Academic Reward Research Articles

Securing the Future of the Humanities

Abstract A decade ago, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences published The Heart of the Matter report to much acclaim. But what has been the impact of such a high-minded report? In the decade since its publication, we have seen a prevailing anti-humanities rhetoric with significant consequences to the security and persistence of humanistic principles. This article focuses on what many consider to be the most crucial problem of our time, climate change and its consequences, in thinking about how this overwhelming problem offers a rallying point for the insertion of the humanities into practical solutions which require an upending of discrete disciplinary perspectives as well as a bridging of the academic and public divide so that any space between the practice of the humanities and advocacy for social and environmental justice is vastly diminished. It argues for a thorough review of academic reward systems, for a broadening of scholarly definitions, and for a pedagogical focus that demands theory commit to empirical application. Finally, it suggests that we reengage our storytelling prowess with an emphasis on the power of metaphor in order to bolster imaginative response and methodological flexibility that is both cogent and compelling.

Awareness and Attitudes Towards Open Access Predatory Publications Among the Academic Staff Members of Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka

The scholarly community is now dealing with a serious issue with predatory journals. It might be difficult for authors to identify predatory publications apart from reputable ones. The purpose of this study is to investigate the academic staff members of the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka on awareness of predatory publications and open access. The research methodology used in this study to gauge participants' knowledge of "open access" and "predatory publishing" was a questionnaire survey. Data collection involved the use of a pretested questionnaire. The permanent academic staff members affiliated with the Faculty of Management Studies and Commerce, university of Jaffna comprised the study's population. A link to an online survey was shared with every one of the faculty's fifty-two academic staff members. The response rate of the study was 67.30 %. MS Excel was used for the data analysis to describe the data in frequencies, percentages and rank orders of responses.Socio demographic details shows that, highest number of respondents are female (57.14%), completed master/MPhil (51.42%), senior lecturer (57.14%) and interested in marketing (28.57%) as their research discipline. Respondents expressed their priority order for the factors considered to select journal to submit manuscript for publications, journal indexing is the highest priority. All the respondents have an idea about the open access publishing system. Respondents are expected to publish in open access journals because of high visibility, increasing citation number, prestigious journals and fast publication process in a frequency order. The result of the survey shows that, 97.15% of the respondents are knowledgeable about predatory publishing. Majority of the respondents are characterized, the predatory journals are, no insufficient peer review process, and Beall’s list of predatory journals used by the high number of respondents to differentiate legitimate journals from predatory journals. More than half of the respondents are satisfied with the services provided by the library to avoid publishing in predatory journals. Responses are summarized for each of the 8 statements about the impact of publishing in predatory journals. Almost all the statements are agreed by the respondents other than the statement of “Articles published in predatory journals are poor in quality”. Highest agreement found for the statement 3 which is “Predatory publications are not considered for any academic reward” in which 14out of 35 were strongly agreed and followed by the statement 2 “many researchers published articles due to lack of awareness about predatory publication” (13 out of 35). Finally respondents are suggested to organize more awareness session on open access publishing and journal selection to avoid predatory publishing.

The Hand That Rocks the Cradle: Revaluing Academic Labor and Recognizing the Centrality of Carework

Abstract This paper examines the often-overlooked yet crucial role of carework within the academic ecosystem. Challenging the dominant paradigm that prioritizes research output, the paper argues for recognizing academic labor as a spectrum where teaching, research, and service hold equal value. Drawing on Rajan's (2023) framework of “academic carework,” the paper demonstrates the inseparable link between care and knowledge, highlighting how carework forms the foundation for knowledge production and reproduction. The analysis situates academic careworkers within the complex administrative landscape of higher education institutions, exploring the challenges posed by managerialism and external pressures. The paper introduces the “Argument from Shared Paradigm,” positing that academics, through their shared experiences and values, are uniquely positioned to advocate for and safeguard care-centered practices in research and teaching. By recognizing carework's essential contributions, this paper calls for a re-evaluation of academic reward systems and a shift towards a more inclusive academic culture.

Readiness of Pakistani journals for open access publishing

PurposeThis study was designed to discover the readiness of the higher education commission (HEC)-recognized journals of Pakistan in terms of human, financial and technological resources, technical expertise, institutional support, availability of open access (OA) policy, availability of guidance and training, willingness, motivation and so on for OA journal publishing and to expose the challenges in OA journal publishing.Design/methodology/approachA quantitative research approach was used and a structured questionnaire was developed to meet the objectives of this study. A survey method was used to collect data from the editors of all 329 HEC-recognized journals in Pakistan.FindingsThe respondents of all the HEC-recognized journals of Pakistan are neutral and are not of the view that they have sufficient financial, human, technological/infrastructural resources and technical expertise to continue/initiate an OA journal publishing. ‘No academic reward’; and ‘no monetary reward for the editorial staff’ are both enormous challenges for OA journal publishing. The perceived challenges of OA have a negative impact on readiness for OA publishing. The readiness level of the respondents of the OA journals is higher as compared to the readiness level of the respondents of non-OA journals.Research limitations/implicationsThis study covered the lists of HEC-recognized journals of 2019. More studies may be conducted based on updated lists of HEC-recognized journals. Qualitative studies may also be conducted to discover the readiness of the HEC-recognized journals of Pakistan for OA journal publishing.Originality/valueThis study is the first comprehensive study on this phenomenon and is an effort to fill this gap to invigorate scholarly literature. It may attract the attention of policymakers, funding bodies, parent institutions of the journals and the HEC regarding the readiness of journals in terms of financial, human, technological/infrastructural resources, technical expertise of the journals and challenges of journals to prompt the OA journal publishing paradigm.

Epistemic inclusion: a key challenge for global RRI

ABSTRACT Ten years after introducing the RRI concept, a reflection on its key ambitions seems called for, now that RRI enters the global arena. This paper focues on the key challenge that RRI is currently facing: epistemic inclusion. From the beginning, there has been the awareness that RRI must be open to multiple voices and perspectives, coming from academia, and also from society at large. Besides representing impressive bodies of knowledge, academic disciplines face knowledge gaps as well and must reach out to other knowledge forms, e.g. practical, experiential, and indigenous knowledge. This paper analyses the challenges involved in epistemic inclusion while outlining viable pathways towards addressing them, based on experiences in European projects as our ‘laboratory'. After discussing interdisciplinarity, participatory research, and epistemic pluralism, while also addressing the academic reward system. Special attention is given to indigenous knowledge as a case study for epistemic pluralism.

A self-disclosure ESG rating method based on the fuzzy set and reward mechanism of disclosure

The environmental, social, and governance (ESG) rating method is a powerful tool that can help investors to judge the investment value of companies based on the information disclosure. However, mainstream ESG rating methods ignore the distinction between companies with incomplete information disclosure and companies without information disclosure, which decreases the initiative and enthusiasm of companies to disclose information. In this study, a self-disclosure ESG (SDESG) rating method is proposed to evaluate companies’ ESG performance capabilities. First, based on the fuzzy set, fuzzy data is defined and applied to the SDESG rating method. Second, analogous to the academic reward system of a university, a reward mechanism of disclosure is used in the SDESG rating method. Finally, the effectiveness and reliability of the SDESG rating method are demonstrated through Refinitiv’s case. The results show that the SDESG rating method can distinguish companies with incomplete information disclosure from companies without information disclosure and allow companies that proactively disclose information to obtain better ESG scores under each industry. The implications of the study would increase companies’ enthusiasm to disclose information and maintain transparency within a company.

Burnout Due to Parents; Parental Attitudes in the Academic Context, Reward Addiction, and Sensitivity to Punishmen

Bu çalışmada, akademik bağlama yönelik ebeveyn tutumlarının lise öğrencilerinin aileden kaynaklı tükenmişlikleri üzerindeki etkisinde cezalandırılma korkusu ve ödül beklentisine bağlı şartlı performansın aracı rolünün incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırma nicel desende olup 462 lise öğrencisi üzerinde yürütülmüştür. Araştırmanın ilk aşamasında lise öğrencileri için ebeveynlerin akademik bağlamdaki işlevsel ve işlevsel olmayan tutumlarının ölçümünde kullanılmak üzere (her biri için anne ve baba paralel formları olan) özgün iki ölçme aracı geliştirilmiştir. Daha sonra akademik bağlama yönelik ebeveyn işlevsel ve işlevsel olmayan tutumlarının lise öğrencilerinin aileden kaynaklı tükenmişlikleri üzerindeki etkisinde cezalandırılma korkusu ve ödül beklentisine bağlı şartlı performansın aracı rolleri incelenmiştir. Yapısal model sonuçlarına göre cesaret kırıcı ve moral bozucu müdahale ile aileden kaynaklı tükenme arasındaki ilişkide cezalandırılma kaygısı ve ödül beklentisine bağlı şartlı performansın kısmi aracılık rolü üstlendiği belirlenmiştir. Ayrıca akademik bağlama yönelik ebeveyn işlevsel tutumunun aileden kaynaklı tükenmeyi doğrudan yordadığı da tespit edilmiştir.

Exploring factors influencing the use of open access resources in India: A novel perspective on Indian researchers

This study investigates the use of OA resources among faculty members and research scholars at IITs in North India and explores the factors influencing their engagement with OA resources. Self-administered questionnaires were distributed to participants from selected departments across four IITs in North India, resulting in 814 respondents. The study’s conceptual framework is based on the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). The findings indicate that while the majority of participants were aware of OA resources, their actual use was limited. Critical determinants for using OA resources were identified, including internet self-efficacy, awareness and attitude toward OA, accessibility, trustworthiness, professional recognition, academic reward, altruism, mandates and culture, and individual traits. Copyright concerns were found to negatively influence OA resource use, while additional time, effort and cost had no significant impact. The study emphasizes the importance of formulating OA policies, promoting awareness and understanding, and addressing copyright concerns to facilitate the effective use of OA resources, thereby benefiting knowledge dissemination and scholarly communication.

Women’s Experiences of Academic Tenure at a Women’s University in Pakistan

The study aims to understand how teachers and academic leadership have experienced the implementation of the Tenure Track System (TTS) as a new educational reform in a female university. Although the need for change in education has been widely researched, the dynamics of how the international academic reward system affects women working in a women’s university, especially in the context of developing countries, have mostly been ignored in the literature. This case study is based on the experience of interventions in the university reward system at a public university for women established in 1922. It provides unique insights into how the participants perceive the change process and the unintended side effects of these policy-level changes on the personal and organizational culture and structure levels. The results reveal that participants overburdened themselves with administrative, teaching, and research work but could have voiced their concerns more assertively. The study concluded that TTS faculty had been marginalized in the university based on their compensation and TTS is struggling to foot its ground as a main academic reward system. The faculty on TTS at large felt frustrated and alienated.

Transforming Research Assessment for an Equitable Scientific Culture

Watch VIDEO. Science plays a pivotal role in the advancement of democratic societies, and there is a growing consensus advocating for its recognition as both a common good and a fundamental human right. To effectively fulfil this role, science necessitates the trust of society, the support of policy makers, and robust international collaboration, enabling the mobility of researchers and the free flow of knowledge. To encourage this, our responsibilities as researchers extend beyond the realm of academic publishing. They encompass science outreach, education, diplomacy, policy advocacy, entrepreneurship, and collaborations aimed at addressing global challenges or progress towards more equitable societies. However, this is hampered by current research assessment practices and the academic reward system, which perpetuate a 'publish or perish' research culture that confines the scope of science to academic publishing, fosters privilege-based biases, and prioritises quantity over quality, as well as prestige over integrity. During this talk, I will share my personal journey as an early career researcher from the Global South, now affiliated with one of the most innovative research labs worldwide. My research journey, which was enabled by securing highly competitive funding since early stages of my career, provided me with first-hand insight into the biases and repercussions of current research assessment practices on the trajectories of researchers. Further validating this perspective is a ground-breaking study I co-led with colleagues from the Global Young Academy, exploring research assessment for career advancement on a global scale. This study shows that research institutions worldwide heavily rely on bibliometrics to evaluate career progression, irrespective of the academic discipline. However, while more established institutions appear to be walking away from these practices, these are becoming more popular in emerging research institutions from low-middle income countries. These findings highlight the need for transformational global (inclusive) initiatives. I am privileged to be part of one such initiative – The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). CoARA brings together a community of researchers and research enablers dedicated to reforming this perilous research culture. CoARA’s guiding principles centre on acknowledging the diversity of contributions and careers in science, shifting research evaluation towards qualitative aspects where research ethics and integrity are at the core, and recognizing that excellence is context-dependent, varying for each candidate, role, and projects. A standout feature of CoARA is its unwavering commitment to early career researchers, placing them at the heart of its principles, governance, structures, and interventions. Thus, ensuring that future generation of scientific leaders is well-equipped to navigate and transform the landscape of research assessment and scientific culture.

Evaluating Community-Engaged Research in Promotion and Tenure

To advance and encourage partnerships between institutions and their greater communities, academic reward structures must be designed in ways that support those who choose to leverage their expertise, resources, and time to engage with community in meaningful and mutually beneficial ways. This study investigates how school- and department-level promotion and tenure committees define, understand, and evaluate faculty’s engaged research. Specifically, this study explored what goes into making evaluative decisions and how evaluative decisions are made (e.g., how review committees define and categorize faculty’s engaged research, what metrics are used to assess it). In this single case multi-site qualitative study 12 participants across five R1 institutions classified as engaged by the Carnegie Foundation participated in semi-structured interviews. All participants were tenured, engaged scholars with experience serving on a school- and/or department-level promotion and tenure review committee. Findings demonstrate that review committees struggle to define, categorize, and evaluate community engaged research in promotion and tenure, as they are forced to exclusively rely on a traditional set of metrics to evaluate the engaged work of their peers. Though universities are making strides to institutionalize engagement, appropriate recognition of engaged research within promotion and tenure is not yet a reality.

Viewing research assessment, the academic reward system, and academic publishing through the power/knowledge lens of Foucault.

The academic research assessment system, the academic reward system, and the academic publishing system are interrelated mechanisms that facilitate the scholarly production of knowledge. This article considers these systems using a Foucauldian lens to examine the power/knowledge relationships found within and through these systems. A brief description of the various systems is introduced followed by examples of instances where Foucault's power, knowledge, discourse, and power/knowledge concepts are useful to provide a broader understanding of the norms and rules associated with each system, how these systems form a network of power relationships that reinforce and shape one another.

One size does not fit all: an exploratory interview study on how translational researchers navigate the current academic reward system.

Translational research is a subfield of the biomedical life sciences that focuses on clinically driven healthcare innovations. The workforce of this subfield, i.e., translational researchers, are diversely specialized and collaborate with a multitude of stakeholders from diverse disciplines in and outside academia in order to navigate the complex path of translating unmet clinical needs into research questions and ultimately into advancements for patient care. Translational researchers have varying responsibilities in the clinical, educational, and research domains requiring them to split their time two- or three-ways. Working between these domains and alongside peers who do not split their time as such, raises questions about the academic reward system used to recognize their performance, which mainly focuses on publication metrics within the research domain. What is unclear is how combining research tasks with tasks in the clinical and/or educational domains effects translational researchers and how they navigate the academic reward system. In this exploratory interview study, semi-structured interviews were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the current academic reward system for translational researchers. Stratified purposeful sampling was used to recruit 14 translational researchers from varying countries, subspecialties, and career stages. The interviews were coded after data collection was complete and arranged into three overarching result categories: intrinsic motivation, extrinsic factors, and ideal academic reward system and advice. We found that these 14 translational researchers were intrinsically motivated to achieve their translational goals while working in settings where clinical work was reported to take priority over teaching which in turn took priority over time for research. However, it is the latter that was explained to be essential in the academic reward system which currently measures scientific impact largely based on publications metrics. In this study, translational researchers were asked about their thoughts regarding the current academic reward system. Participants shared possible structural improvements and ideas for specialized support on an individual, institutional, and also international level. Their recommendations focused on acknowledging all aspects of their work and led to the conclusion that traditional quantitative academic reward metrics do not fully align with their translational goals.

Data sharing in neurodegenerative disease research: challenges and learnings from the innovative medicines initiative public-private partnership model.

Efficient data sharing is hampered by an array of organizational, ethical, behavioral, and technical challenges, slowing research progress and reducing the utility of data generated by clinical research studies on neurodegenerative diseases. There is a particular need to address differences between public and private sector environments for research and data sharing, which have varying standards, expectations, motivations, and interests. The Neuronet data sharing Working Group was set up to understand the existing barriers to data sharing in public-private partnership projects, and to provide guidance to overcome these barriers, by convening data sharing experts from diverse projects in the IMI neurodegeneration portfolio. In this policy and practice review, we outline the challenges and learnings of the WG, providing the neurodegeneration community with examples of good practices and recommendations on how to overcome obstacles to data sharing. These obstacles span organizational issues linked to the unique structure of cross-sectoral, collaborative research initiatives, to technical issues that affect the storage, structure and annotations of individual datasets. We also identify sociotechnical hurdles, such as academic recognition and reward systems that disincentivise data sharing, and legal challenges linked to heightened perceptions of data privacy risk, compounded by a lack of clear guidance on GDPR compliance mechanisms for public-private research. Focusing on real-world, neuroimaging and digital biomarker data, we highlight particular challenges and learnings for data sharing, such as data management planning, development of ethical codes of conduct, and harmonization of protocols and curation processes. Cross-cutting solutions and enablers include the principles of transparency, standardization and co-design - from open, accessible metadata catalogs that enhance findability of data, to measures that increase visibility and trust in data reuse.

An international perspective of the academic-practitioner divide in advertising: an exploratory study into its causes and solutions

In our international study of seven countries, we found that the academic-practitioner divide is as real today as it was three decades ago. The divide, which is more pronounced in some regions, is likely to worsen as society becomes more digitally complex, exacerbated by the lack of industry experience among young scholars entering academia in some quarters. Many bridging solutions were explored in this study, but the most important solution is for academia to produce relevant research, one that is useful for the industry. This should be widely and innovatively disseminated in a way that is easy to understand without dumbing it down. Practitioners generally do not like or know how to collaborate with academics, suggesting a need to develop a culture or mechanism that can raise awareness and foster mutual respect and trust between academia and industry. Bridging the divide will be challenging because of the existing academic reward structures. This situation needs to change. The discovery of two successful research institutes in the Netherlands and Australia shows how this divide can be bridged.

Peer review in academic publishing: Challenges in achieving the gold standard

This editorial describes some of the current and emerging challenges in peer review for the academic publishing system. Peer review is a fundamental element of academic research and publishing, with a firm reliance on the global scholarly community to perform gatekeeping and filtering processes in pursuing high-quality and high-value scholarly publications: the “gold standard” in academic publishing. We begin with examples of several contemporary challenges the peer review system poses, including impartiality and bias, academic reward structures, fake peer reviews, and reviewer fatigue. To further understand these challenges, we then provide a brief history of the evolution of the peer review system, focusing on the traditional forms of pre-publication peer review so familiar to the communication of scholarly work. Against this backdrop, we consider the benefits of peer review that span the continuum of the academic community – from authors to reviewers to journals and research communities. But many traditional forms of peer review are being challenged by new and innovative processes, systems and platforms. Finally, we look at how others have re-envisioned the peer review process during this phase of rapid evolution in journal publishing, with a strong call for quality and integrity in writing peer reviews. We conclude by suggesting ways forward for embedding sustainability, equity, and respect within the peer review process as an active force for advancing scholarship.

Research Performance and Hierarchical Staff-Mix by Rank in a Research-Oriented System: A Case Study

This study examines the relationship between the research performance and the hierarchical staff-mix by rank (or staff-mix categories) for academics in a research-oriented system. A supervised learning approach is employed to classify academics on the basis of their research performance and the association between this classification and the staff-mix categories is measured using the Somer’s [Formula: see text] coefficient. Although there have been other studies on research performance for such a system based on the volume-based indicators of research performance, this is the first study that assesses the researchers’ position in the academic reward structure on the basis of research performance. The Scopus database is used as a collection of individual productivity in research. A case-study is presented on a cross-section of academics in the mathematics discipline from different federal universities in Nigeria. The results show that there is a dearth of outstanding scientists in the system and that there is a weak association between research performance and the staff-mix categories. The need for scientific collaboration by way of a continuous collegial interaction between the outstanding scientists and the emerging scholars in the system is suggested.

Perceptions of narcissism in college professors

ABSTRACT We conducted three studies to examine perceptions of grandiose narcissism in college professors. Narcissism might appear incompatible with the profession if professors are viewed fundamentally as helpers or as introverted bookworms. Then again, people might expect professors to display big egos congruent with the prestige of their profession and their privileged public platforms. Our research indicates that professors are generally not seen as highly narcissistic according to the criteria of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and the Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire, though they are viewed as more narcissistic than elementary school teachers. More professor narcissism was expected at colleges that prioritize scholarly productivity over teaching excellence. Male professors were viewed as more narcissistic, but only for narcissism dimensions associated with interpersonal hostility and for judgments of whether professors are “narcissistic.” We discuss possible implications for narcissistic professors’ ability to exploit the gap between academic ideals and reward system realities.

Achieving academic promotion: The role of work environment, role conflict, and life balance

Fifty-two faculty at two Canadian universities were interviewed about the impact of work environment, role conflict, and worklife balance on career-related experiences and decisions to apply for promotion to full professor. Faculty described conflicts between their academic responsibilities of teaching, research, and service (including limited time for research despite long work weeks) as well as work-life imbalance. These issues were often gendered; women took slightly longer to achieve the rank of associate professor, accepted tasks of lower reward value, held decreased expectations for promotion, and experienced workplace conflict and bullying more than their male counterparts. Even so, faculty identified colleagues as a valuable career support. Our data lead us to theorize that the decision to apply for academic promotion is informed by a cost-benefit analysis, early career experiences, conformity with academic norms that over-emphasize research productivity, as well as access to career-advancing resources (especially time for research). We recommend that the gendered nature of the academic reward system be re-imagined to promote equality, and provide suggestions as to how to do so.

Implementing an mHealth app to combat hypertension in India's vulnerable populations

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to understand how to build and implement information and communication technology (i.e. ICT) to help vulnerable people when significant social, cultural and economic barriers exist between the stakeholders.Design/methodology/approachThe authors followed an action research approach to design and implement a mobile health hypertension education application to help India's most vulnerable populations. The authors used interpretive analysis, guided by the sustainable livelihoods framework, to uncover key findings.FindingsSuccessfully implementing information and communication technology for development (ICT4D) requires understanding that all stakeholders (i.e. donors, facilitators and the beneficiaries) have important assets to contribute. Facilitators play an important role in connecting donors to the beneficiaries and fostering cultural humility in donors so that the donors will understand the role beneficiaries play in success. Stakeholders may use the ICT4D in unintended ways that both improve the people's health and increase some beneficiaries' financial livelihood.Research limitations/implicationsThis research expands the definition of information systems success when implementing ICT4D in resource-constrained environments. Success is more than creating an mHealth app that was easy for beneficiaries to use and where they learned based on a pre- and post-test statistical analysis. Success involved development in all the stakeholders impacted by the social innovation collaboration. For the beneficiary community, success included getting screened for noncommunicable diseases as a first step toward treatment. For the facilitator, success involved more resources for their community health program. Amongst the donors, success was a change in perspective and learning cultural humility.Practical implicationsAlthough universities encourage faculty to work in interdisciplinary research teams to address serious world problems, university researchers may have to exert considerable effort to secure contracts, approvals and payments. Unfortunately, universities may not reward this effort to build ICT4D and continue to evaluate faculty based on journal publications. When universities undertake social innovation collaborations, administrators should ensure responsive and flexible university processes as well as appropriate academic reward structures are in place. This need is heightened when collaborations involve international partners with limited resources and time needed to build relationships and understanding across cultures.Social implicationsThis study discovered the importance of fostering cultural humility as a way of avoiding potential conflicts that may arise from cultural and power differences. Cultural humility moves the focus of donor-beneficiary relationships away from getting comfortable with “them” to taking actions that develop relationships and address vulnerabilities (Fisher-Borne et al., 2015). This research shows how the facilitator helped the donor develop cultural humility by involving the donor in various initiatives with the beneficiary community including allowing the donor to live in a dormitory at the hospital, work in an urban slum and visit health screening campus.Originality/valueThis study (1) extends the ICT4D literature by incorporating cultural humility into the sustainable livelihoods framework, (2) provides a contextual understanding of developing cultural humility in ICT4D projects with a complex group of stakeholders and (3) describes how facilitators become a catalyst for change and a bridge to the community. The culturally humble approach suggests revising the livelihood framework to eliminate words like “the poor” to describe beneficiaries.