowledge don't have scientific and social impact.
It doesn't have impact in the transformation of lives of people.
So, we would like to show you the way for you to identify those scientific knowledge, the scientific
knowledge that is contributing to transform the life of people, because it's already doing that.
And this is the main object of this session.
So, we have already differentiated between what is an
evidence and what is an occurrence in this presentation.
Now, we are going to talk a little bit about what is an evidence of social
impact that is a little bit different, but it's an important differentiation.
We are going to talk a little bit about how the co-creation, the co-creation is a process in which the
citizens are participating with us, with the researchers, in this process of creation of knowledge.
And how if we are creating this knowledge, this scientific knowledge with you, with the citizens, with the social
agents, this knowledge can have more wider social impact, more wider impact in transformation of the lives of citizens.
We are going to talk about that too.
And we are going to mention some of the open access resources that you have available to identify all this evidence of social impact that are the ones that we need to define
successful actions, to design successful actions to prevent gender violence in our schools, in our universities, and also to understand the way to prevent this gender-based violence.
So let's go.
We in our line of research that I'm, as Guiomar, Dr. Merodio mentioned, I am contributing here with all
the research findings from my research centre that is CREA, Community of Researches on Excellence for All.
And one of the lines, transversal lines of way
of doing our research is adopting this position.
We are going to overcome the superstition
and we are going to advance towards science.
And for doing that, we have positioned ourselves in what
is mentioned on the shoulders of giants, of the giants.
What does it mean?
So in order to build all this scientific evidence of social impact, to know what is working in society to overcome gender violence, what
science is saying about that, we have discussed and studied in depth and discussed in depth the main contributions of all social science.
So we are always starting from the main works of the best intellectuals and
academics in the different disciplines in which we are working, sociology, education.
And so we have discussed the main works that exist nowadays.
And from that, we are building these contributions.
And it is important, I mentioned that because it is
important precisely to obtain the aim that we want to obtain.
OK, so we are not just proposing a training for trainers.
OK, we are proposing or we are doing a trainer, a
teacher training that is based on scientific evidence.
And it makes the difference.
Why it makes a difference? Because if we are just providing, for example, training, teacher training based,
for example, in edu-meets, our social impact will not be the improvement of the student's environment,
or will not be the improvement of the overcoming of gender-based
violence, will be probably the satisfaction of the teachers.
Probably in many teacher training, the main way to evaluate the impact
of this training has been a satisfaction survey of the teachers.
They are happy or they are not happy.
But our aim is not that. Our aim is to improve, in this case, to overcome
gender-based violence or to prevent gender-based violence in very early ages.
So what is important is to provide like a training for teachers that represent
an improvement in the actions that we are implementing in the schools.
And this improvement can be assessed just if we obtain an
overcoming or a reduction of the violence in the schools.
OK, so and it is because of that that we define
our teacher training in scientific evidence.
The results will be evaluated in terms of the improvement of the situation that the students
are living in, in this case, the improvement or the overcoming of gender-based violence.
OK, so this is the main difference. Fundament to base all the actions that we
are doing in what we know that works because science is saying that it works.
OK, and it is because of that that we are talking
about scientific evidence of social impact.
So it's very important to overcome this superstition, the occurrence,
the hoax also in the definition of teacher training programmes.
We have to advance and to provide to these teachers, to respond to the right of these
teachers to also to access to the science as the Declaration of Human Rights is saying.
Teachers have the right to know what works according
with science, not according to what I am saying.
It's not value. I mean, it's not because I am saying that it's all because
another big name in a big name in some field is saying it's working.
OK, but what are the evidence of social
impact of what you are proposing?
And it's what we can provide. We can provide evidence of transformation in the process, in the living together in
schools, for example, in the process of overcoming situations of gender violence in schools in very early ages.
What is what we need? We need this evidence. And so you have a lot
of evidence of that already published in publication in Open Access.
OK, so this is the big difference of the
teacher training that we are providing.
So. In that sense, we are following one of the many of
the orientations, but I want to stress one of these.
Ramon Flecha , that is the founder of this community of researchers on excellence
for all, just published two years ago a very relevant book in social science.
That is the Diaglogic Society is published in different languages.
And in this book, he defined what is the nine orientations for
developing a sociology that scientists and citizens like and use.
Sometimes the scientific knowledge is just in the universities,
it's just in a book, in a shell, I mean, in the desk.
But we don't want the scientific knowledge for that.
We want the scientific knowledge for the citizens use that.
OK, so in order to provide this knowledge to the citizens, it is
very important that this knowledge provide the truth to the citizens,
allows them to differentiate what I mentioned
before in between a scientific evidence and hoax.
OK, so this is one of the tasks that we have as a scientist. And it's also
our responsibility to provide this scientific knowledge to the social actors,
to the agents, to the people, to the citizens, to the teachers in order to improve
the actions that they are defining in their schools, in their communities, etc.
OK, and in doing that, we are providing evidence of social impact.
When we are providing an evidence of social impact is when we
are providing scientific evidence that is informing policies,
but not only informing policies, but also generating actions that are
transforming the society according to what society considers that is relevant.
We mentioned in this case, for example, the sustainable development
goals. You know that this term sustainable development goals is very,
it's very wide published everywhere, defined by the United
Nations, that are the goals in which society needs to advance,
according to citizens overcoming of poverty, overcoming enrichment of
gender equality, many, many different sustainable development goals.
improvement of education. There are many sustainable development goals
that are the goals that the societies have defined in order to progress,
to advance, to improve the better of the people of the society.
So when we as researchers, we are providing evidence, results of our
research that helps policymakers and help citizens to achieve these goals,
we are providing an evidence of scientific evidence of social impact.
But we know that we know that we have obtained this goal because
we have data that are providing this, the achievement of this goal.
For example, if we are implementing a successful action in a school
and we are saying that this action is going to overcome school failure,
we as a scientist cannot remain only in the statement,
this action is going to overcome school failure.
If we are really providing an evidence of social impact, we
have to provide the results that are showing that this action,
once it is implemented, is improving or is overcoming the school failure
because there are better grades in maths, in reading, in English.
after the implementation of this action, then when you prove that, you
can say it is a successful action and we have an evidence of social impact.
If we are implementing this action, we are
going to implement, to obtain these results.
OK, so it's not saying it is working.
We are proving that it is working in the same way
in the field of prevention of gender violence.
So how we can do that, how we can obtain this evidence
of social impact in all our research work for many years,
we have been doing what is called a process
of co-creation, co-creation process.
In the scientific process, the process of creation
of knowledge is done through a co-creation.
And now I will mention to you what is that.
For that, I'm going to differentiate between four or five concepts.
The first is the concept of dissemination.
It's very used in the scientific community.
We have to disseminate our results.
We have to be sure that when we publish, when we have obtained some results from our
research, we are going to write an article, for example, or to organise a conference.
And then the companies, the citizens,
the NGOs knows what we are doing.
This is dissemination and it is very good. It's good to do dissemination.
But we have to do more. OK, we have not only to disseminate.
We can also make a transfer process that it happens when you are
able to transfer, to bring your results to the policy makers.
Then you have political impact, for example, from our research.
Sometimes some laws are changed or some new laws emerge.
And it's very good because you have a law that are reflecting what you consider that
it's what research is saying that is very important for the transformation of society.
You have also you will have also examples of that in the next sessions with the other colleagues that
are going to talk about specific political impact from research work on prevention of gender violence.
It's very important because with new laws, we can also transform society.
But we need also more. We need also that these research
results demonstrate that are changing the life of people.
because they are improving what I mentioned before, that they are overcoming the school
failure or they are avoiding that, for example, young people fell in violent relationships.
For example, so this is a social impact. Another interesting concept that I just mentioned, but I'm going
to focus in the co-creation is when from this implementation of actions that are validated in research,
we are creating realities, new realities are emerging with the implementation
of these successful actions that create a better life for people.
So in that case, you are making a social creation, you
are implementing an action that is validated by science.
And in this implementation, you are creating a
social action that is improving the life of people.
You have a process of social creation.
But what I want to highlight here is this concept of co-creation.
That is when two factors are unified. One is the possibility
or the need to collect the maximum plurality of voices.
I mean, to have this process of creation of knowledge through dialogue. In all our
research processes, we are having contact with social associations, with teachers,
teachers associations, with students, with
policymakers, very different kind of agents.
And with them, we are contrasting the research that we are obtaining, for
example, from literature review or from the data collection that we are doing.
So we are contrasting all the time the results
that we are obtaining from the research process.
And we are involving these actors in
the analysis of the research results.
We are contrasting the need of some specific aspects or we are
adding new aspects to research because they are claiming for that.
And when you are doing research like this, you are
improving the possibility to have more impact in society.
The example, I mean, Dr. Merodio mentioned this project
in which this seminar is framed is working like this.
I mean, all the materials, all the process has been done in co-creation with teachers that are also giving the feedback in very different moments about
which kind of materials they need in order to define actions that can contribute to improve the living together or the coexistence in the schools.
So always in dialogue with the actors. It is a process of
co-creation and it allows a better achievement of social improvement.
It allows a better social impact from
the actions that we are obtaining.
We can translate this reflection to another field, for example, when you are in a school or
when you are in a university and you want to implement something, to transform something.
If you are doing all only according to your own perspective, not without contrasting,
without checking what the research is saying about the best way to proceed,
and also to discussing this proposal with other colleagues or with the
students, the possibility to have success in your action is limited.
Instead of that, if you are just trying to open and to contrast your ideas with what is said by research and also to contrast
that with other colleagues or with the students or with other people, it's more possible to obtain this social improvement.
This is the idea of co-creation.
So these are the main concepts that I want to mention that are behind this idea of providing to you the abilities, the
possibility to differentiate between what is an occurrence, what is an hoax, and what is a scientific evidence of social impact.
So how we can identify this scientific evidence of social impact?
You have a lot of resources to do that and it is a very good new.
I mean, in the scientific community, we have for several years a process
of democratization of the knowledge, I mean, of the scientific knowledge.
Before this process, it's true that the research results
from science were very close to the university community.
But we, as researchers, we are working with public funds.
I mean, many of the research is funded by public funds, by the European
Commission, the National Plan I+D in Spain, for example.
I mean, they are asking the professors at the university to do the research,
to do research with public funds to obtain knowledge to improve society.
So what we are doing needs to be returned to the citizens.
I mean, the citizens have the right to have this knowledge
because it is founded by public funds, the most of them.
So there are more and more from some years ago, a big movement of democratization of the scientific
community, of the access, democratization of the access to these research results starts.
And many resources are already available for all
of you to know which are these research results.
And you also have new tools to differentiate between not only research results,
but also from which of these research results are obtaining social impact.
This is a very important differentiation because not all
everything that is obtained from research is useful for society.
Not everything is useful.
Sometimes we have a lot of articles, a lot of results from
research founded by public funds, but they are not useful.
They are not providing evidence of social impact.
But this is also changing, for example, the European
Commission of the framework program of research.
It's the maximum level of research that
we have at the European Commission.
And also in many other programs of the European Commission, the applicants, I mean, we as researchers
and also associations, professorships or many different kinds of associations are applying with projects.
And more and more, the European Commission are asking to these proposals to provide
the evidence of the social impact that they are going to obtain with their actions.
And if these proposals, these consortiums of partners, of different partners from different universities
or associations in Europe cannot provide the evidence that the actions are going to obtain social impact,
they are not going to fund to give money to these actions.
They want proof of social impact.
So in research, the same.
Not all research is providing evidence of social impact.
But we need tools to know how to identify them.
And a very, very interesting tool for you is these two platforms, Sappho and Adhayayana, that precisely emerged from
one of the very important projects in the framework program of research, also led by Ramon Flecha, All Interact.
And these platforms are a result of a co-creation and all the evidence
that you are going to find them are also a process of co-creation.
OK, let's see.
In these two platforms, Sappho is focused on gender
issues and Adhyayana is focused on education.
These platforms are overcoming an existing
opposition between top down and bottom up approaches.
Sometimes people think that is the feeling that we have to overcome the
top down, the approach top down, the experts, what is coming from experts.
We have to question what is coming from experts.
So we need just to take into account what the citizens are saying.
So sometimes we try to overcome the monopolisation
of the experts just listening to the citizens.
But then you are not overcoming the problem of lack of
social impact because what we need is the two things.
Otherwise, you can fall in populism if
you are rejecting the scientific evidence.
We need the two things.
We need the scientific evidence and also
what the citizens' voices are blaming.
We need scientific evidence of social impact.
And it is what it is promoting these two platforms that overcome this dichotomy with a
co-creation process in which the scientists are in an egalitarian dialogue with citizens.
And the citizens can participate based
on what is called validity claims.
What is validity claims?
Validity claims is not you have to believe
on that because I'm saying that it is true.
It is true because we have scientific
arguments that are sustaining that it is true.
And maybe in the next future, there are new scientific
evidence that is saying that it is not true.
So we can change that.
This is the process of the scientific process is like this.
Something is true when there are evidence
that are sustaining that it is true.
And in the future, a new discovery is
explaining that it's not true anymore.
So you have to provide this evidence, scientific evidence that are sustaining
that it is not true and which is the new truth in which we can trust.
So it's very important, this process of co-creation, because it's not
considering that something is valid because it's said by the scientist.
It is valid because it's sustained by
different kind of evidence that it is true.
And also the citizens can have the possibility to check
it and to contrast it looking for alternative evidence.
And if they don't find that, so they
can contrast on this kind of evidence.
In this platform, Adhayayana, you can have a lot
of, you can find a list of evidence on education.
And in this Sappho, you can find a list of evidence on gender issues
and also a lot of occurrence and access regarding gender.
And what is the way to work with?
I will explain a little bit how it works.
We are going to enter in this.
But before that, I would like to show a short video of how different
kind of people, in this case Roma women, are using these platforms.
Young people, for example, are using these platforms already in
order to improve their understanding of how the society is working.
and also to improve the actions that are defined as Roma women to overcome
racism and to overcome discrimination that these Roma women are suffering.
So, let's see this short video and then I will show you how
the Roma, I hope the Sappho and Adhayayana platforms
are working in order that you can, after the
session, can check that for yourselves.
Guiomar, can you show to them?
Sure. Let me just see.
Okay.
Sorry, I stopped sharing.
Can you see it now?
Yeah.
Can you hear it also?
No.
No? Okay.
Let me do it again.
[video playing]
[speaking Spanish]
So, I think that this is very illustrative, the way that it works.
Just a moment, I will come back to the presentation. Just a moment.
Yeah.
So, I think it's a better example that how two different people, two different
persons, are using this kind of, or have been using this kind of platforms
and it was useful for them in different situations.
They are two women that are facing discrimination or
they are facing fake news regarding their community.
and they need to have arguments from science to try to contrast
or try to answer when they are in this kind of situation.
And I have to say that these platforms are already being used from
teachers in primary, in secondary school, also in universities.
Many people are already using these platforms because they help
precisely to identify which is true and which is a fake news.
Okay? So, let's see how they work.
For example, in the case of the sub-fort, that is the one based on
gender, there are many, already many scientific evidence
on what it is true, what is a scientific evidence.
And the condition to consider that a statement is a scientific evidence
is that at least three articles from Web of Science or Scope of Databases,
later I will explain what is that, are supporting
this claim to be classified as a scientific evidence.
So, for example, informal social support is
vital in recovering from gender violence.
Okay? Okay, we can see how we can support that.
Now, it's true that it's very important for a victim to have informal
support in their environment in order to overcome the situation.
It is true or not is true, or it is not relevant.
So, we have many different evidence of that.
And then the person who did this statement or include this
statement here provide or what different people from them,
I mean, all the people that enter to the platform
provide evidence, three articles supporting this idea.
Or, for example, the first sexual affective experience had a stronger
influence on gender based violence in the future, just at the end.
Okay, this is very important because sometimes there
is a feeling also, there is the hope, the faith,
that sometimes young people are saying the idea that
doesn't matter what you are doing when you are young,
the kind of relationships that you are having later
on when you want to have a stable relationship,
you can choose one person and then you can
have a stable relationship and that's all.
You are also to talk about that in other
sessions with my colleagues in next sessions.
But evidence, scientific evidence say that the first sexual
affective relationships are very important in the life of a person.
So, if you are, if you are, if we are not aware of that, we cannot have
students to prevent some kind of violent relationships in their lives.
So, it's not, it's relevant, it's not irrelevant,
it's relevant for their lives and has consequences.
So, it's important to know that and it's important to specify in this
kind of platforms that are available to everybody and are easy to use,
that there are research that are
sustaining that is a scientific evidence.
Or for example, the way around regarding fakes, hoaxes.
When a statement is a fake or a hoax, when you have or you can find
or someone can provide three articles from Web of Science or Scopus.
that are databases that we are using in the scientific community
that are supporting that this kind of statement is not true.
For example, a student race and ethnicity are a
case, a cause of the academic achievement gap.
We already know from science that this is not the reason.
There are other structural reasons, other reasons in society
that explain the achievement gap of children, of a child.
And it is not related with the ethnicity.
So, it's very important because it's true, it's key to have these ideas
clear in mind to be able to be effective in our professional task,
in our professional development with children.
So, it's very important that.
There are also the case in which sometimes we need more evidence.
There are some statements that the
scientific community is not still clear.
OK, for example, educational institutions can stop sexual abuses.
So, there are some statements, scientific evidence on that.
But we need more. We need more to define that.
And this is a scientific evidence. This is just an example.
So, when we don't, when there is a lack of evidence, we are in
the platform, this list of statements are just in this section,
need more evidence, waiting for more reaction from
the citizens and also from the scientific community.
So, for example, in this Sappho platform, a scientific
evidence that has already been proved is that.
not fighting against second order of sexual harassment, that is also called
isolated gender violence, means not fighting against sexual harassment.
What does it mean? It is very proof in the scientific community
that in order to overcome gender based violence in an institution,
it is very important to also not tolerate or eliminate the
violence that are suffered by those that are supporting victims.
The violence that the people who are supporting
victims, that are defending victims are suffering.
If we are not stopping that in our institutions,
it's impossible to overcome gender violence.
I explain that. For example, in the university, we have had a lot
of students suffering gender violence from professors or from peers.
So, it also happens here in the university that when
one person or a group of people support these victims,
helping them to denounce, for example,
or helping them to break the silence,
this group of people are receiving reprisals, attacks, defamations.
It is called isolated gender violence.
And if the university is not stopping that, it is not working
effectively to overcome gender based violence at university.
And there are a lot of evidence on that also in the platform.
So, this is a statement, a scientific evidence.
The same with the idea of the love does not kill, the idea
that the romantic love is causing gender based violence.
That's not proof. On the contrary, many evidence
that it is the way around, as I mentioned before.
How you can contribute? Everybody can contribute on that. How?
You can only go to the section to contribute, to
register in the platform. Everybody can do that.
And then, how you can contribute? You can contribute
asking, for example, to the community for creating a post
and then asking to the community to contribute to this. And then
this statement is put under review and it is open to the community.
So, everybody or anyone can look for scientific articles trying
to sustain that post or to demonstrate that this post is a fake.
For example, you can also modify a post that has been already
created or answer and provide information to other members.
I mean, there is a dialogue in the platform in order to sustain these statements, providing
a list of scientific evidence and a list of fakes that can be useful for the professionals.
This is one of the resources that I want to show you today.
Now, we are going to talk about others that you can
also have access in open. I mean, it's for free.
The Eric is one of these resources that is a platform
in which you can just look for issues with key-words
and then you can have access to the full
text of the articles available in Eric.
And also you can check here peer review only. What does it mean?
It is important because in the Internet, there are a lot of information, many information, but not all the
information and not all articles, as I said before, have the same validity in the scientific community.
The ones that have more validity in the scientific
community are the ones that have a peer review process.
What does it mean? When you are sending an article to a journal that is peer
reviewed, that are the ones that have more prestige in the scientific community,
this article is reviewed, is assessed
by two or more experts in the field.
And only if you have positive feedback from
these experts, this article will be published.
In some journals, in some spaces in the Internet, you can publish an article
and nobody is saying this is correct scientifically or is not correct.
Some things that or some text or some documentation that you can find in the
website has not followed a process of review, a revision, a quality revision.
So it's difficult to work like this when you are trying to identify actions
and later on successful actions and later on to implement with children.
You need a guarantee. It's the same that when you are going to a doctor,
when a doctor is saying, OK, you have to take these pills to feel better.
You expect, you are expecting that this doctor as a professional will give you only
the pills that has followed a process, a peer review process, a process of science,
in which there is a demonstration that
these pills are working. It's obvious.
So the same in education, the same in gender issues. So we need works that has been
assessed by scientific, by scientific experts, by other professionals in the field.
The same in Google Scholar. I mean, we have this Google Scholar academic that
we have there, the contributions of the top experts in different disciplines.
For example, in our research centre, in the field of gender
violence, you can label the field that you are interested in.
And in the field of gender violence, for example, we have five scientifics from our
community of researchers in the top 10 of Google Scholar in the category of gender violence.
So this category is defined, this list is defined according to the number of citations you can
see in the corner, that in the top one, Ramon Flecha, they have been cited more than 20,000 times.
So the number of citations, I mean, the number of times that other scientists, other experts has been using the
work of these experts is the proof that they work, that their work is useful, is valid in the scientific community.
So this is the list you can check, then you can look for experts in that Google
Scholar and then to look which are the articles or books that they are publishing.
Another, I don't know if you are, I mean, I am following, Guiomar, and
then when you consider that we can have some questions and then you will see.
OK, we will see. Another resource that is
also in open is the scientific journals.
The issue here is that some scientific journals are
in open access for the citizens and others are not.
And another issue is that we have some databases, a SCIMAGO, that are also in open, that
it's a resource useful to identify which are the best journals in different disciplines.
For example, this SCIMAGO journal, this index of scientific
journals is very useful because you can access from your house.
You don't need to be in the university because
it's not, you don't have to pay to access that.
And you can ask to this database to give to you the list of the 10 or 20 best journals
in the field of education or in the field of sociology, in the field of gender.
And then, for example, thanks to that, I can see that the first top journal in the
field of education, according to this database, is the view educational research.
These rankings are also established by
the number of citations, more or less.
It's a complex way to calculate that. But the main point is how many citations
the articles in publishing these journals are achieving and why it is important.
Because, for example, maybe someone from you, do you want to know which
are the best tools to teach mathematics with students with disabilities?
Or which are the best tools to avoid conflicts in primary schools?
So you can go to the tools, you can look for the articles published in
this review, in this journal, for example, dealing with these issues.
And if you are looking for the best journals, you can access
to the main scientists publishing in that topics in the field.
This is one of the strategies that you can use to identify
the best actions analysed by scientific community.
So this is open access. Another tool that you have
is to go directly to journals that are in open.
For example, PLOS ONE is a journal, or SAGE OPEN is a
journal that you can enter to the website of the journal.
And also looking for a specific author or looking
for specific key words, gender violence, prevention.
You can have access directly from your
house to articles working on that issues.
So it's a way from you as a citizen, as a professional, as a teacher to access directly
to the work, to the scientific work that the scientists are publishing just now.
You can access now to the PLOS ONE and to see the
latest publication in 2024 in a specific topic.
So it's a way for you to be updated every time, to be very
updated in the latest scientific advancements in different fields.
Also in this press, HIPATIA Press, you have a lot of journals in
different disciplines, masculinity and social change, gender studies,
and ageing, social policy and also education and quality
research and education, different kind of topics.
All articles published open. So this is another resource that
you have also for looking for, for example, for key words.
And finally, I would like to mention two interesting tools that are in
two journals, two daily journals that are publishing articles every day.
that are short journals, I'm sorry, short articles
published every day in many different topics.
For example, El Diario Feminista is publishing articles, short articles in
zero violence, in culture, different kind of communities of women, on feminism.
Every day, short articles that are sustained
in scientific articles published in journals.
This is the way to identify, for example, in a specific topic, for example,
consent or, I mean, bullying, for example, or women in STEAM, for example.
So many, many different articles, short
articles, many days and all the days.
You can also have to look for the search tool and then to look for
specific articles published in a specific topic, for example, consent.
And then you can see the debates about the issue of consent in sexual
and affective relationships nowadays, which is the main debate.
And then when you are accessing to these articles, you can also see how
these articles are sustained in scientific articles published in journals.
So it's another way to look for scientific
evidence on the topics that you are interested in.
There is one of these journals in the issue of gender, El Diario Feminista, and
the other one is in the issue of education, Educación, in Periódico de Educación.
The good thing is that these articles
can be translated in any language.
I mean, there is like this possibility to translate the articles and then you
can access to the article and then to translate to the language that you need.
And it is good because it's a way to also to find scientific articles that
maybe you want to discuss with your colleagues in your school, for example,
of a specific topic, no school without violence or friendship,
how to work with friendship in the schools, for example.
So you can access to this kind of, you can look for if there is some
articles published in these journals, daily journals with the search tools
and then to identify scientific articles that are
sustaining these short articles in these daily journals.
Very, very interesting tools. Nowadays, these tools are very used in many
schools, not only in Spain, also in Latin America, in other countries,
are using these kind of tools because it's also in the schools, the professors
in the schools, because the teachers to work in their training process,
because it's a way, easy way to identify scientific articles in a specific issue,
on a specific thematic that you are working now in your school in a specific moment.
So and now just finish this part. I would like to mention two databases that
are not available to all the citizens, but are available in the universities.
I think that maybe there are some here
that are from the university, just in case.
I'm just going to go fast to that. But it's important. Before I mentioned
two databases in which we are very useful in the scientific community,
that is Web of Science and Scopus.
These are two databases that we are using in our research.
They are from payment and I mean, the university are
paying that we as researchers can have access to that.
But it's a way also to access to quality information.
For example, what we are developing a research,
we need to know what has been researched
on that specific topic before us.
So we need to check in Web of Science and in
Scopus previous publications on a specific topic.
So it's a way to go to relevant data,
to reliable data and also update data.
It's very important for us. So the Web of Science has different tools.
We have access to search tools for identifying
specific articles in specific topic.
But also we can have access to the name
of main researchers on a specific topic.
Also may classify specifically by the name, the time
of the number of times that they have been quoted.
And one of the critics to this database is that
mainly monopolized by the Anglo-Saxon world.
I mean, it's in English, no? But it's a tool that we have to use
and university precisely to provide later on to the citizens,
to learn the knowledge, the main knowledge that has been
already been done or published and regarding a specific topic.
I think that I'm going to finish here this presentation
about the open resources and all the existing resources.
There are some practical exercises available
to you after this teacher training.
For example, access to this Web of Science, for example,
as I will show you only to know what you to know,
the kind of look that this database has. And this is the search
tool from the Web of Science available to the university students,
for example, or professors at the university
in which you can look for topics here.
And then you have here access in most of the cases to
the full articles, in some cases only to the abstract.
But you can classify also to look for articles for
a specific year, 2023, the latest one, for example.
And then you can have access to the abstract. And then you
can see also the time, the times that one work has been cited.
As I mentioned to you, this is one of the criteria that we are using to
identify if a work is being considered value for the scientific community,
how the scientific community is using this article
in their works, how many times they have been cited.
And many relevant data about it.
And I mean, the fact this kind of citation,
the number of citations at the end is what is taken
into account to define the impact of the journal.
I mean, if a journal is having articles with a lot of
citations, these articles, these journals are high in position,
are having greatest position, highest
position in the score of the journals.
Here, sometimes you have the possibility to access to the
journal, to the full text, sometimes and sometimes not.
I'm just not going to go more in detail about that because you
can have, if you have the possibility to go to the exercise later,
when the material will be available to you,
you can just check everything and that's all.
But just to show also that is a search tool in
which you can put here keywords and that's all.
I think that I will finish here the presentation of the
search tools and we can go ahead with the latest presentation.
Sorry, I have to finish here. Sorry, I can't. OK.
Guiomar, I don't know if you want now some, what
do you want at the end? Maybe we can go to the end.
Yeah, maybe to the end. At the end. Thank you.
OK, so finally, I would like to show you some
specific, some specific, sorry, just here.
Can you see that? Yes. Perfect. OK.
So the latest presentation today, the last presentation today
is about the dialogic learning and the dialogic gatherings.
The dialogic gatherings is another important tool that you have as the
professionals to deal with scientific evidence in your training process,
in the schools or in the universities.
The dialogic gatherings are working from the dialogic learning.
The dialogic learning is an approach that has been defined
by Ramon Flecha in a book that was named Sharing Words.
And he defines how we have to work with this dialogic
approach in the educational context or in the community too.
I just mentioned the seven principles.
One of these principles is egalitarian dialogue.
The other one is the cultural intelligence, transformation, instrumental
dimension, solidarity, creation of meaning and equality of difference.
What is that? This is the kind of principles that we need to take into
account if we want to promote this dialogic learning in the schools.
That is the kind of learning, the kind of approach that is sustaining many of
the successful actions that has been validated by the scientific community.
as having an important impact in the transformation, not only of
the instrumental dimension of the learning process of the children,
but also in the improvement of the coexistence and the living together and the
overcoming of violence in educational context and the community in general.
And I mention that because one of the successful actions that were defined
also by Flecha from these dialogic principles are the dialogic gatherings.
The dialogic gatherings are a successful
action validated by the European Commission.
In 2006-2011, the main project founded by the European
Commission on Education was included, also led by Flecha,
in which these successful actions were analysed, were
implemented and analysed in many European countries.
And we obtained a lot of evidence. I mean, there was a
consortium of 14 countries involved in this research process.
And the European Commission highlighted that as a unique project
of social science having this kind of impact in that moment.
And so this dialogic gathering is one of the tools that
you have to deal with scientific evidence in the schools.
And in order to make them successfully, it's important to try to reach, to
use this, I mean, to implement this dialogic gathering using these principles.
I'm just going to go fast through them, but just mentioning because you can
go more in deep with all the readings that you are going to find in this material,
in the presentation and also in many
articles that has been going to be mentioned.
But just to mention these principles, it's like a way of working.
It's a way of doing that to obtain this impact and to promote this
kind of training, teacher training that is having this impact.
And it's allowing the implementation of successful actions.
As I mentioned to you, if you want to go more
in deep with that, you can have these books.
Sharing Words is the work in which
Flecha defined the dialogic learning.
But later on, many other books and publications has been published going
more in deep or going more in concrete aspects of this dialogic learning.
The first principle is the egalitarian dialogue.
I just want to mention one idea that I'm going to just to highlight some of
the ideas, the principles, and then after that you can have the material.
The idea of the egalitarian dialogue is that the strength of the arguments
is the main focus of our actions, not the argument from the force.
So starting from the works of Habermas, Flecha, Mead, also Flecha, we know
that if we want to be successful in the implementation of dialogic learning,
what is important is to promote that all the people participating
in the dialogue can consider that their arguments will be,
that their opinion or their statements will be valued
depending on the argument that they are giving.
If they are sustaining the arguments, they are
speaking with arguments, it will be taken into account.
It not depends on the position of power.
Your opinion as being a professor is not more valid
just to be a professor than the opinion of a student.
What is important is the argumentation
that you are giving in the dialogue.
The other principle very important in this
dialogic learning is the cultural intelligence,
the idea that everybody has skills, academic, practical and
communication skills that can contribute to this dialogue.
Everybody can have this cultural intelligence, has
this cultural intelligence, everybody has a value.
And then in these dialogic actions that we want to promote
in the schools, also in the teacher training processes,
it is important to consider that everybody can contribute.
So all people have this cultural intelligence, regardless of their
educational level, their language, their socio-economic structure.
This is also very important to be considered in
the relationship with the families, for example.
If we, in our school, we want to implement, for example, a
dialogic gathering that I'm going to mention now in our community,
it's very important if you want to promote
the participation with family members,
it's very important that you have this idea in mind,
that all members of the community, all family members,
have the capability to promote, to participate in this dialogue,
regardless of their educational level, their cultural context.
So if you have that in mind, it's more easy to obtain this
egalitarian dialogue and this process of dialogic learning.
Transformation. The idea that we have to
have high expectations in our actions.
It's possible to transform the context. It's true that there
are a lot of difficulties in the context in which we are living,
but according also with many authors, Freire, for example,
it's possible to transform difficulties into possibilities.
And if all the community is acting with this idea, we can do that.
We can overcome gender violence, we can prevent gender violence.
Instrumental dimension, another principle of the dialogic learning.
It's very important to guarantee that all our actions
are guaranteeing the academic success of the students.
It's not possible to overcome the situations of
marginalisation of the problems that they are having.
if we are not intensifying the process of learning, instrumental
learning, that are giving them the keys for the success in the society.
Solidarity. We don't want to talk about solidarity as a term.
We have to create context in which we are
solidarity, solitarian with the others.
Together we are wonderful. We can help together.
And according with Rita Levy-Montalcini, Nobel Prize of Neuroscience, she already stated
that the need to create context in which the solidarity is not only talk, it's lived.
So it is the way to promote this dialogic learning environment.
Creation of meaning. So we have to define actions that
have sense, that allow to overcome the loss of meaning.
Sometimes in current societies, people are in crisis
and sometimes we lose the meaning of our actions.
We have to re-enchantment, to create new meanings
in the educational actions that we are organising.
The creation of meaning is intersubjective. It depends on the dialogue
that we are having, depending on the interactions that we are having.
We can create in the schools interactions with the children,
with our colleagues, with the families, that create meaning,
that create the possibility to transform
the difficulties that we are having,
that create the possibility to have
into account the knowledge of everybody,
to find ways to overcome the violence
that maybe we have in the playground,
or to overcome situations or to prevent
situations of gender-based violence to our kids.
It's possible to do that.
And the equality of meaning, the equality of difference, it's the same.
The last principle, it's very important in
the diverse societies in which we are living,
is the consideration that we have to create environments
in which the difference can be respect, but as inequality.
When you are considering that someone is different,
and this difference is associated to marginalisation,
and you are not allowing or you are not creating a
context in which this marginalisation can be overcome,
this difference is not promoting, I mean, it's not allowing
the overcoming of discrimination or marginalisation.
We need to overcome the inequality and to allow context in
which this difference is considered a richness to the community.
So it's important that everybody has the same right to live differently.
This is the idea of the principle and the equality of difference.
But why I mention, what I have mentioned to you, these principles,
because as I mentioned before at the beginning of this presentation,
these principles are defining a frame, an
approach, that are the route that we need to follow
to develop the successful actions like the
dialogic gatherings that I'm going to mention now.
The dialogic gatherings are identified as successful
actions because they have proved the impact in transforming
the acquisition of instrumental knowledge,
but also because they have proved,
they will have evidence of social impact in the
transformation of the context, of the environments,
of the situations, in the improvement
of the context of living together.
There are different kinds of successful actions,
I'm just going to mention the dialogic gatherings,
but in this book, for example, that are
one of the results of the included project,
that is the one that I mentioned before, there
is a list of all, a list and argumentation
and a lot of information of these different successful
actions identified by the European Commission
in this project that are proving to be
successful, interactive groups, family education,
extended learning time, and dialogic gatherings
are the ones that I want to stress here.
because are the ones that you can, if you want, implement
as a way to promote this continuing training process
in scientific evidence of social impact.
As you can see in this list, there are many kinds
of dialogic gatherings, literary, mathematic,
scientist, feminist, intellectual, pedagogical,
interreligious, musical, artistic, many, many of fields.
I'm going to stress the dialogic scientific
gatherings or the dialogic feminist gatherings
that are the ones that are focused, for
example, in scientific test, in scientific text,
text, sorry, based on evidence of social impact.
I'm just going to go a little bit further here.
Yes, I'm just going to highlight here the main
characteristics of the process of the dialogic gatherings.
Sorry, this is not. This is, sorry,
I'm going to stress here the process.
The process following the dialogic gathering here,
and the slide is focused in the term literary,
but this process can be also used in the dialogic scientific gathering.
And I'm just going to mention now the difference.
The way that we are working with these
dialogic gatherings is with the text,
with the text in the case of the dialogic scientific
gatherings is with scientific articles, for example,
and then all the participants in these gatherings
are reading the text and then they are joining
to the meeting in which the dialogic gathering is taking place.
This meeting is established, tomorrow at 11, from 11 to 12,
we are going to have a dialogic scientific gathering and
we agree together that the text that we are going to read
is this text, OK, this scientific article.
So, everybody at home are reading the text.
They are selecting a quote, for example, that in
the reading that is interesting for him or for her,
everybody is reading the text, the concrete text that
is agreed, but in this at home, before the meeting,
the participants are selecting at least
one paragraph that is interesting for them.
And in the dialogic session, this paragraph is read,
and the people is explaining why he or she has selected this text.
And then after that, after everybody is
sharing, all the people who want to speak,
speak, highlighting the paragraph that has been selected
and also explaining why he or she has selected this text.
And then an open discussion is open with
the principle of egalitarian dialogue.
That is the one that I mentioned before. Why?
Because it's important that what is considered,
I mean, it's very important that in this
dialogue, all the opinions are respectful,
and all the opinions or all the contributions need to be
fundamentally argued according with the text.
I mean, it's not valid, for example, to say,
I don't agree with what this article is saying
because I consider that this author is wrong.
OK, but what is the paragraph in which you are focusing your attention?
No, I don't know. I don't have any paragraph.
So it's not valid argument because you are saying your argument
only according to your opinion without going
to the text, without going to the reading.
So it's very important this kind of process in order to promote
this egalitarian dialogue and the validity of the process.
So in this egalitarian dialogue, always
it's important the respect for human rights.
It's important to promote those that are not
contributing or that are contributing less.
For example, sometimes in this kind of dialogues, there are some
people that are speaking more and others that are speaking less.
So there is always a moderator, a people who is managing
the dialogue, and he or she is trying to contribute
to guarantee that all the people, especially
those that are not speaking or are speaking less,
if they want to speak, can speak. OK, so and then, very
important, what is relevant is the strength of the arguments.
The arguments need to be sustained by the reading, not by the opinion.
But what do you think that the author is saying? But if you are
not reading that, if you are not demonstrating what you are saying,
you are not fundamenting your argument.
The interventions need to be short.
Otherwise, sometimes there are some two or three people that
are monopolising the dialogue and then not time for the others.
It's very important to respect the
time, the speaking time of everybody.
If they have this moderator that are following the order
and always speak first the people who have not yet spoken.
This is egalitarian dialogue. It is because of that.
I mentioned the principles before and before I mentioned to you
the content of this dialogic gathering, this successful action.
I'm going to go specifically to the scientific.
There are mathematics, there are literary, I mentioned.
But, for example, in the scientific gatherings, we as a, for example,
in our research centre, we are doing the scientific gatherings.
And with these gatherings, we have read many, many books from many
different disciplines, natural science, economics, sociology, education.
And this kind of successful actions, it's allowing
us to read books that otherwise we never read alone.
I mean, it's very important. It's very difficult to read some
specific books if you are not sharing your understandings,
if you are not sharing your feelings, when you are
reading that or the things that you don't understand.
Or if you are not sharing ways to connect what you
are reading with the reality that you are living.
And with this dialogic gathering, you learn a lot reading about your own
reading, but also about the reading that others are doing from the same text.
And it is the way to improve the quality of
your work and the quality of your practice.
So this is one of the interesting examples,
the dialogic scientific gatherings.
You can also read not only books, but also scientific articles about
evidence of social impact, scientific evidence of social impact.
Many professionals, many teachers are doing dialogic scientific
gatherings in their schools once a month or once every two weeks,
selecting articles, scientific articles that are interesting for them,
because they consider that these articles are giving to them key issues
or key tools to approach problems that they are facing in the schools.
And then they share the reading together.
So they meet every two weeks or every month,
and then they have read one part of the article or the whole article,
and then they have selected the quotes that they consider relevant.
And then they share their understandings, their
views, their disagreements, their agreements,
and then they go more in deep in those actions
that can improve the practice in the schools.
And it is the way that we can work, that we need to work if we want to prevent
and to sustain or define actions to prevent gender violence in our schools,
knowing more about this scientific evidence.
For example, in secondary schools, there are many professors
that are always, and there are also already, sorry,
working with this kind of dialogic
scientific gatherings with the students.
And also in primary and also in secondary, many kids are working with
the dialogic literary gatherings, reading classics, universal classics.
I just pass very fast to that, but there are many dialogic gatherings
and many kids reading the Odyssey, Kafka, Don Quixote, and many others.
I have here a video, but for me, it's not
possible to show you now because we have few time.
But Ania is a girl that was participating in a school in
which successful educational actions were implemented.
And one of these actions were the dialogic gatherings.
And Ania here is in the European Parliament, the European
Commission, the European Parliament, sorry, in Brussels,
in the final conference of the included project,
the project that I mentioned to you before,
with by Flecha, and in which 14 countries were involved,
analysing successful educational actions around Europe.
And Ania here explained in front of MEP, a member of
European Parliament, and other colleagues in the same table,
her experience in the dialogic literary gatherings.
Here she is explaining that she read the
Odyssey, and also the Eneda, the two books,
and she can explain the difference
of reading these two classical books,
the Trojan War from the perspective of the Greeks,
and then from the perspective of the Trojans.
And all the audience was amazed about the kind of
speaking and the kind of culture that this girl has.
And from that, many other experiences with this same procedure.
And what I want to mention to you, specifically this
action, because I think that it is useful for you
to go more in deep, precisely, in all this
training process, in the scientific evidence.
that we need to improve our practice in the overcoming of gender violence
I think that I will finish, just mention to you that
there are many, many other kinds of dialogic gatherings,
also pedagogical ones, also inter-religious gatherings,
and the procedure is the one that I explained to you.
And I think that for us, it would be
better now to have some time for questions.
There are also another exercise, just a thing to share.
There is another exercise prepared as a training material in
this session that I'm just, sorry, I'm just going to look for it.
I would like to show you, if it's possible, one moment.
Many things go bad, I'm sorry.
Just here, exercise.
Yeah, here we have.
Okay.
Just a moment.
Can you see that?
Okay, this is an example, an exercise that is open
also for all the participants in this training,
that is precisely to work with this kind of
successful action, a feminist dialogic gathering,
that is reading a scientific article, sorry, no,
it's reading an article from the Diario Feminista,
that is about disdainful hookups, that is
one of the topics that I mentioned to you,
that entering to this article in the Diario Feminista,
you can have access to the scientific article.
It's the way that I mentioned to you that it works, no?
It's a way to go also to identify also scientific articles,
looking or having access to short articles in the Diario Feminista.
Then one exercise is to read this article in the Diario Feminista
about the consequences for health of these disdainful hookups,
and from that to choose a paragraph and to discuss.
Also, there is the possibility to have dialogic gatherings of films.
For example, here there is the lecture of Jesús Gómez,
that was one of the pioneers in defining this line
of preventive socialisation of gender violence.
He wrote the book Love in the Risk Society,
in which he gives the basis of this line of research
of preventive socialisation of gender violence.
Then an exercise is, or a practice is, to look the video
of his talk and then to have a dialogic gathering of that.
Or, for example, the intellectual dialogic gatherings, also
reading part of his book and then to discuss all together.
He also has this book, Love in the Risk Society,
an interesting exercise for working with teachers,
for example, is to select some pages of his book,
for example, the chapter on socialisation, attraction and relationship,
and then to reflect together about the consequences of the process of
socialisation in the gender violence in relations in young people, for example.
Many professors, many teachers are working already
with this kind of tools, with this kind of techniques,
and it are the ones that we want to mention to you,
to give the possibility to build up this capability
to, one, identify evidence of social impact,
and to differentiate them from the fake news and to the access in order
to sustain actions, successful actions to prevent gender violence.
I think I will leave here and we have
15 minutes for questions if you want.
OK, thank you. Thank you very much, Dr. Esther-Oliver, for your lecture.
It was very, very interesting and undoubtedly provided us with many
valuable insights for preventing gender-based violence in our schools,
starting with overcoming hoaxes and
gaining access to scientific knowledge.
You provided us with many examples and ways for accessing
to this knowledge, evidences with social impact.
We now have a brief time for questions and comments.
If anyone would like to speak, please, it's time for you
to raise your hand or write your comment in the chat.
Let me open the chat.
OK, thank you, for saying that
it was very interesting. Thank you.
And if not, while you are thinking your questions
and your comments, I have a question for you, Esther.
I was thinking you present us many resources, as I was saying,
such as SAPPHO, Adhayayana Platforms, Google
Scholar, Diario Feminista and so on.
And you also present us successful educational actions such
as the Dialogic gatherings for not only accessing this knowledge,
but sharing this knowledge and learning together through
the Dialogical Learning Principles created by Ramón Flecha.
And I was wondering, maybe you want to explain us a
little bit more about the feminist Dialogic gatherings.
And maybe you can give us some examples of what
have been the social impacts of when the schools,
when the mothers, when the girls, when children
access to this knowledge, to this article,
this evidence and read them together in the feminist gatherings.
If you have some insights and some examples
of this impact that has been published.
And also, if you can give us maybe more
recommendations about how to start with this,
you provided this exercise which will be able for all of you
through the Teach by Evidence platform that we are setting up.
We'll give you this information at the end of the webinar.
So, I don't know if you have any ideas, but maybe you want to
explain a little bit more about the feminist Dialogic gatherings.
Thank you. And someone...
Okay, good. Thank you, Esther.
Yes, I think it's important to go to the detail because it's
true that maybe a general presentation is difficult to see.
the kind of impact that this kind of successful actions are
having in people, in children, in adolescents and in women, etc.
For example, in this kind of exercise
that we propose as part of this material,
there are an article about the health
consequences of the shameful hookups.
You will go more in depth with that, with my other colleagues,
about the impact of the coercive discourse in society.
In society, there is a coercive discourse,
there is a pressure, social pressure in people.
towards a kind of socialization process in which
there are an attraction to some forms of masculinity
that are associated with violence, with despising attitudes, etc.
Many girls are receiving this kind of pressure from
the society, this discourse, from very early ages.
And this discourse is arriving from the social media, from the
films that they are seeing, from the songs that they are listening.
So it's from very early ages, 8, 9, maybe earlier.
So they get pushed, pushed, pushed towards
these shameful hookups, for example, in dates.
But they are not aware about the consequences of these kind of
hookups in their lives sometimes, for example, in health.
And I mentioned one of the statements that I
mentioned when I was talking about Adhyayana or Sappho,
is that the first sexual and affective relationships are
very important in the life of people, very important.
But people don't know that.
So when, for example, you have a dialogic gathering,
dialogic feminist gathering with girls, teenage girls,
for example, 12, 13, 14 years old, reading these kind of impacts
about what can happen if they are receiving this pressure.
And then what is the consequences of falling in
these kind of shameful hookups in their lives?
First, they realise that they identify, sometimes
they identify this pressure in their lives.
Sometimes this pressure is assumed because it's very common
that we are just living, growing up with this pressure
towards some kind of models of relationships
that can be despising or violent.
But when you are reading about that
and when you are reflecting about that,
you can realise that you can identify
situations in which it is happening.
And so you can also reflect on what would
have happened to you if you are following
or you are responding in a particular way towards this
kind of, when you are suffering this kind of pressure.
But the most important thing is that many of these articles,
as they have, they provide evidence of social impact,
they are also providing alternatives, they are
also providing the way to do the things around.
So first, they have children or young girls to
identify the risk of this kind of pressures.
And also they can know that there are alternatives,
they are all that kind of models of relationships
in which the focus or the main issue or the
main characteristic is the feeling of respect,
the feeling of love, the feeling of passion.
So there are alternatives to this kind of images or kind
of relationships that they are receiving
all the day from very different sources.
So it makes a difference. It can change lives.
It is changing lives.
Many girls, after participating in
this kind of dialogic gatherings,
has realized about the fact that maybe themselves
or maybe friends are in abusive situations,
in abusive relationships and have strength to
identify that and to look for an alternative.
Otherwise, they don't know that, they are just
following the pressure or it's very difficult for them,
they don't have tools. It's a way to empower
them to say no to this kind of situations
and then to look for alternatives and to look for
and to identify that the attractive way of living,
the attractive models are in the other part.
So these kind of actions are saving lives.
Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Oliver.
Does anyone want to make any comment or ask something?
Irene Mundet in the chat was saying thank you very
much for sharing with us your knowledge and expertise, Esther.
Is it possible to access your presentation?
I would like to share them with my training partners.
I'm a secondary school teacher. So thank you, Irene, for your interest.
Let me explain you that the recordings from these three
webinars that we are organizing will be available.
So you can watch them again if you are interested
or share this recording with other colleagues.
or other teachers that might be interested.
We will send you an email on how to access to this recording.
And also the materials and the exercises will be
also available in the Teach by Evidence platform
that we are setting up at this moment.
And it will be also a space, a network for being in contact
and for continuous co-creating and working
together, researchers, practitioners, educators
to advance knowledge and to implement and gather also
the social impact, the evidence of the social impact
from this project also that we know that we are
already achieving in Portugal, in Denmark and in Spain.
These three are the countries where the Teach by
Evidence project has been implemented in the first phase.
And now we are also scaling up with new activities.
And in the last session, in the last webinar,
we will explain you a little bit more about the
possibilities for joining also in this escalation
of the activities that we want to continue
implementing in Europe and beyond.
Beatriz Radiguez also says that thank you very
much and well, thank you again, Esther Oliver.
It was such a pleasure to listen to
you and to learn from you. Thank you.
And thank you, everyone, also for participating in this session.
We have had participants connected from
Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Croatia and Tunisia.
We hope to see you again at the second webinar,
which will be presented by Dr. Garazi López de Aguileta.
And the second seminar will take place next week on
Wednesday, November 13 at the same time at 5 P.M.
through the same link. We will also send you an email next week.
So thank you and see you all next week. Thank you very much.
Hi, Marie. How are you?
Fine, thank you. It was fun to be here.
Nice to see you.
Nice to see you, yeah. We'll be in touch.
Yes. Thank you, Guiomar, and all the colleagues of
the UNED for the organization. Thank you very much.