The presentations are scheduled for 27 and 28 of March. We plan for 45 minutes for each presentation (20-30 min presentation, 15-25 min feed-back). The feed-back part is started up with the designated "feed-backer" and then is open for Q&A from the rest of the audience.

Schedule for presentations and feed-back

Monday 27th of May

13.15-14.00 Akash Khansili: Role of gender in artificial intelligence and text-to-speech models. Feed-back from Yutian Song.
15.00-15.45 Sara Bentley: What additional unpaid work do women undertake? Feed-back from Perci Mayfield.
15.50-16.35 Yutian Song: The effect of gender sterotypes on physics learning and teaching and improvement. Feed-back by Tobias Gardelius.

Tuesday May 28th

09.15-10.00 Tobias Gardelius: How physics textbooks tell you that you can not do physics. Feed-back from Billy Johansson.
10.05-10.50 Billy Johansson: She uses they/them pronouns. Feed-back from Akash Khansli.
11.00-11.45 Neha Kondedan: Gender disparities in innovation and patenting Feed-back from Alice Miller.
11.50-12.35 Perci Mayfield: Trans inclusion/intersectional analysis in field of physics/stem. Feed-back from Sarah Bentley,
Lunch
13.15-14.00 Alice Miller: Physics and Mathematics: Sister Disciplines or Divergent Trajectories in Gender Equality and PhD Recruitment. Feed-back by Neha Kondedan.

After summer

Luca Sorriso Valvo: Space physics identities in Sweden: an intersectional analysis. Feed-back from course leaders.
Hanna Galach: Academic housework – individual workload in academia from a gender and cultural perspective.
Chandni Babu: Gender representations in physics texbooks.

Some thoughts on giving feed-back

It is important that the atmosphere during a feed-back session remains positive and opens up for constructive discussions. Therefore, you should aim to be a "critical friend" and not an opponent - you are not there to win an argument but to help the presenter to improve their project and report. Be sure to give clear advice, with examples and suggestions. As an example, it is not enough to say "the report was interesting", but you have to add why it was interesting.

If you find some direct errors or mistakes that you would like to point out, it could be a good idea to notify the presenter in advance, to give them a chance to correct it. Minor comments on e.g. spelling could also be given after the oral feed-back in written form.