1 Assessing the campus climate on sexual misconduct: An opportunity for student-centered research Sabrina T. CherryA Keywords Abstract Campus assessment; qualitative research; sexual misconduct. Campus climate surveys are effective ways to assess behaviors and attitudes regarding sexual misconduct. Undergraduate applied learning and research-centered projects are also integral to helping students apply textbook content to real-world dilemmas. In conjunction with the Collaboration for Assault Response & Education Office and the Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance, the researchers taught and mentored undergraduate students in co-facilitating a sexual misconduct assessment. The project proceeded in four phases: planning and training; focus group recruitment; focus group facilitation; and data analysis. This research highlights how university and college departments, as well as organizations, can collaborate to facilitate large-scale assessments. We also explain how these assessments can be integrated into applied learning and research projects for students. Opportunities for future research include more extensive training on qualitative data collection and analysis for undergraduate students; routine assessments of the campus climate related to sexual misconduct; and continued student- centered research opportunities that focus on current events. Article Info Received 18 January 2021 Received in revised form 18 March 2021 Accepted 22 March 2021 Available online 22 March 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.37074/jalt.2021.4.1.9 Content Available at : Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) Journal of Applied Learn ing & Te ac hi n g JALT http://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/index ISSN : 2591-801X A Assistant Professor of Public Health, University of North Carolina Wilmington Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) Zoe LeonardC C Research Assistant, UNC Wilmington Melannie PateB B Lecturer of Public health, University of North Carolina at Wilmington 2Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) the CARE Office, which offers comprehensive education, trainings, campaigns, services, and advocacy for students who have been victimized; the Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance; the Public Health program in the School of Health and Applied Human Sciences; and one graduate, along with several undergraduate students. • • Introduction According to the World Health Organization (2021), interpersonal violence is “violence between individuals … and includes child maltreatment; intimate partner violence; and elder abuse … acquaintance, stranger and youth violence; assault by strangers; violence related to property crimes; and violence in workplaces and other institutions.” Therefore, sexual misconduct is a category of interpersonal violence. And as defined by the University of North Carolina Wilmington’s Collaboration for Assault Response & Education (CARE) Office, sexual assault and sexual misconduct are overarching terms used to define a “completed or attempted” sexual act without consent (UNCW, 2020a). College students are at a heightened risk for sexual assault even though the rate of reporting is low (McMahon & Stepleton, 2018). Rates of assault and misconduct vary widely by school and student population. Monitoring and assessing behaviors, as well as attitudes, regarding sexual misconduct became a shared initiative on college campuses across the country after implementation of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault in 2014 (Krebs et al., 2016). Due to the variance of sexual assault incidents and the likelihood that the majority of these events are not reported to law enforcement, climate surveys remain the most effective and meaningful way to understand the magnitude and nature of sexual misconduct on college and university campuses (U.S. Department of Justice, 2018). Assessing the campus climate routinely is necessary as perceptions and attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities are essential to assist students affected by interpersonal violence (Coulter & Rankin, 2017; Follingstad, & Busch-Armendariz, 2017; Wood et al., 2017). Effectively addressing sexual misconduct requires cross-campus collaboration, faculty, as well as administration, involvement, and the integration of student opinions and voices (Graham et al., 2018). Researchers who have led projects to review campus climate surveys emphasized a need to clearly define sexual assault by engaging a representative sample of students who completed surveys and oversampling vulnerable, as well as marginalized, populations (Beaver, 2017; Heer & Jones, 2017). Another important emphasis on college campuses is the need for undergraduate and graduate students to engage in applied learning and research-based opportunities. Studies suggest a positive association between research understanding and interest when this exposure occurs early in a student’s matriculation (Hunter et al., 2007; Seymour et al., 2004). Providing applied learning opportunities for students is highly beneficial for engaging students with course material and helping them learn to conduct research. These experiences are often mutually beneficial for students and faculty in that students apply theory to real life situations, increase their level of engagement as citizens on campus, and observe viable change from their efforts. Simultaneously, faculty gain insights into important student perspectives (Holtzman, 2015; McCarthy, 2016). In conjunction with the Collaboration for Assault Response & Education (CARE) Office and the Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance on a medium-sized university campus in southeastern United States, we conducted a biannual, campus climate assessment to gauge attitudes and behaviors related to sexual misconduct and to inform prevention initiatives. Existing literature describes the importance of using campus collaborations to engage students in creating meaningful, positive, and productive partnerships (McMahon et al., 2016). Therefore, we used these findings to leverage resources provided by several university program offices to assist with data assessment and analysis training for Public Health students. The project afforded students applied learning experience intertwined with aspects of health promotion, including data collection and analysis, professional presentations, and program development. The researchers believe this opportunity was also integral to helping the students become better equipped as future Public Health practitioners. While there is limited scholarly data about the role of Public Health practitioners in addressing sexual misconduct, research has highlighted the potential impact of peer to peer education in prevention efforts (McMahon et al., 2019). The purpose of this paper is to present the process for the completion of a biennial, collaborative assessment used to gauge attitudes about sexual assault and misconduct. The researchers provide a framework for future cross-campus collaborations conducting campus-wide assessments and detail lessons learned, as well as opportunities for future research. Methods Our primary method for this project was focus groups as they are viable research tools for gaining insight on perspectives and experiences on an array of subjects, including those deemed as sensitive topics (Kruegar, 2014). A number of campus-wide groups assisted in the recruitment of focus group participants, data collection and analysis, and the presentation of results. The project required active engagement of the following groups and campus entities: • • The research team comprised two faculty within the University’s Public Health program and one graduate research assistant (GRA). One faculty member served as the Principal Investigator (PI) for the project and spearheaded key tasks including, but not limited to: coordinating team 3Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) meetings; hiring the GRA; liaising with campus departments; ensuring focus group marketing, recruitment and facilitation; and co-leading data analysis, as well as presentation. The additional faculty member was the primary instructor for a Public Health Evaluation Methods course and served as the primary contact for students enrolled in this course (N = 23); scheduled all class visits by the remainder of the research team; coordinated student sign-ups for focus group co- facilitation; and assisted with data analysis. The PI selected the partnering faculty member because this colleague taught an undergraduate course covering program design and evaluation. The GRA assisted with all aspects of planning and recruitment. The team worked together to engage various campus departments in recruiting a representative sample of the student population. The project proceeded in four phases: planning and training, focus group recruitment, focus group facilitation, and data analysis (Figure 1). Figure 1. Four phases of the research project. Note. The research project was implemented in accordance with the steps outlined in this diagram. Phase I: Planning and training Initial planning for the project included several steps. Faculty members met to discuss the project’s feasibility and identify potential funding options. This step also included identifying a specific class for which the research project would be integrated into the semester’s content. An undergraduate Public Health Evaluation Methods course was chosen, as it gave students an opportunity to apply course material to a current event using methods taught in the course including, but not limited to, the importance of program evaluation, as well as quantitative and qualitative data collection. The faculty members met with the CARE Office and Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance to gauge interest and gather information on how the assessment process was conducted in previous years. After roles and responsibilities were clearly defined, other campus units were engaged, including the Student Success Center, which is responsible for programming related to student recruitment, retention, academic success, and post-graduation placement. Team members identified the Experiencing Transformative Education through Applied Learning (ETEAL) grant as the best fit for funding this study (UNCW, 2020b). ETEAL grants support student-centered, experiential initiatives. The proposed project met the criteria for this grant source, resulting in a $3,500 award. The funds were used to hire a GRA, purchase focus group audio recording material and incentives, and pay for audio transcription services. Experiential learning was a central aspect of this project. After securing grant funds, the research team introduced the project to undergraduate students enrolled in a Public Health Evaluation Methods course. The PI and GRA conducted multiple visits to the class to provide an overview of the project, discuss expectations for student engagement, answer questions, and detail next steps — including the focus group training and facilitation schedule. Training sessions with the students on how to facilitate focus groups were conducted during subsequent visits. Over a series of face- to-face classes, the team continued to prepare students for involvement in the project, such as facilitating mock focus group sessions and debriefings. The research team drafted a focus group guide and shared it with students for feedback. Each student enrolled in the class reviewed the guide and provided handwritten feedback. Feedback included simplifying questions, defining terminology, giving more background on campus policies before asking questions, and eliminating redundant questions. The researchers viewed this feedback as valuable because some of the groups would be co-facilitated by students. Additionally, having guidance from students on the ease and simplicity of questions assisted in removing research jargon and making transitions between questions smoother. This feedback was also sent to the CARE and Title IX Offices for final approval. The researchers submitted an Institutional Review Board (IRB) application, but the Board provided an exemption because the research team would not be sharing the results from the focus groups. Phase II: Focus group recruitment One goal of the project was to have a representative sample of students participate in the focus groups. To achieve this sample size, the research team contacted campus units to seek permission to recruit participants from their respective programs. These departments included the College of Education, the English Department, the School of Health and Applied Human Sciences, the School of Nursing, the Student Success Center, and the Music Department. These collaborations helped the research team recruit participants and conduct groups via three primary methods. First method: faculty members were asked for permission to conduct a focus group during a portion of a class or for the entire class. Second method: faculty members were asked to offer extra credit as an incentive for students to participate in focus groups conducted on campus in the evenings. Third method: recruitment was facilitated via campus-wide program offices such as Greek Life and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or questioning), Intersex, and Asexual (LGBTQIA) Resource Center. 1 3 2 4Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) All recruitment methods worked efficiently as students were either participating in focus groups during a regularly scheduled course-related activity — such as a class or organizational meeting — or incentivized with extra credit to attend a group after hours. The research team also worked with campus-wide program offices to conduct groups before, during, or after regularly scheduled program meetings. For all focus groups, participants were offered an additional incentive with the opportunity to enter a raffle drawing to win one of several prizes. The research team created a shared spreadsheet to list each focus group with the date, time, location, and anticipated number of participants. These spreadsheets were shared with the undergraduate students enrolled in the Evaluation class so that they could sign-up as registration assistants (n = 11), co-facilitators (n = 6), or note-takers (n = 6). Phase III: Focus group facilitation The research team conducted 19 focus groups with 200 participants. The number of participants in each group varied, ranging from four to fifteen. In most cases, the groups were facilitated by one graduate student facilitator. Four groups were conducted by the GRA with an undergraduate co-facilitator and one group was facilitated by two undergraduate students. The remaining undergraduate students helped with registration assistance (getting participants signed up for the raffle and helping them complete demographic forms) and note taking. All focus group sessions were attended by a CARE Office or Title IX representative. Focus groups were facilitated in a similar manner to be consistent and encourage participation from all attendees. The seats in each room were arranged in a circle to allow participants, facilitators, and the CARE or Title IX representative to face one another and engage in dialogue (Barbour, 2007). Before beginning a group discussion, the facilitator read a welcome and project description to all attendees. The script (see Appendix A) informed participants of the goals of the study, reinforced that participation was voluntary, ensured participants their names would not be used in any publications. This opening was also used to obtain verbal consent to begin the audio recording. The CARE or Title IX representative was introduced to the group and informed participants they were there to offer support and to provide any clarifications. Participants were then asked to complete a demographic survey, which was distributed and collected by the undergraduate students. Attendees did not add their names to the surveys to ensure anonymity. Participants provided responses related to their age, gender, year in school, major, involvement in various campus activities, relationship and sexual history, as well as if they were a victim of sexual misconduct or knew someone who had been a victim. Demographic data can be found in Table 1. Other participant responses include nearly 20 % (N = 39) of focus group participants reported being involved in non-academic Greek life. Participants were also asked to disclose if they either knew someone who experienced sexual misconduct or had witnessed sexual misconduct; 68% (N = 131) knew someone who had been a victim of sexual misconduct or had witnessed sexual misconduct. Table 1: Demographic characteristics of focus group participants. All focus groups were audio recorded. The facilitators used an interview guide and questions were divided into the following sections (see Appendix A): CARE (general knowledge); New Student Orientation; UNCW’s Student Sexual Misconduct Policy; reporting sexual misconduct; and male involvement in prevention programs. Group sessions lasted an average of 60 minutes. At the end of each group, the CARE or Title IX representative provided clarification on any misconceptions that came up during the discussions. All demographic surveys were collected at the end of the discussion, and participants were reminded of the raffle drawing sign-up. Phase IV: Data analysis The researchers conducted quantitative and qualitative data analysis. Descriptive statistics were calculated using Survey Monkey. After labeling each survey with an identification number for verification, the GRA entered 200 surveys into the program. The data were then double-checked for accuracy. Focus groups sessions were transcribed by an external vendor. Following transcription, the researchers used MAXQDA, a qualitative data analysis software, to code data. In alignment with inductive coding processes, an initial coding scheme was created based on the focus group guide (Saldana, 2013). The PI and GRA worked together to further develop the codebook and review assigned codes. As the data were coded, additional codes were added to capture student responses. The results of the demographic surveys 5Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) and focus groups were then used to create a report for the CARE Office and Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance. Discussion Assessing the campus climate related to sexual misconduct can be a cumbersome process. Recruiting students who have busy schedules is an additional challenge. However, engaging other campus units as described in this article may yield a greater return related to recruitment and quality of data. In this study, having the cooperation of faculty members across campus who agreed to allow the research team to visit their classes or who awarded extra credit for focus group participation proved to be advantageous. This strategy also helped to ensure sufficient participant attendance. Finally, the across-campus collaboration provided the opportunity to enhance awareness about sexual misconduct and existing initiatives designed to address misconduct on and around campus. The campus where this research was conducted has a student population that includes roughly 63% of students who identify as female and 16% who identify as ethnically diverse (UNCW, 2020c). By partnering with other faculty, the researchers were able to conduct focus groups with a representative sample of undergraduate and graduate students related to gender as 75% of our study participants identified as women. We achieved an oversampling in relation to racial and ethnic diversity, as 24% identified as a member of an ethnically diverse population. Students were also integral in recruiting their friends and co-facilitating the focus groups, including managing set- up logistics. Research literature has shown that working with students to recruit for and conduct focus groups can be effective in fostering dialogue among college students (Murray, 2006; Parker & Tritter, 2006). Additionally, the inclusion of college students can be beneficial for data collection when participants perceive the facilitator to be of similar age (Doerr & Wantuch, 2000). College students benefit from being exposed to research, but some disciplines—such as the social sciences—may limit the category of research to quantitative methods. Although the larger assessment project included the distribution of a campus-wide survey to a random sample of students (results not reported), the efforts described in this publication exhibit how qualitative data design and collection can be valuable complements to quantitative data. Students learned about the complicated logistics related to planning for, recruiting, and conducting focus groups. The GRA gained firsthand experience in the arduous process of analyzing qualitative data. All students were introduced to myths related to qualitative research, such as lack of rigor or ease in administration (Cope, 2014; Tracy, 2010). And while this article does not focus on the results of the focus groups, it does highlight how detailed the process can be, as well as how comparable initiatives can be conducted with the cooperation of several entities across a campus community. Specific to dissemination, the researchers shared the process-oriented results of this project across a number of media, including poster and oral presentations at local and national conferences. The authors conducted a formal question and answer session with the CARE Office and the Office of Title IX and Clery Compliance to present the results and address any areas of follow-up or concern. The focus groups results were used to help these entities evaluate the campus climate and discuss how the findings can be leveraged to guide future program planning. Limitations There are a number of limitations to our study. While the majority of the focus groups were conducted by the GRA, some groups were co-facilitated by undergraduate students. The undergraduate students were trained on conducting focus groups, and the aim of this study was to help them gain exposure to qualitative research methods. However, the quality of these groups may have been limited by their lack of experience and confidence in leading groups. Also, in an attempt to increase student comfort levels on providing feedback about the Title IX and CARE Offices, Public Health faculty and the GRA coordinated the focus groups. But to address any program misconceptions on the services available, staff from both offices attended every focus group and spent time at the end of the groups providing clarifications. Their presence may have hindered full transparency about the accessibility and adequacy of services provided by these offices. All participants volunteered to take part in the focus groups, but some groups were conducted during regularly scheduled class times; therefore, volunteer bias is possible. Some focus groups questions yielded a simple “yes” or “no” response, thereby hindering discussion about those prompts. Additionally, students who attended groups with their peers may have been hesitant to speak openly about their experiences with sexual misconduct (Wutich et al., 2010). The GRA entered all demographic data in Survey Monkey without assistance of another researcher, which could have yielded errors in the data. She was primarily responsible for coding all interviews and worked with a faculty member to review the code schemes and verify consistency of coding. However, the authors did not code the data simultaneously or test for inter-coder reliability. Contributions to and opportunities for future research This project highlights how institutional units and campus organizations can work together to assess the campus climate. The authors detailed the initial planning stages, recruitment efforts, focus group facilitation, and data analysis processes related to the project. This article highlights how large-scale assessments can be integrated into applied learning opportunities for students. Although the undergraduate students helped edit the focus group guide and conduct sessions, they did not assist with data analysis. Opportunities for future research can include more extensive training on qualitative data collection and analysis for undergraduate students. 6Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) To expose students to the full cycle of the research process, similar initiatives could require all students to create professional publications to present details of the project. This addition would enable them to develop, administer, analyze, and present findings of a campus-wide assessment. Including undergraduate students in all aspects of the research process in this manner can potentially provide increased engagement in coursework, facilitate ongoing learning, and foster productive relationships between faculty and students. College campuses are parts of a broader community and this project was conducted as the global #MeToo movement was putting a renewed emphasis on speaking out about sexual misconduct (UNCW, 2021). In light of this ongoing movement, as well as several other initiatives occurring around the globe in regards to diversity and inclusion, students may be increasingly open to applied learning and research opportunities that include the integration of pivotal current events. Additionally research projects on college campuses can aim to integrate current events that are of interest of students. In summary, our study echoes the findings that involving students, including undergraduate students, in research is valuable. We have demonstrated one way this is possible. Specific to the ongoing topic of sexual misconduct, college and university administrators may explore more frequent assessments of the campus climate. This process may provide valuable, up-to-date information, and well as give students real-time, real life research experience. With respect to the wide range of topics of interest on college and university campuses, as well as the larger communities in which they are positioned, this project serves as a model for other institutions conducting large-scale assessments. This research may also be a guide for those seeking to engage undergraduate and graduate students in research, as well as faculty and staff who want to foster cross-campus collaboration. References Barbour, R. (2008). Doing focus groups. Sage. https:do. org/10.4135/9781849208956. Beaver, W. (2017). Campus sexual assault: What we know and what we don’t know. The Independent Review, 22(2), 257-268. https://search-proquest-com.liblink.uncw.edu/ docview/1938830275?accountid=14606. Cope, D. G. (2014, January). Methods and meanings: Credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. In Oncology Nursing Forum 41(1), 89-91. https://doi. org/10.1188/14.ONF.89-91 Coulter, R. W., & Rankin, S. R. (2017). College sexual assault and campus climate for sexual- and gender minority undergraduate students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(5-6), 1351-1366. https://doi. org/10.1177%2F0886260517696870 Doerr, B. T., & Wantuch, C. (2000). Cudahy High School survey and focus groups: Assessment of the needs of a teen population. A community campus collaboration. Public Health Nursing, 17(1), 11-15. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1446. 2000.00011.x. Graham, L. M., Mennicke, A., Rizo, C. F., Wood, L., & Mengo, C. W. (2018). Interpersonal violence prevention and response on college and university campuses: Opportunities for faculty leadership. Journal of Family Violence, 34(3), 189- 198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-9968-1. Heer, B. D., & Jones, L. (2017). Measuring sexual violence on campus: Climate surveys and vulnerable groups. Journal of School Violence, 16(2), 207-221. https://doi.org/10.1080/153 88220.2017.1284444. Holtzman, M. (2015). Integrating experiential learning and applied sociology to promote student learning and faculty research. College Teaching, 63(3), 112-117. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/87567555.2015.1019825. Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & Seymour, E. (2007). Becoming a scientist: The role of undergraduate research in students’ cognitive, personal, and professional development. Science Education, 91(1), 36-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20173. Kitzinger, J. (1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal, 311(7000), 299-302. http:// doi.org/10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299. Krebs, C., Lindquist, C., Berzofsky, M., Shook-Sa, B., & Peterson, K. (2016). Campus climate survey validation study final technical report. Bureau of Justice Statistics. https:// www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ccsvsftr.pdf. Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage publications. McCarthy, M. (2016). Experiential Learning Theory: From theory to practice. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 14(3), 91-100. http://doi.org/ 10.19030/jber.v14i3.9749. McMahon, S., & Stepleton, K. (2018). Undergraduate exposure to messages about campus sexual assault: Awareness of campus services. Journal of College Student Development, 59(1), 110-115. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0008. McMahon, S., Stepleton, K., & Cusano, J. (2016). Chapter 2: Fostering collaborations. In R. S. Work, understanding and responding to campus sexual assault: A guide to climate assessment for colleges and universities (pp. 3-5). Rutgers University. http://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2018.0008. McMahon, S., Wood, L., Cusano, J., & Macri, L. M. (2019). Campus sexual assault: Future directions for research. Sexual Abuse, 31(3), 270-295. Murray, C. (2006). Peer led focus groups and young people. Children & Society, 20(4), 273-286. https://doi.org/10.1002/ CHI.892. Parker, A., & Tritter, J. (2006). Focus group method and methodology: Current practice and recent debate. 7Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 29(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1080/01406720500537304. Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage. Seymour, E., Hunter, A. B., Laursen, S. L., & DeAntoni, T. (2004). Establishing the benefits of research experiences for undergraduates in the sciences: First findings from a three- year study. Science Education, 88(4), 493-534. http://doi. org/10.1002/sce.10131. Tracy, S. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative inquiry, 16(10), 837-851. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800410383121. UNCW. (2020a). CARE: Sexual assault. https://uncw.edu/ care/survivors/assault.html UNCW. (2020b). Applied learning. https://uncw.edu/ appliedlearning/index.html UNCW. (2020c). About UNCW. https://uncw.edu/aboutuncw/ facts.html UNCW. (2021). History and inception. https://uncw.edu/ aboutuncw/facts.html UNCW. (n.d.). ETEAL: An overview. https://UNCW.edu/eteal/ overview/index.html#About Walkington, H. (2015). Students as researchers: Supporting undergraduate research in the disciplines in higher education. The Higher Education Academy. Wood, L., Sulley, C., Kammer-Kerwick, M., Follingstad, D., & Busch-Armendariz, N. (2017). Climate surveys: An inventory of understanding sexual assault and other crimes of interpersonal violence at institutions of higher education. Violence against Women, 23(10), 1249-1267. https://doi-org. liblink.uncw.edu/10.1177/1077801216657897. World Health Organization. (2021). Violenece Prevention Allaince: Definition and typology. https://www.who.int/ violenceprevention/approach/definition/en/ Wutich, A., Lant, T., White, D. D., Larson, K. L., & Gartin, M. (2010). Comparing focus group and individual responses on sensitive topics: a study of water decision makers in a desert city. Field Methods, 22(1), 88-110. Appendix A Focus group script and guide 8Journal of Applied Learning & Teaching Vol.4 No.1 (2021) Copyright: © 2021 Sabrina T. Cherry, Melannie Pate and Zoe Leonard. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.