Sophie Duchesne

Is Time 'on the Side of Change'? Incorporating the GDPR in (some of) our Research Practices

Keywords: Nationalisme, RGPD, méthodes projectives, science participative, éthique Nationalism, GPDR, projective methods, participatory science, ethics Matériel supplémentaire

Time is on the side of change? Ou comment intégrer le RGPD dans (certaines de) nos pratiques de recherche. Le règlement général de protection des données personnelles encadre désormais -entre autres domaines d'activité -la recherche dès lors qu'elle implique le recueil et l'usage de données dites personnelles (qui permettent directement ou indirectement d'identifier les personnes qu'elles concernent). Cela affecte nos pratiques de chercheur•es et il nous semble nécessaire d'en discuter collectivement. Nous proposons d'engager le débat dans cet article en revenant sur ce qu'implique concrètement la mise en conformité de nos enquêtes eu égard au RGPD, à partir de l'expérience qui est la nôtre : le lancement d'une recherche sur la transmission du nationalisme banal dans les familles (projet ETPAF). Nous y racontons comment par ailleurs comment, dans notre cas, cette nouvelle donne réglementaire a été l'occasion de développer une (petite) dimension d'éducation populaire, ou de science participative, qui n'était pas initialement prévue dans le projet et qui nous a semblé réellement stimulante

Introduction

The GDPRwhich stands for General Data Protection Regulationis gaining ground in social science and humanities (SSH) research centres. This European regulation, adopted in 2008, aims to reinforce the protection of individual personal data at a time when we leave digital traces everywhere and these have become a commodity. As citizens, we find it reassuring to have a say in whether or not an online commercial platform records data about us and we are very glad that the information we entrust to our doctors or employers cannot find its way 'online' or be made available to the highest bidder. On the other hand, as researchers, we are quickly frustrated by the new layer of administrative procedures that the GDPR adds to our work. Worse still, the precautions now required in terms of providing information and ensuring the material security of data -let alone the infamous 'informed consent' necessary for 'special data', which we will come back to laterhave considerable, often less than desirable, consequences for our investigative methods.

What should we do in the face of this situation? Resist and protect our way of doing research by 'playing for time' and waiting to see whether we ultimately face any sanctions? Protect ourselves by interpreting the rules as strictly as possible, even if this means giving up on research projects that no longer fit into the boxes? Or perhaps, instead, protect the pleasure we derive from our research by taking on board the rules and adapting our methods in ways that then lend meaning to the changes we make? In this text, we defend the third option. We show that this means wagering that 'time is on the side of change'1 and that the GDPR is encouraging us to adapt to the changes in social relations that it recognises within European societies. Ours is a situated point of view, and deliberately so, especially seeing as we believe that adapting to the GDPR presupposes thinking about its consequences in concrete terms, based on different examples. In this text, we offer an account of our current research experience, namely a study on 'banal nationalism' within the family. For this study, which focuses on both children and politics, we expected the worst when it came to ensuring our work complied with the law. However, this proved neither particularly complicated nor terribly frustrating, insofar as the first lockdown 2 left us waiting impatiently far longer than the time it took to obtain our data processing authorisation. However, our decision to respect the spirit of the regulation did have a real influence on the interview scenario that we devised. In considering here how the GDPR shaped our research practice, we are not looking to provide one definitive answer to the questions the GDPR raises for the social sciences more generally, or even for sociology and political science more specifically. In fact, our aim is quite the opposite. We wish to open up a debate that will be enriched by the broad range of methods, subjects, and theoretical inspirations that define these disciplines.

We shall provide an account of our experience by first briefly summarising our research project, then expressing in our own words how we understood the GDPR requirements, and next, narrating as faithfully as possibly how the process unfolded for us, before finally discussing the lessons we learned from it.

A Study on the Sources of Banal Nationalism

Our study aims to understand the ways in which what Michael Billig refers to as 'banal nationalism' [START_REF] Billig | Banal nationalism[END_REF] is passed on to young children in the family context. 'Banal nationalism' refers to the massively widespread ideology according to which the world is naturally and necessarily divided into nations. In Billig's view, this embedding of political ties within a grammar of nationwhich is, it should be said, a relatively recent product of history as the debate on the origin of nations has shown [START_REF] Anderson | Imagined Communities: Reflections On The Origin And Spread Of Nationalism[END_REF][START_REF] Gellner | Nations and nationalism[END_REF]Hobsbawm, 1992) -is an 'international ideology' in the sense that there is no longer any place where we have access to other ways of conceiving of the world's political organisation [START_REF] Billig | Nationalism as an International Ideology: Imagining the Nation, Others and the World of Nations[END_REF]. Without these alternative repertoires, our political imagination is constrained by what seems to be self-evident -the 'naturalness' of the existence of nations. This is why Billig describes this form of nationalism as 'banal'. Unlike 'hot' or vituperative nationalism -the 'return' or the 'rise' of which prompt concerned commentarybanal nationalism slips by unnoticed below the radar of our awareness because we have learned to consider it normal. Throughout our lives, we are reminded of the natural division of the world into nations by a set of 'flags', which are omnipresent in the media, in public discourse, in everyday consumer goods, in cultural objects, and in many other routine aspects of our lives. This flagging endlessly reminds us of our nationality, mainly without our realising it, leading us to forget that humanity was not always divided into nations and that the world could be thought of in different terms.

While many studies have offered accounts of the permanent flagging that perpetuates nationalism, whether banal or politically committed, we know much less about our socialisation to the self-evidence of the nation. Yet this socialisation must necessarily occur in order for reminders of our own national belonging to function. We only know, thanks to K. Throssell, that it seems to take place in early childhood: at the age of 7-8, children have already learned that the world is divided into countries and that it is important for everyone to have 'their own' and to feel a strong attachment to it [START_REF] Throssell | Child and nation : a study of political socialisation and banal nationalism in France and England[END_REF]. Hence the focus of our study in which we wish better to understand how children find themselves coming to grips with this 'international ideology' and hypothesise that this does not just play out on the school stage but also, among other places, in everyday family life, backstage, as it were.

With this in mind, we devised and tested3 a protocol in which we recruit families with at least one child age 5-6 to carry out three 2-3-hour sessions of interviews/activities in the family home. We ask the parents and the child to talk about their everyday family life and more specifically about their relationships to the self-evidence of the nation. Of course, we don't ask this question in this way: we use an indirect approach focusing on narratives of family practices, especially given that our hypothesis is that the self-evidence of the nation and of a sense of belonging is only partly passed on to children as part of an 'educational vision'. When questioned on the matter, most parents do consider it important for their child to know where they come from and for them to have 'roots'. However, parents are rarely aware of the presence of flags (in the literal sense) or other national reminders in their children's bedrooms and much less of any possible continuum between the requirement to 'belong' and holding a preference for one's own nation. We therefore approach these questions largely via projective activities (Anzieu, Chabert & Louët, 2017;[START_REF] Lavabre | Un exemple d'utilisation de méthode projective en sociologie[END_REF] in which we present visual and/or auditory materials to which they are asked to react. We run these interview sessions in pairs because while certain activities do involve all the members of the household, we mainly work in parallel, with one researcher talking to the parents (projective activities and semi-structured interviews) while the other talks to, plays with, or reads stories to the child, preferably in his or her bedroom when he or she agrees. This kind of protocol is quite demanding of the families, if only in terms of the time they have to give us. In order not to limit our sample to families interested in our research, with all the resulting effects particularly in terms of social selection, we decided to compensate the parents for their participation in the study.

Our study therefore involves children and their parents and focuses on what could easily be considered a sensitive topic, i.e. nationalism. It implies collecting data in a 'highly qualitative' manner, insofar as the statements recorded are personal, perhaps even intimate, and the data difficult to anonymise (see below). Finally, it uses an indirect, even projective, approach that might seem to be studying the parents without their full knowledge. All these features led us to worry that it would be difficult to obtain our project's 'entry on the research centre's register of processing operations', which is a prerequisite to beginning field work. Before describing exactly how this process unfolded, we shall begin by explain our understanding of the new GDPR requirements as they apply to researchers of all kinds and particularly in the social sciences.

The GDPR's Key Notions: Personal Data, Information, and Data Protection; 'Special' or Sensitive Data, and Informed Consent

The key resource in France for understanding how GDPR applies to social science research is a document entitled Les sciences humaines et sociales et la protection des données à caractère personnel dans le contexte de la science ouverte [The social sciences and humanities and the protection of personal data in the context of open science] ( [START_REF] André-Poyaud | RGPD -Guide pour SHS[END_REF]. This document provides a detailed account of the reasoning and categories that we should apply to our studiesan account that is far more exact, in legal terms, than the one we shall provide here. In this text, we discuss the GDPR framework for the social sciences in our capacity as social science practitioners and using terms that account for the ways in which we came ultimately to understand the regulation. Any translation implies some form of betrayal of the original, but translation remains essential in order to communicate between different cultural worlds including professional ones. The cost in effort for understanding the rationale of the regulation seemed particular high to us, despite our colleagues' endeavours to explain its subtleties to us. We therefore thought it useful to publish our 'translation', i.e. what we finally understood of it, in everyday language.

We can certainly discuss the effects that the GDPR will have on how we conduct research, but it is important first to recall an essential point: the regulation was not designed foror rather againstthe social sciences. This is obvious every day when we surf the Internet and are now asked to consent to the use of cookies, or when we use services that will involve storing data about us. The regulation is indeed 'General' in the sense that it offers a framework for all social activities in which 'personal data' are produced and above all stored. In reality, research, as a task carried out in the public interest, benefits from certain specific dispositions making it possible (see below).

The GDPR regulation is not so much about how we produce data as it is about what we then do with that data. This sets it apart from the ethics committees 4 which, for many researchers, are now an implicit point of reference when it comes to institutional frameworks overseeing field work. In the case of the GDPR, the concern is not so much with ensuring that our research practices comply with ethical principles as it is with following a legal regulation that aims to protect research participants' personal and identifying data. Of course, the GDPR is linked to ethical issues. It is a legal norm and, as such, it serves to set up a social arbitration of what should and should not occur. However, compared to ethics committees, ensuring study compliance with the GDPR essentially consists in checking that the personal data we process as part of our research is protected, thus safeguarding us from potential legal proceedings on the part of our participants should they disagree with how we use data concerning them.

Before coming back to what taking the GDPR into account actually entails on a concrete level when we conduct research, we shall outline and briefly discuss the types of data underpinning the different levels of protection for which the regulation makes provision. The 'personal data' to which the GDPR refers is information that directly or indirectly allows a person to be identified. In the social sciences, and especially in qualitative studies, it is rare for us to produce and process data that are truly anonymous (i.e. that allow no identification whatsoever, even when cross-referencing information). It is possible to work using categories that are broad enough to make it practically impossible to identify participants, for example age categories rather than a year of birth, broad socio-occupational categories rather than a specific occupation, the general features of the place of residence rather than the actual name of a town, village, etc. Marie Plessz explains that in the case of certain questionnaire-based surveys these operations are possible without being too detrimental to the analysis [START_REF] Plessz | Un protocole pour une enquête par questionnaire anonyme au sens du Règlement européen[END_REF]. Theoretically, this can also be done in qualitative studies. In a recent text, Daniel Bizeul relates how he anonymised a survey of French Front National activists in order to make it available in a databank and emphasises how costly this was. First, because anonymising study material to such a degree that it can be freely consulted requires considerable time. Second, because converting this material also comes at a substantial cost to its sociological quality. By subsuming the diversity, refined and embodied nature of the material we produce within broad and/or neutral categories, we drain it -'clean it', almostof some of its sociological richness. This runs the risk, writes Bizeul, of 'extinguishing all hope of an understanding rooted in the actual lives of human beings' (Bizeul, 2021, in this volume). Faced with these difficulties, working on data that are not anonymous may seem a highly legitimate choice. But then these data must be protected.

In GDPR terms, the social sciences collate four types of data: anonymous data (1), personal data that concern directly or indirectly identifiable natural persons (2), and personal data that are considered 'special' either because they focus on sensitive topics5 (3) or because they entail particular risks (4). The GDPR first establishes that personal data collection and processing must involve providing information to data subjects and making their data secure. It then stipulates that collecting special or risky data is prohibited, but that there are particular provisions including exemptions for 'tasks carried out in the public interest'. State-funded research, especially when conducted in a CNRS research centre, falls under the remit of this exemption. It is therefore entirely legal for researchers to collect and process personal data provided they respect certain conditions, which are more or less demanding depending on ethical, from how the material is produced to how it is archived, including how it is used even when this is for scientific purposes. Ethics committee approval can be a prerequisite for conducting, supporting, or publishing research.

whether or not the data in question fall into the category of sensitive or potentially dangerous data.

Let us look at this in more detail. Data that allow the subject to be identified but are not considered particularly sensitive can be collated and analysed, on several conditions. The first condition is essential and we will come back to it in detail in the third section of this text: the data must be made secure in material terms. At a time when information can be extracted from the Internet in myriad ways, security means ensuring that study materials are not accessible to any person who does not have specific authorisation to consult them. The second condition is that data collection must respect a principle of relevance and proportionality, that is to say the data must correspond to the analytical aims of the research. This requires having a fairly precise idea, from a very early stage, of why we are doing the research, which can prove problematic for any workand this includes most qualitative studiesthat takes an inductive approach. Luckily, the GDPR does make provision for altering and refining the objectives of data processing as the research progresses. It is then necessary to remember to adapt the information given to participants accordingly. This information, which is a requirement of the regulation and which few research centres provided before, must remain available throughout the research process. It must also stipulate what will happen to the data once the results have been published. For as long as we are working on them, they must be stored securely (see below). After they have been processed, however, they must be destroyed, anonymised, or archived on secure storage for future use, solely for the purposes of scientific research.

If the research also focuses on data considered sensitive, a 'principle of lawfulness' must be followed: in our case, this is the exemption in place for tasks carried out in the public interest, combined with the consent of our study participants. The category 'sensitive data' relates to everything concerning opinionspolitical or 'philosophical'as well as health, sexuality, 'ethnic' origin, religious beliefs, trade union membership, and legal data. Up until now, and when the circumstances of access to participants allowed it, some researchers did ask the latter for their consent for ethical reasons. Today, this has become mandatory. Furthermore, when our participants consent to provide us with the data we require, they must also certify that they have been fully informed about the project's uses. In other words, they must understand what we intend to do with the information they give to us and they must know how we intend to store their data, both during and after the research.

The final 'level' of data protection for which the GDPR makes provision concerns data that could place data subjects in danger if revealed. This could be owing to the nature of the information (on sexuality, for example) or to the participants' particular circumstances (especially those who are vulnerable or dependent). Our use of data about them therefore presents risks that extend beyond simply contravening their wishes in terms of what we do with their information. In this case, an extra level of protection is required and in order to define it, it is mandatory to conduct an impact assessment of the effects for these people's privacy.

To summarise, the GDPR does not concern truly anonymous data that do not allow data subjects to be identified, whether directly or indirectly. However, it does require us to limit the personal data we collect and process, to ensure that they are stored securely, and properly to inform the people they concern. Moreover, in theory it prohibits working on data considered to be sensitive but there are exemptions, which include tasks carried out in the public interest such as research in a state research centre. However, in these cases it is still necessary to obtain the participants' informed consent. Finally, if we suspect that disclosure of the data could prove dangerous, an in-depth assessment must be envisaged. The general idea underpinning this mechanism is the following: the information that our participants provide is not a gift that they give us and that we can use in any way we choose. As long as they are alive, these data belong to them. Rather than no longer conducting research with them, we must work on protecting this information, which never belongs to us, and ensure we have the means to prove that we have done so should one of our participants feel aggrieved. To achieve this, certain measures are necessary and we outline these in the two sections that follow.

A Declaration of GDPR Compliance Obtained Without Encountering Opposition

We received our first funding for this study shortly before France went into its first lockdown. The INJEP6 agreed to fund an exploratory phase requiring several series of interviews with families to test our methodology. The lockdown made these interviews impossible, so it seemed sensible to us to use that time to complete the various necessary steps related to the GDPR.

Timeline of our Exchanges with the CNRS Data Protection Department

Our research centre has several parent institutions and could have chosen to refer to the personal data protection department of any one of them. It chose the CNRS Data Protection Department (henceforth DPD), which is run by Gaëlle Bujan. In July 2019, the DPD comprised 6 people responsible for several hundred centres. On 27 March 2020, we sent the first version of our authorisation form, along with the research project and a draft outline of our project intended for our website (we will come back to this), to the address indicated. We immediately received acknowledgement of receipt, signed by the DPD stating that they would get back to us as soon as possible.

On 20 April (in the middle of the lockdown), we had still heard nothing back and wrote to the DPD again stating that we had, in the meantime, put the description of our study online on the Centre Emile Durkheim's website, in accordance with what we had set out we would do a month earlier. Three days later, the head of the department replied asking us for our interview grids. We responded immediately with the provisional 'discussion scenario' we had devised, specifying that the lockdown had prevented us from testing the study protocol as planned. On 5 May, we wrote a follow-up email explaining that we were wondering about the possibility of obtaining 'family' consent rather than individual consent from each parent and childa question we had asked ourselves after having delved further into the literature on studies involving children that emphasises the difficulty of obtaining their consent [START_REF] Davies | Reflexivity in Research Practice : Informed Consent with Children at School and at Home[END_REF].

On 15 May, we received a first substantial reply from Emilie Masson, who is responsible for the DPD's legal coordination, summarising what she had understood of our project in relation to the key points relevant to determining the level of protection necessary for our data. If the data processing took place as part of a research project and in the families' homes, as long as the data did not fall under the category of 'sensitive' data then we did not need to obtain consent unless we intended to film or record our interviews. She also underlined that we should better describe how we intended to ensure the data remained secure, given that the care taken to ensure material data protection is a key point in the new regulation.

We asked to speak to Emilie Masson on the telephone, who agreed to do so that very day. This allowed us to specify the 'sensitive' nature of our data insofar as the parents' opinions on education would necessarily reveal more general opinionsparticularly in 'political, philosophical, and religious' termsand insofar as the detailed presentation of the family would necessarily reveal its members' ethnic or racial characteristics or origin. Following these details, this legal specialist concluded that our data would indeed be sensitive and that we therefore did need to obtain individual consent from the parentsbut not the children because, as she explained to us, it was up to each parent to consent for their child. We therefore sent the completed data protection form back to the DPD and proposed an initial version of the consent form.

On 18 May, a further email from E. Masson raised the question of the transcriptions we had stated we intended to have done by a professional. In the eyes of the law, this meant using the services of a subcontractor. It would therefore be necessary to sign an agreement with that person, in order to make sure that he or she would also ensure the security of the data. However, it was agreed that we could resolve this issue later when we reached that stage. We would simply have to send the agreement to the DPD that would then validate it (after having pointed out any necessary changes), add it to our file, and alter our entry accordingly.

The same day, Sylvie Collignon, a legal assistant in the department who answers the requests for information sent to the DPD, sent us the draft of our study's entry on the research centre's register of processing operations, for verification. As soon as she received our remarks, she provided us with a registration certificate, which gave us de facto authorisation to begin our interviews. It had therefore taken us a little under two months, two dozen emails, and one telephone call to obtain our open sesame, without counting the time it took us to prepare the documents required. Let us now turn to what has to be sent to the DPD as part of this application.

Filling out the Registration Form for the Research Centre's Register of Processing Operations

On a formal, or legal, level, authorisation for researchers to use personal data in their studies is provided by the data processing in question being entered on the research centre's register of processing operations. This is a virtual register, in our case managed by the CNRS Data Protection Department, which in principle concerns all the centre's processing whether scientific or administrative. In order to obtain this entry, a registration form must be filled out and sent to the email address dpd.demandes@cnrs.fr along with a few documents to allow the DPD team to understand the project and determine the necessary level of protection for the data that will be collected and processed. This form can change and indeed, it did change between May when we obtained our entry and November as we are writing these lines. We have attached, as an appendix to this article on the BMS website, the version of the form we filled out and on the basis of which we were authorised to conduct our study. It will be clear that many sections and boxes remain empty insofar as the same document will be used, for example, by a research unit organising a large conference and creating a database of delegates for that purpose. Our form differs quite considerably in its presentation from the version currently distributed by the DPD, but the sections and information requested remain the same. We shall now give a brief overview of this form. Initial entry or modification: this does not require any detailed commentary, other than to note that this first question does indicate that the projector the processingcan be modified. One concern researchers have is that research projects evolve over time. We should not hesitate to inform the DPD of these changes. Unlike ethics committees, the DPD will not refuse authorisation, but it may require reinforced data protection if, for example, the type of data changes as the study progresses.

The first part of the form identifies the stakeholders.

The person responsible for processing: strange as this may seem to researchers, this conforms to the organisational hierarchy of CNRS units and refers to the director of the research centre and not the person conducting or coordinating the study. 7The person responsible for implementation: this does refer to the researcher behind the project whatever his or her status (incidentally, the form itself does not use gender neutral language, but refers to these roles in the masculine singular). This will be the Principle Investigator (PI) in the case of a funded project but also the doctoral student in the case of PhD theses (with the exception of PhDs funded by collective research projects and using the same data).

It should be noted that the new form also specifies the 'department responsible for rights of access and means of exercising that right' that did not exist in the previous version. This refers to the people to whom those interviewees, dissatisfied with how their data has been processed, can turn for explanations and redress. In a SSH research centre such as ours, the person responsible for implementation, i.e. the researcher in charge of the project, fulfils this role if necessary.

Use of a subcontractor: if the team uses a service provider of any kind, this must not only be indicated but an agreement must be signed with that service provider in which they commit to protecting the data and explain how they intend to do so. In our case, this will be the person who will transcribe our interviews, once a protocol has been established by Louisa McDonald (the doctoral student funded by our project) based on transcriptions of the interviews with the test families. Contact person: this simply provides the DPD with the contact details of the person who is going to follow up the processing application. In our case, as with most SSH projects, it is once again the person responsible for implementation, i.e. the person in charge of the study.

The second part of the form aims to explain what exactly the 'processing' of personal data will entail in the case at hand. In our terms, this means providing an outline of the research project. Emphasis is placed on how the project will be implemented but the project's objectives must also be indicated given that, as we have seen, the GDPR establishes a principle of proportionality between the data collected and their intended use. What is the purpose, the objective of the processing? We have to begin by summarising our study's aims in a way that is comprehensible to everyone. The first readers of this document will be the members of the DPD, who are legal experts not social science researchers. It is perfectly possible, and even desirable, to attach the research project itself, but this is more for the file than anything else as it is clear that the people we deal with at the DPD are unlikely to have the time to read it. It is worth polishing the summary of the aims in a few clear sentences as this will be used again for the consent form and the online description of the project. Lawfulness: As we have already mentioned, the GDPR prohibits processing 'special' or sensitive personal data, but with exemptions including tasks carried out in the public interest and state-funded research falls under this category in general. In this case, it is still necessary to obtain informed consent from study participants in order for the processing to be considered lawful. Description of the processing: here the form asks for documents to be attached explaining how the data will be processed. In the case of a qualitative study like ours, which uses interviews, processing in fact refers just as much to how the data will be collected and produced as to the methods of analysis, which are rarely outlined in much detail. It is important to remember also to provide, in addition to the research project, the interview grids or document serving as an equivalent (in our case, the discussion scenario). People concerned by the processing: this refers to our research participants. The number of people will depend from one study to another but for classic qualitative studies we will, in all likelihood, tick the box from 10 to 99. We must also specify, in writing, whether there is anything particularly sensitive regarding these people (all relevant explanations are provided on the form) and how we go about recruiting them. Measures taken to inform people: alongside material data protection, informing data subjects is one of the GDPR's two main ideas. In the case where consent is required, it cannot be simply a verbal agreement or signature, as used to be the case in the past. Consent must be informed, and informed over time insofar as participants must have the possibility to change their mind and request that the information concerning them be withdrawn later, even if they provided (informed) consent at an earlier stage. The information in question is therefore twofold: as we have already seen, it focuses on the project, its purposes, the data collected, and what will be done with it; but it also focuses on the participants' rights, on what we must tell them about the study, on the fact that they are not obliged to participate, and on their right to withdraw at any time. Finally, we must be able to provide evidence of this information in the case of an appeal.

For our study, we therefore chose to provide information in two ways: the first when we obtain consent and begin to collect data and the second to ensure that any participants who experience doubts can retrieve the information and ask for further information or for their data to be withdrawn from the study. The first method consists in giving the parents a document, at the time of the first interview, with all the information listed on the form, that is to say: 'The people concerned must be informed, at the moment of data collection, of the identity of the controller, the purposes of the processing, whether responses are obligatory or optional, any potential consequences they might face for failing to respond, the recipients of the data, how long the data will be stored, and their right to object, their rights of access to and rectification, erasure, and limitation of personal data, their right to data portability, and how to exercise these rights, as well as the legal basis for the data processing and their right to file a complaint with the CNIL [French data protection agency]' (Registration form for the CNRS DPD register, June 2020 version, p. 6). The 'Guide de l'InSHS' offers a template for both the information document and the consent form (André-Poyaud et al., 2019, p. 29 sq.), however the language is very technical and legal. Given how dry it is, it seemed necessary to us to translate this information into more down-to-earth language that 'de-judiciarised' it somewhat, in order to avoid placing our research relationship with the study participants on that level. 8In order to do this translation, we drew on the work we did to devise our second mode of information, i.e. the page we drafted for our research centre website to ensure the information was available in the long term. In our experience, participants do not take particular care to keep the document we give them to read, far from it. It is therefore important that they can easily find us again if they have any concerns later on. Breaking down this information and putting it online helped us to express it in less dry terms. https://durkheim.u-bordeaux.fr/Organisation-de-la-recherche/Identifications/Projetsfinances/ETPAF. 9 We then reused this information to put together the document we would give to participants when obtaining their consent, referring them to the website for more detailed information.

The third part of the form focuses on the data themselves. It has to allow the DPD to assess the necessary level of protection for GDPR compliance: are these personal data, but which could be disclosed without major consequences? Are the data sensitive, therefore requiring absolute confidentiality? Or even data which could endanger the subjects if they were disclosed? Description of the data: an initial table makes it possible to look through a series of types of personal data, from civil status to geolocation or professional and financial data. These must be listed and it must be stipulated how the data will be collected and how long they will be stored: here we advise indicating the estimated time until the end of publications, so about five or six years. This table is then supplemented by a second one for providing details of the special data that we often refer to as 'sensitive' data. Based on these tables, the DPD is then able to establish that the principle of proportionality between the purposes of the research and the data collected has been respected, and then to assess, first, whether or not the data subjects' consent is necessary, and second, whether a more stringent mechanism should be considered because collecting and potentially disclosing this data could put participants at risk. Recipients of the data: another table requires us to list one by one the different recipients of the data, before specifying in detail any that (potentially) concern the circulation of the data outside the E.U. At this stage, it is necessary to think about how the data will be passed on from one team member to another.

The fourth and final part of the form is devoted to data security. It seemed to us more complicated to fill out than the previous part because it related to issues about which we were not well-informed, particularly making data secure in a digital format. Above all, it called into question very fundamentally theadmittedly quite cavalierways in which we tend to work. Technological progress, from tape recorders to smartphones with sophisticated microphones, and from typewriters to our constantly connected laptops, has considerably facilitated the collection of opinions. The permanent circulation of the information we store on our mobile phones and laptop computers (which now happens largely without our knowledge) makes it imperative for us to take measures to ensure that our study data does not fall into other hands, given that it is now clear that while we may have produced them, they do not belong to us. Data location: the first technical issue to deal with is determining where our data will be stored. There is no longer any question of us leaving them on our computer hard drives without protection nor of keeping multiple back ups on USB keys or Dropbox files. Yet our research centre, like many others, does not possess a secure server. It is therefore necessary either for it to invest in one, with the help of its parent institutions, or for our computers to be properly encrypted and for us to ban any transfer of data by email or other non-secure means, and to purchase encrypted and protected USB keys for backups. Other security measures: the table itself is not especially informative for studies such as ours, where there is little question of users, accreditation, incidents, etc. We can tick the boxes corresponding to the 'cryptographic functions' but for those who, like us, are really not very familiar with these issues, it is better to describe in words that the DPD will be able to interpret exactly how we intend to ensure the confidentiality of our recordings, photographs, field notes, and transcriptions.

This question of the material security of the data does not only concern researchers. They will need the necessary equipment and this is going to require research centres, including ours, to make certain changes. To conclude this section looking at the authorisation request in practice, let us return quickly to the collective dimension of the reorganisation required by the GDPR.

Organisation at the Level of Research Centres

The application for an entry to be made on the research centre's register of processing operations must make it possible to check that the studies conducted there comply with GDPR requirements and to anticipate any potential legal proceedings that could be brought about by participants who feel aggrieved by the way their personal data has been processed and disseminated. In this case, it is the Director of the Research Unit (DR) who is responsible and the penalties are severe: up to five years in prison and a 300,000-euro fine (Article 226-16 of the Penal Code). But it is also possible that the person responsible for implementation will be prevented from completing the research.

Insofar as they are responsible for processing operations in their research centres, it is up to the DRs to make material provision for study data to be stored securely. This can potentially lead to directors monitoring the studies being carried out in ways that researchers may experience as constraining. It is also probable, however, that the DRs find it just as disagreeable to have to deal with concerns about the security of the data processed in their centres and to play the role of inspector. In order to ensure that GDPR compliance does not create tensions between colleagues, it is therefore important for all researchers, whatever their status, to truly take this new regulatory situation into account. We have just seen that this does not only mean asking participants for their informed consent. In fact, the fixation that researchers have with the question of consent can be a problem because it overshadows the question of data security, which is really at the heart of the GDPR.

In concrete terms, these data must be stored on encrypted hard drives, keys, or computers, and must be transferred securely between the different project partners whose identities must all have been declared. Furthermore, access to the consent forms (which are by definition personal data) must be materially protected. One possible optionthe one adopted by the research unit where we workis to store them in a safe on the premises. Copies of study data, on encrypted storage, can also be kept there (which presents the advantage that we would not lose everything if our computers, hard drives, and work keys were lost or stolen). It is therefore necessary for research centres to set themselves up so that all people who collect and analyse personal databeginning with doctoral studentshave access to secure storage materials and transfer procedures. This represents a considerable investment. One option, in line with proposals for other expenses, would be to use the budgets of externally funded projects to buy some of the necessary material, especially for doctoral students, as a way of compensating for the projects' administrative costs for the research centre but also of balancing out resources among colleagues.

We must also organise ourselves collectively to learn to fill out the registration forms for the research centre's register of processing operations as efficiently as possible. The DPD team is small and if we want them to remain available to help researchers and their centres, and particularly if we want them to be able to process our initial requests and changes without too much delay, it is important that we send them the clearest forms possible. Each study, and so each processing operation, is unique, but the answers that need to be provided in order to secure the data are not, especially within the same professional environment, insofar as these answers are determined to a considerable extent by research traditions and the material way work is organised. Within research centres, or certainly within ours, support staff are too few and far between for us to be able to consider delegating all this extra work to them. It is necessary for researchers to share their experiences in order to make sense of a procedure which, in light of our own experience, can actually mean more than simply an extra layer of administration.

It means more, but what? How can we claim, as we did in our introduction, that by giving ourselves the means to respect the GDPR, we can contribute to 'protecting the pleasure we derive from doing research'? In what ways and at what points can we be said, with our project, to have "protect[ed] the pleasure we derive from our research by taking on board the rules and adapting our methods in ways that then lend meaning to the changes we make' as announced in our introduction? This text intends to help our colleagues better understand what the GDPR expects of us. We have therefore given a detailed account of how we filled in the form and obtained authorisation for our project. Beyond the laborious side of the procedures and timeframes, we also want to show how taking the GDPR principles seriously, and especially 'informed consent', led us to develop our study methods in productive ways.

An Additional Participatory Science Component

For our study on family transmission of banal nationalism, we brought together a team of researchers from different disciplines. We realised, as we wrote the project and during our initial meetings, that everyone on the team was not necessarily equally convinced by the hypothesis of banal nationalism, i.e. the omnipresence of the notion of nation in how people represent their place in the world and its harmful effects. From this perspective, we had initially suggested a title for the project that made explicit our hypothesis that nation was central in the points of reference passed on to children regarding politics and identity: 'Red, white, and blue teddies: Study of family transmission of the sense of nationhood. However, our colleagues luckily made two remarks. First, in terms of the project's content, given that to them it was not necessarily self-evident that the nation was central among all the frameworks of belonging given to children, we would have to begin by proving this. Second, in terms of how the project was presented, they were worried that for most people, the notion of 'Red, white, and blue teddies' and 'the sense of nationhood would be seen as referring to far right political positions, from which is it considered good form to distance oneself, and that this therefore was a far too divisive way of presenting our project.10 Before submitting the last version of our project, and thus before beginning our administrative steps with the DPD, we therefore returned to the 'nationalism' variable in our study and to how we presented it.

In terms of the substance, we wanted to give ourselves, collectively, the means to understand how our participants connected their ties to the nation with the other sociopolitical communities to which they might potentially feel they belonged, even though we (the two authors of this text) remain convinced that this will demonstrate banal nationalismin other words, the all-powerful nature of the framework of nationhood in socialisation to the political order. In terms of the form, we tried to avoid using terms that referred, in everyday language, to political positions with which it might be politically costly to align oneself. Our title therefore changed to 'Study on early childhood transmission of forms of belonging in the family context'which in French gave us a nicely energetic acronym: ETPAF 11 .

When we started the process for obtaining authorisation for our project, we therefore presented the study and its aims by expanding the forms of belongings that we stated we wanted to investigate. It was therefore based on this information that our participants would consent (or not) to participate in the study. However, we soon began to feel disloyal towards these people whom we were going to ask to confirm that we had told them everything about the purposes of the study before they consented. Projective methods pose ethical problems because they do not give participants all the tools to direct their replies and they therefore establish a profound inequality in the exchange and production of knowledgethis idea is not new. Almost fifty years ago, the feminist sociologist Liliane Kandel used this argument to critique the unstructured interview, itself partly inspired by clinical psychology [START_REF] Duchesne | Entretien non-préstructuré, stratégie de recherche et étude des représentations. Ou : peut-on déjà faire l'économie de l'entretien "non-directif[END_REF][START_REF] Kandel | Réflexions sur l'usage de l'entretien, notamment non-directif, et sur les études d'opinion[END_REF]. However, at the time, it was rare for the issue of inequalities in the social division of the questioning process to be raised. The data that participants produced by complying with sociologists' requests were considered to be the property of these sociologists. And above all, interviewees were not asked for their informed consent.

The GDPR, on the other hand, states that the very personaland both identifying and sensitivestatements produced by participants in study protocols such as ours in ETPAF remains the property of those participants, i.e. of the parents in our case. Furthermore, it requires us not only to obtain their consent to the study but also to ensure that when they give this consent, they explicitly state that they are fully aware of the reasons why we are asking for their participation. It soon seemed to us that concealing the reality of our questions about nationalism, in both the title and the brief presentation of our study, equated to a lack of loyalty even though this omission was scientifically justified.

In order to 'make up' for this and not walk away from 'our' families at the end without having actually enlightened them about our intentions, we eventually introduced a discussion at the end of each series of interviews that focused on our hypothesis that the notion of 'nation' is a central point of reference in our systems of belonging. Mirroring the beginning of the very first session, in which the two investigators take time to present the study to the parents and obtain their informed consent, in this final sequence of the third interview, we explain the theory of banal nationalism. In doing so, we use skills we learnt during a popular education training session that we attended to devise a conférence gesticulée (or 'dramatised popular lecture'; see https://conferences-gesticulees.net/) on banal nationalism. We begin with the idea that nations are socially constructed and historically recent and then discuss how we are led to forget these facts, in the day-to-day, in banal ways which instead impose the idea that nations are eternal and thus inescapablein political discourse, in media coverage of current affairs, in the way products we buy every day are marketed, and so on.

This change in our interview scenario came from the need to inform our participants as much as possible about our hypotheses, but it in fact led to discussions that were far richer than we could ever have imagined. During the test interviews, it seemed to us that our participants had truly grasped the aspects of their relationship to the world on which our work was focusing. There were some very meaningful moments when they seemed to be questioning, with us, the ways in which nationalism weighs upon our lives, their lives, and right into their homes and their children's bedrooms. In other words, there was clearly informed consent, even though the full information was only provided at the end of each series of interviews.

In our case, GDPR compliance afforded us an opportunity to add a 'participatory science' dimension, with hints of popular education, into our study protocol itself, despite this not being initially planned when we put the project together. Of course, it did not force us to do so: the way this unfolded in our case was also the result of our own research perspectives. While we are not yet in a position fully to assess the consequences in terms of the material we have collected, we do find very promising first, the research relationship it allowed us to establish with our participants and second, the co-construction of knowledge it allowed us to initiate.

In point of fact, the GDPR does establish a change in the relationship between science and society (among the other areas of social activities it regulates). The academic world has long been inhabited like a fortress by those within its walls and experienced as such by those outside them. In fact the very etymology of the word 'university' refers back to the image of an autonomous space withdrawn from the agitation of the world [START_REF] Verger | Les universités au Moyen Age[END_REF]. And while this relative autonomy is beneficial in several respects [START_REF] Lahire | Pour la sociologie et pour en finir avec une prétendue « culture de l'excuse[END_REF], it seems to us that the argument of the 'exceptional' nature of universities can also pose problems, especially when it is marshalled to justify practices that are both questionable and rarely absolutely necessary, e.g. recording interviewees without their knowledge, disclosing information concerning them without worrying about whether or not they might be identifiable, keeping their statements on record when they do not wish this to be the case, and so on. For those of us who conduct our research with people we often refer to as 'ordinary citizens', the GDPR establishes a more symmetrical relationship. At the very least, by stating firmly that the data concerning our participants belong to them and that we must negotiate our access to and use of these data with them, it forces us to work 'with' them, to some extent, rather than 'on' them. And this is perhaps no bad thing. This is the meaning we wanted to give to the expression we borrowed from Ruth Bader Ginsburg: 'time is on the side of change'. When she was fighting to change the law, there had already been a shift towards greater equality between men and women in many segments of society. But it took considerable effort to get this change enshrined in law. Here, on the contrary, it seems to us that the principle of equality regarding personal information that is enshrined in law by the GDPR, and that most of us no doubt consider to be beneficial, has yet to be accepted where research is concerned. This is no doubt a further loss to the privileges of universities at a time when their monopoly over the production of knowledge is also disappearing. While in many respects, this is regrettable,12 as academics we can also rejoice when the erosion of some of these privileges helps us to establish less unequal relationships with others, especially in the case of research relationships with our study participants. We wager that for the kind of studies that we carry out, engaging in a more participatory form of science will in fact enhance the quality of our research.

it is thanks to their help. Finally, we extend our warm thanks to Lucy Garnier who translated this text with great accuracy and faithfulness.

The expression we have chosen for the title of our article is a famous quote from the United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who passed away the day we began writing this text and to whom we are pleased to pay tribute. She declared in a

interview with the New York Times that 'The side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they're fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change'.2 We are referring here to the first lockdown enforced in France to fight against the Covid-19 pandemic, which lasted from 17 March to 11 May 2020.

We are still in the experimental phase of the project which is continuing to evolve, because we have just brought into the team a doctoral student, Louisa McDonald, who will add a further data collection phase into our current protocol to feed into her PhD work.

These bodies regulating research practices are above all present in Anglo-American countries (for a polemical overview, see[START_REF] Haggerty | Ethics Creep: Governing Social Science Research in the Name of Ethics[END_REF]; and for a discussion by researchers less directly concerned by ethics committees, because they work in France, see[START_REF] Vassy | Faut-il contrôler les aspects éthiques de la recherche en sciences sociales, et comment?[END_REF]. The committees determine whether or not research is

The data in question are 'data that reveal purported racial origin or ethnic origin, political opinions, philosophical or religious beliefs, trade union membership, sexual orientation, health data, biometric data allowing a person to be identified, genetic data'(André-Poyaud et al., 2019, p. 11). Translator's note: unless otherwise indicated, all translations from French sources are my own.

Institut National pour la Jeunesse et l'Éducation Populaire [National Institute of Youth and Popular Education].

It should be noted that several people can be responsible if the project is run by several research units or institutions.

See the document provided as supplementary material on the BMS website.

The CED communication officer, Caroline Sagat, helped us considerably by suggesting a simple and legible format for the document we gave her. Based on that, the centre is now putting together a template for the 'research project' page which will have to be filled out for all those who ask for processing authorisation from the DPDexcept in cases where there is an exception because the study makes it impossible to obtain informed consent, for example in the study of illegal behaviour.

Whereas for us, convinced as we have been for some time now by the arguments of banal nationalism, respectable patriotism and moderate forms of belief in national legitimacy (such as preferring to buy national products or being convinced of the differences between peoples) are not any less nationalist than the arguments of the Rassemblement national (France's far right political party, formerly the Front National).

The successive university reforms that have been introduced in France, but also in other countries, offer a clear demonstration of this 'bringing up to date' -some might say 'bringing into line'of higher education and research. The increasing job insecurity affecting our profession, which we rightfully decry, can therefore be analysed as a generalisation of situations observed in other sectors[START_REF] Balsiger | Why a special issue on 'precarity'?[END_REF]. Similarly, a further indicator of this trend is the amendment to the Loi de programmation de la recherche [Bill on multi-annual programming for research] adopted in November 2020, aimed at criminalising university sit-ins thereby putting an end to a kind of 'exemption' inherited from long ago.

Acknowledgements

We would like sincerely to thank our colleagues who read this text and offered many comments and suggestions: Camille Bedock, Alexia Boucherie, Damien Cartron, Delphine Coudrin, Dominique Darbon, Florence Delmotte, Maël Gauneau, Xabier Itçaina, Viviane Le Hay, Irene Lizzola, Violaine Rebouillat, Isabelle Rigoni, Emilie Ronflard, Caroline Sagat, Andy Smith, Alina Surubaru, Benoit Tudoux, and Cécile Vigour. Having been fortunate enough to receive so much helpful advice, we were not able to include it all, but this in no way detracts from our appreciation. We would also like to express our immense gratitude to the members of the CNRS DPDespecially Gaëlle Bujan and Emilie Massonfor their detailed feedback. If this text faithfully communicates the spirit, if not the letter, of the GDPR,

Funding

The research on which this article is based receives the following funding: INJEP, convention 2020-001-MER; DEPS (Ministry of culture), convention 2020; Changes Department, Bordeaux University, program 2020; Region Nouvelle Aquitaine, contract AAPR2020F-2019-8102110.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.


est destinée au dépôt

  Baseline characteristics, management, and predictors of early mortality in cardiogenic shock: insights from the FRENSHOCK registry Clement Delmas, François Roubille, Nicolas Lamblin, Laurent Bonello, Guillaume Leurent, Bruno Levy, Meyer Elbaz, Nicolas Danchin, Sebastien Champion, Pascal Lim, et al. To cite this version: Clement Delmas, François Roubille, Nicolas Lamblin, Laurent Bonello, Guillaume Leurent, et al.. Baseline characteristics, management, and predictors of early mortality in cardiogenic shock: insights from the FRENSHOCK registry. ESC Heart Failure, 2022, 9 (1), pp.408-419. 10.1002/ehf2.13734. hal-03506382


Liang Ma
email: liang.ma@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr

Damien Chablat
email: damien.chablat@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr

Fouad Bennis
email: fouad.bennis@irccyn.ec-nantes.fr

Wei Zhang
email: zhangwei@tsinghua.edu.cn

François Guillaume
email: francois.guillaume@eads.net

A new muscle fatigue and recovery model and its ergonomics application in human simulation

Keywords: digital human modelling, human simulation, muscle fatigue and recovery model, physical fatigue evaluation, objective work evaluation, ergonomics analysis

Although automatic techniques have been employed in manufacturing industries to increase productivity and efficiency, there are still lots of manual handling jobs, especially for assembly and maintenance jobs. In these jobs, musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) are one of the major health problems due to overload and cumulative physical fatigue. With combination of conventional posture analysis techniques, digital human modelling and simulation (DHM) techniques have been developed and commercialized to evaluate the potential physical exposures. However, those ergonomics analysis tools are mainly based on posture analysis techniques, and until now there is still no fatigue index available in the commercial software to evaluate the physical fatigue easily and quickly. In this paper, a new muscle fatigue and recovery model is proposed and extended to evaluate joint fatigue level in manual handling jobs. A special application case is described and analyzed by digital human simulation technique.

Automation in industry has been increased in recent years and more and more efforts have been made to achieve efficient and flexible manufacturing. However, manual work is still very important due to increase of customized products and human's capability of learning and adapting [FM1]. Musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is the injuries and disorders to muscles, nerves, tendons, ligaments, joints, cartilage and spinal discs [START_REF] Maier | Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders[END_REF]. From the report of Health, Safety and Executive [H1] and the report of Washington State Department of Labor and Industries [S1], over 50% of workers in industry have suffered from musculoskeletal disorders, especially for manual handling jobs. According to the analysis in Occupational Biomechanics [START_REF] Chaffin | Occupational Biomechanics[END_REF], "Overexertion of muscle force or frequent high muscle load is the main reason for muscle fatigue, and furthermore, it results in acute muscle fatigue, pain in muscles and severe functional disability in muscles and other tissues of the human body". Hence, it is very important for ergonomists to find an efficient method to assess the extent of various physical exposures on muscles and to predict muscle fatigue in the work design stage. In order to assess physical risks to MSDs, there are several posture based ergonomics tools for posture analysis, such as Posturegram, Ovako Working Posture Analyzing System (OWAS), Posture Targeting and Quick Exposure Check for work-related musculoskeletal risks (QEC). In spite of these general posture analysis tools, some special tools are designed for specific parts of the human body. Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA) is designed for assessing the severity of postural loading for the upper extremity. The similar systems include HAMA (Hand-Arm-Movement Analysis), PLIBEL (method for the identification of musculoskeletal stress factors that may have injurious effects) [START_REF] Stanton | Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods[END_REF]. Similar to these methods for posture analysis, there is one tool available for fatigue analysis and that is muscle fatigue analysis (MFA). This technique was developed to characterize the discomfort described by workers on automobile assembly lines and fabrication tasks [R1]. In this method, each body part is scaled into four effort levels according to its working position, duration of the effort, and frequency. The combination of the three factors' levels can determine a "priority to change" score. The task with a high priority score needs to be analyzed and redesigned to reduce the MSD risks [START_REF] Stanton | Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods[END_REF][START_REF] Rodgers | Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods[END_REF]. After listing these available methods, physical exposure to MSD can be evaluated with respect to its intensity (or magnitude), repetitiveness, and duration [START_REF] Li | Current techniques for assessing physical exposure to work-related musculoskeletal risks, with emphasis on posture-based methods[END_REF]. However, there are still several limitations with the traditional methods. First, the evaluation techniques lack precision and their reliability of the system is a problem for assessing the physical exposures due to their intermittent recording procedures [B1]. Second, most of the traditional methods have to be carried out on site. Therefore, there is no immediate result from the observation. It is also time consuming for later analysis. Furthermore, subjective variability can influence the evaluation results when using the same observation methods for the same task [START_REF] Hanson | The Influence of virtual human model appearance on visual ergonomics posture evaluation[END_REF]. In order to evaluate the human work condition objectively and quickly, digital human techniques have been developed to facilitate the ergonomic evaluation, such as Jack [START_REF] Badler | Simulating Humans: Computer Graphics Animation and Control[END_REF], ErgoMan [START_REF] Schaub | A computer-aided tool for ergonomic workplace design and preventive health care[END_REF], 3DSSPP [C1], Santos [V1]. These techniques have been used in the fields of automotive, military, and aerospace. These human modelling and simulation tools provide mainly visualization information about body posture; accessibility and field of view [START_REF] Hanson | The Influence of virtual human model appearance on visual ergonomics posture evaluation[END_REF]. Combining Digital Mock-Up (DMU) with digital human models (DHM), the simulated human associated with graphics could supply visualization of the work design, and it could decrease the design time and enhance the number and quality of design options that could be rapidly evaluated by the design analysts [C2]. Traditional posture analysis tools have been integrated into these simulation tools for computerization. For example, in 3DSSPP, in CATIA, and in other simulation tools, RULA, OWAS and some other posture analysis tools have been integrated as a module to evaluate the postures in design stage. In these digital human simulation tools, it is possible to generate the motion for certain task, and the load of each key joint and even each muscle can be determined and simulated. In [START_REF] Jayaram | Introducing quantitative analysis methods into virtual environments for real-time and continuous ergonomic evaluations[END_REF], a method to link virtual environment (Jack) and a quantitative ergonomic analysis tool (RULA) for occupational ergonomics studies was developed. This framework verified the conception of evaluating ergonomics study in real time manner by obtaining human motion from motion capture system. However, even today, there is still no effective method in these digital human modelling and simulation tools to predict human motion with consideration of muscle fatigue, and there is still no fatigue evaluation tool integrated in these human simulation tools. Therefore, it is necessary to develop the muscle fatigue model and then integrate it into the virtual human software to evaluate muscle fatigue and specifically analyze the physical work, and even predict the human motion by minimizing the fatigue. Several muscle fatigue models and fatigue indices have been proposed in the literature. In a series of publications [WD1, DW1, DW2, and DW3], a new muscle fatigue model based on Ca 2+ cross-bridge mechanism was verified by stimulation experiments. This model based on the physiological mechanism seems too complex for ergonomic application due to its large number of variables. Another muscle fatigue model [START_REF] Giat | A Musculotendon Model of the Fatigue Profiles of Paralyzed Quadriceps Muscle Under FES[END_REF] based on force-pH relationship was obtained by curve fitting of the pH level with time in the course of stimulation and recovery. Komura et al. [START_REF] Komura | Calculation and Visualization of the Dynamic Ability of the Human Body[END_REF][START_REF] Komura | Creating and retargetting motion by the musculoskeletal human[END_REF] have used this model in computer graphics to visualize the muscle capacity. However, in this pH muscle fatigue model, all the influences on fatigue from physical aspects are not considered. Rodriguez proposed a half-joint fatigue index in the literature [RB1, RB2, and RB3] based on mechanical properties of muscle groups. This fatigue model was used to calculate the fatigue at joint level, and the fatigue level is expressed as the actual holding time normalized by maximum holding time of the half-joint. The maximum holding time equation of this model was from static posture analysis and it is mainly suitable for evaluating static postures. Because of these limitations in current existing fatigue models, a new simple model is necessary to evaluate the fatigue. In this paper, we are going to present a new framework to evaluate the manual handling jobs objectively and quickly in a virtual environment. In this framework, a new muscle fatigue and recovery model is integrated to evaluate the fatigue and decide the work-rest schedule. A simplified geometrical and biomechanical model of arm is constructed to calculate the load of each joint using inverse dynamics. A special case in EADS is used to evaluate the fatigue of the manual handling job.

2-Framework for the fatigue analysis

In order to evaluate manual handling work objectively and effectively, a framework based on virtual reality technique is graphically presented in Figure 1. The overall function of the framework is to fieldindependently evaluate the difficulty of human mechanical work including fatigue, comfort and other aspects. The framework consists of three main modules: virtual environment module, data collection module, and evaluation module. The module of virtual environment technique and virtual human technique is used to provide the virtual working environment and to avoid field-dependent work evaluation. Based on VE, immersive work simulation system is constructed to provide the virtual working environment. Virtual human is modelled and driven by the motion data to generate the manual handling job in the virtual environment. Another component, haptic interface is used to enable the interactions between the worker and virtual environment. Data collection module is responsible for obtaining all the necessary information for further data processing. From the introduction part, necessary information for evaluating dynamic manual handling jobs consists of motion, forces and personal factors. To achieve the motion data, motion capture technique can be applied to achieve the motion information with individuality. Nevertheless, the motion information can also be achieved from some existing human simulation tools. Personal factors can be obtained from anthropometry database or measurements. The forces can be measured by force measurement devices or known external loads. The evaluation module takes all the input data to evaluate the manual operation. In this module, evaluation criteria of all

Paper Number -3- Copyright IDMME -Virtual Concept
the aspects of the manual operation are predefined in the framework, such as posture analysis criteria, fatigue criteria and discomfort criteria. With these criteria, different aspect can be evaluated by processing the input data.

The detailed technical analysis of the framework was presented in the literature [START_REF] Ma | Framework for Dynamic Evaluation of Muscle Fatigue in Manual Handling Work[END_REF], and here we just make a brief introduction to its work flow. In this framework, at first the manual handling operation is carried out in the virtual environment module. Virtual working environment is provided for visualization. Human's motion in a manual handling operation is either captured from motion capture system or simulated using human simulation software. The motion information combined with the interaction information with the virtual environment is collected and further processed in the objective work evaluation module. In this module, with the predefined criteria, different aspects of the manual operation can be evaluated. The evaluation results can be used for further improvement of the work design.

3-Muscle fatigue and recovery model

Muscle fatigue is defined as the point at which the muscle is no longer able to sustain the required force or work output level [V1].

cem cem dF R MVC F dt   (3)
Therefore, the F cem can be determined by Eq. (4) 0 ( )

t R t cem cem F MVC F MVC e     (4)
With this recovery model, the recovery time from a certain fatigue level F 0 cem to p percentage of MVC can be determined by Eq. (5).

0 1 ( 1) cem p MVC t R F MVC             (5)

3.3-Extension of this model to joint level

The muscles attached around a joint are responsible for generating torque to move the joint or keep it stable for maintaining the external load. There are several muscle engaged in generating a simple movement of the arm. Mathematically, to determine the efforts of each muscle involved in the movement is an underdetermined problem, so it is difficult to determine the actual load of each muscle.

Although some optimisation methods have been created to solve force distribution problem in muscle levels, it is not easy to achieve the accurate result for each individual muscle. However, according to inverse dynamics, it is accurate enough to calculate the torque of each joint. And meanwhile, in ergonomics application, the analysts do often evaluate the physical exposures in joint level. MVC is sometimes defined In our research project, the application case is junction of two fuselage section with rivets from the assembly line of a virtual aircraft. One part of the job consists of drilling holes all around the section. The properties of this task can be described in natural language as: drilling holes around the fuselage circumference. The number of the holes could be up to 2000 under real work conditions. The drilling machine has a weight around 5 kg, and even up to 7 kg in the worst condition with consideration of the pipe weight. The drilling force applied to the drilling machine is around 49N. In general, it takes 30 seconds to finish a hole. The drilling operation is graphically shown in Figure 2. In this application case, there are several ergonomics issues and several physical exposures contribute to the difficulty and penalty of the job. It includes posture, heavy load from the drilling effort, the weight of the drilling machine, and vibration. Muscle fatigue is mainly caused by the load on certain postures, and the vibration might result in damage to some other tissues of arm. To maintain the drilling work for a certain time, the load could cause fatigue in elbow, shoulder, and lower back. In this paper, the analysis is only carried out to evaluate the fatigue of right arm in order to verify the conception of the framework. The vibration is excluded from the analysis. Further more, the external loads are divided by two in order to simplify the calculation, for two arms are usually engaged in drilling operation.

4.2-Geometrical modelling of arm

According to the new fatigue model, it is important to calculate the joint torques of human; therefore, geometrical model of the right arm is developed using the modified Denavit-Hartenberg (DH) notation methods [START_REF] Khalil | A new geometric notation for open and close-loop robots[END_REF] to describe the geometric structure of the right arm. In modified DH notation system, four parameters are used to describe the transformation between two Cartesian coordinates in Figure 3.

1. α j : angle between axes Z j-1 and Z j around the axis X j-1 .

2. d j : distance between axes Z j-1 and Z j along the axis X j-1 .

3. θ j : angle between axes X j-1 and X j around the axis Z j 4. r j : distance between axes X j-1 and X j along the axis Z j .

From anatomic, the shoulder joint allows the movement as a sphere joint in flexion and extension, adduction and abduction, and supination and pronation directions. Elbow joint is able to move in flexion and extension direction and supination and in pronation direction. The shoulder complex is separated into 3 rotational joints and the elbow joint is separated into 2 rotational joints shown in Figure 4. Each joint has its own joint coordinate system defined in DH notation system, and the joint can only rotate around its Z-axis within rotation limits. The anatomical function of each joint is explained in Table 2. The parameters in modified DH notation system are listed in Table 3, and the transformation matrix between current joint coordinate to precedent joint coordinate is Eq. ( 6). The right arm is geometrically represented by a chain of rotational joints, by a general vector q=[q 1 ,q 2 ,q 3 ,q 4 ,q 5 ]. Each element q i represents the rotation angle around the Z-axis in R i . Once the geometrical configuration q is given, the posture of the arm can be fixed. The arm is segmented into two parts: upper arm and forearm (hand included). Each part of the arm is simplified to a cylinder form and assumed a uniform distribution of density in order to calculate its moment of inertia. The weight and dimensional information of the arm can be achieved from anthropometry in occupational biomechanics [START_REF] Chaffin | Occupational Biomechanics[END_REF] by Eq. (7) and Eq. ( 8), with M as weight of the digital human and H as height of digital human. Once the weight m and cylinder radius r and height h are known, its inertia moment around its long axis can be determined by a diagonal matrix in Eq. (9).

σ α d r θ θ ini 1 0 -π/2 0 0 θ 1 -π/2 2 0 -π/2 0 0 θ 2 -π/2 3 0 -π/2 0 -RL3 θ 3 -π/2 4 0 -π/2 0 0 θ 4 0 5 0 π/2 0 0 θ 5 0
θ θ d α θ α θ α r α T α θ α θ α r α                    (6)
f f f u u u h H r h h H r h            (8) 2 2 2 2 2 diag , , 4 12 4 12 2 G mr mh mr mh mr I            (9)
In our case, a digital human weighted as 70 kg and with a height as 1.70m is chosen to calculate those parameters of the right arm.

4.4-Calculation of internal joint forces and torques

The source of the external load is original from two parts: the gravity of the drilling machine with direction vertical down, and the drilling effort in direction of the hole. The forces and torques at each joint can be calculated following Newton-Euler inverse dynamic methods mentioned in book [START_REF] Khalil | Modelling, identification and control of robots[END_REF]. At the end, the forces and torques are projected into general joint coordinates to calculate the effort generating the corresponding movement of the joint.

4.5-Fatigue evaluation of the joints

As mentioned in the fatigue model, it is necessary to find out the joint strength in order to evaluate the joint fatigue. The standard strength data of shoulder and elbow can be obtained from the occupational biomechanics [START_REF] Chaffin | Occupational Biomechanics[END_REF]. The flexion strength of shoulder and elbow are mainly depending on gender and flexion angles of the arm. In this case, the q 1 and q 4 are used as variables to calculate the joint strength. The result of the joint strength is the mean value Γ j of the population and its standard deviation σ j . In order to analyze the compatibility of the population, 95% (Γ j ±2σ j ) population is taken into consideration in our analysis. As an example, the elbow flexion strength for the 95% male adult population is graphically shown in With the new fatigue model, a continuous work procedure is evaluated under a geometrical configuration of the arm listed in Table 5. Δq 1 means the flexion of the shoulder, and Δq 4 means the flexion of the shoulder. The sign of both variables indicates the rotation direction around its Z-axis. With this geometrical configuration, the strength and variation of the joint can be determined, and they are also listed in Table 5. Different external load generates different torque in flexion joints.

5-Results and Discussion

5.1-Results

5.1.1-Endurance Time for continuous work

The endurance time for the static posture is listed in Table 6. Under the same geometrical configuration, different load influences the endurance time. For shoulder, even the difference of the shoulder load is about 4 Nm, but it could decrease almost one forth of endurance time. The higher external load is, the shorter endurance time for maintaining the job is. It is quite clear that different capacity of the population can do the same task with quite different performance. It varies from 60 s to 450 s for drilling a same hole until exhausted stage. For maintaining the posture, the shoulder and elbow have different endurance time. For the overall work capacity evaluation, the minimum capacity is used to avoid any injury on human body. From the last two rows of Table 6, the number of holes which the worker is able to drill in a continuous working procedure is shown. Using our fatigue index, the fatigue of each joint is also evaluated. For drilling only one hole in 30 seconds, the maximum fatigue index occurs at the negative side of the population in the shoulder joint (0.330). From Figure 6 to Figure 9, the reduction of the joint strength during the operation is graphically presented. In a continuous static posture holding procedure, there is no recovery of the joint strength. The joint strength decreases with time. In fact, fatigue is not a single aspect in ergonomics analysis.

There are some other factors influencing the actual operation of the worker, such as joint discomfort, so the posture prediction is a multi-objective optimisation problem.

In our application, fatigue and discomfort are combined into Eq. ( 10) to convert the multi-objective function into a single objective function for posture prediction.

The fatigue index (stress index) is expressed by the summation of the relative joint load. In paper [START_REF] Yang | Multiobjective optimization for upper body posture prediction[END_REF], a discomfort index is proposed as an objective to predict human motion and it is taken into our framework to evaluate the joint discomfort. This discomfort index from Eq. ( 12) to Eq. ( 15) estimates the comfort of the joint by comparing its current position with its upper limitation, lower limitation and its neutral position. The most comfortable position is in neutral position of the joint.

In our case, right shoulder and the hole are predefined in the same horizontal line in sagittal plane. Therefore, different postures need to be adjusted to adapt to the variation of the distance. Different posture causes different fatigue and different discomfort. Therefore, using the discomfort index and stress index in Eq. ( 11) and Eq (12), an optimal posture can be found to balance the requirement of fatigue and discomfort.

The results are shown in Figure 12.

Parameters Unit Description q i degree current position of joint i q U i degree upper limit of joint i q L i degree lower limit of joint i It is clear that the elbow becomes more comfort while the distance gets longer, since it approaches to its neutral position. Conversely, the shoulder gets more discomfort since it moves further from its neutral position. The sum of both discomforts is shown in left lower subfigure. After normalization of the stress and discomfort, both are added together to be a overall objective function for the optimization of the posture. Both factors are weighted by weight factor w i . The variation of w i allows us to move the optimal solution along the Pareto surface in Figure 13. In our analysis, both weighting factors are set as 1. These weighting factors can be according to the preference of less fatigue or less discomfort. In the right lower subfigure, an optimal posture can be found at the distance around 0.53m. The optimal position is graphically shown in Figure 14. The flexion angle of shoulder and elbow are 22° and 98° to maintain the drilling machine. By setting different weighting values, different optimal posture can be achieved.

fatigue discomfort overall fatigue discomfort f f f q w w f f   (10) 2 max 1 Γ ( ) Γ n i fatigue f q         (11)   2 1 ( ) Δ norm discomfort i i i i f q γ q GQ U GQ L G          (12) Δ N norm i i i U L i i q q q q q    (13)   100 5 1 sin 1 2 2 U i i i U L i i q q π QU q q                          (14)   100 5 1 sin 1 2 2 L i i i U L i i q q π QL q q                          (15)

5.2-Discussion

The main difference between the fatigue analysis in this paper and the conventional methods for posture analysis is: all the physical exposure factors are taken into consideration in this method as well, but in a continuous record method. In this way, much detailed analysis of the operation can be achieved. With the new fatigue and recovery model, it is possible to evaluate the fatigue of a certain manual handling job. Although until now only a specific application case is analyzed, the feasibility of the overall concept is verified in this paper. The fatigue at each joint, the reduction of the joint strength and the recovery time necessary for preventing the worker from cumulative fatigue can be calculated out with respect to physical and temporal parameters of the job. With the analysis result, it is possible to determine suitable work-rest schedules to minimizing fatigue during a job, and to provide recommended postures to the user. With the analysis the distribution of the population, the fatigue model can also be used to select suitable workers for the jobs. However, in a manual handling job, there are lots of objective factors influencing the performance of the worker, such as, temperature, vibration, and so on. In a virtual reality framework, it is impossible to reproduce all these factors. From another view, there are different aspects concerning the difficulty of the job, such as accessibility, visibility, comfort, and fatigue. In real working process, the worker can adjust the operation according to the environment, the requirement of the job and his own capacities. For this reason, the actual operation is the result of multiple-objective optimization. In the drilling case, multiple-objective optimization posture can be achieved by weighting fatigue and discomfort as the same. Although this cannot reflect the actual posture in the manual handling work, at least the result can provide us a recommended posture to decrease MSD risks.

6-Conclusions and Perspectives

In this paper, the application of a new muscle fatigue and recovery model in a virtual environment framework is presented. In the digital human simulation, the joint torque load can be calculated after geometrical and dynamic modelling of human. Thus, according to biomechanical limits of each joint, the fatigue level of the joint can be figured out using the fatigue model. Further more, the fatigue model and recovery model can be used to determine the work-rest schedule for manual handling jobs. Nevertheless, combining fatigue index and discomfort index of joint, virtual human's motion can be predicted or proposed in digital human simulation tools. In the future, other manual handling jobs are going to be evaluated under this framework with consideration of fatigue. Full body geometrical and dynamic model of virtual human is going to be constructed to evaluate the joint fatigue for all the key joints of human. Experimental validation of the evaluation results is now under construction. It is possible to apply the new fatigue and recovery model in commercialized simulation software to simplify ergonomics evaluation procedures and enhance the work design efficiency, and make contribution to its final goal -reduce MSD risks in manual handling jobs.

7-Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the EADS and by the Région des Pays de la Loire (France) in the context of collaboration between the Ecole Centrale de Nantes (Nantes, France) and Tsinghua University (Beijing, P.R.China).

8-References

[B1] Burdorf A. Exposure assessment of risk factors for disorders of the back in occupational epidemiology. In Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 18: 1-9, 1992.

Figure 1 :

 1 Figure 1: Framework for objective work evaluation system

Figure 2 :

 2 Figure 2: Drilling task in EADS field application

Figure 3 :

 3 Figure 3: Modified Denavit-Hartenberg notation system

Figure 4 :Table 4 :

 44 Figure 4: Geometrical model of the arm 4.3-Dynamical parameters of arm

Figure 5 .

 5 Two geometrical variables, flexion angle of elbow and flexion angle of shoulder, are used to calculate the elbow flexion joint strength. It is obvious that different geometrical configuration determines different flexion joint strength and that the variation of the strength among the population is quite large. The joint strength in a given geometrical configuration can be calculated, and then with the new fatigue model, the Paper Number -6-Copyright IDMME -Virtual Concept reduction of the joint strength can be evaluated.

Figure 5 :

 5 Figure 5: Flexion elbow joint strength within the joint limits.

Figure 6 :Figure 7 :Figure 8 :Figure 9 :

 6789 Figure 6: Reduction of the elbow strength while holding a drilling machine weighted as 2.5 kg

Figure 10 :

 10 Figure 10 : Recovery 30 s after drilling a hole

Figure 12 :Figure 13 :Figure 14 :

 121314 Figure 12: Evaluation of the influence of the working distance

Table 1 : Parameters in muscle fatigue and recovery model

 1 F cem represents the non-fatigue motor units of the muscle. In the process of force generation, the amount of non-fatigued type II motor units gets smaller and smaller due to fatigue, while the number of the type I motor units remains almost the same due to their high fatigue resistance, and the decrease of F cem with time becomes slower, as expressed in Eq. (2) by term

	Parameters	Unit Description
	U	-	Fatigue index
	MVC	N	Maximum voluntary contraction
	F cem	N	Muscle force capacity at time instant t
	F load	N	Muscle load at time instant t
	Γ max	Nm Maximum joint strength
	Γ

In order to evaluate the muscle fatigue during a manual handling operation, a new muscle fatigue and recovery model was developed based on muscle motor mechanisms pattern, and the details are presented in this section. At first, the parameters in this muscle fatigue and recovery model are listed in Table 1. cem Nm Joint strength at time instant t Γ Nm Torque at the joint at time instant t k min -1 Fatigue ratio, equals to 1 R min -1 Recovery ratio, equals to 2.4 t min Time 3.1-Muscle fatigue model The muscle fatigue model is based on motor mechanism pattern of muscles. A muscle consists of many motor units. Each motor unit has different force generation capability, and different fatigue and recovery properties. In general, there are three types in the muscle: type I is slow-twitch motor units with small force generation capability and low conduction velocity, but a very high fatigue resistance; type II b is of fasttwitch speed, high force capacity, but fast fatigability; type II a, between type I and type II b, has a moderate force capacity and moderate fatigue resistance. The sequence of recruitment is in the order of: I II a  II b [V1]. For a specified muscle, larger F load means more type II motor units are involved to generate the force. As a result, the muscle becomes fatigued more rapidly, as expressed in Eq. (2). 3.2-Muscle recovery model This model (Eq.(3)) is developed based on recovery models mentioned in the literature [WF1, CN1]. This model can also be explained by muscle motor mechanism pattern. (MVC-F cem ) represents the fatigued motor units in the muscle. The recovery rate from fatigue muscle motor units is assumed to be constant 2.4 [LB2, WF1], in symbol R. ( )

Table 2 : Geometrical parameters for modelling right arm Joint

 2

Table 3 : Geometrical parameters for modelling right arm

 3

				cos	j		sin	j		0					j
	j	1	j	cos sin sin sin j j	j j	cos cos sin cos j j	j j	sin cos	j	j	j	j	cos sin	j	j
				0			0			0					1

Table 5 : Initial parameters and joints flexion strength under geometrical configuration α E =90° and α S =90°

 5

	Height	1,70 m	Weight	70 kg
	Δq 1	-30°	Δq 4	-90°
		Mean	Std. Deviation 95% Population
	Γ shoulder [Nm]	75.620	17.476
	Γ elbow [Nm]	75.141	18.470
	Extenral Load	Γ 1 (Nm)	Γ 4 (Nm)
	2.5kg	23.043	7.394
	3.5kg	26.873	9.672

Table 6 : Endurance time [s] and fatigue index U of shoulder and elbow flexion joints under continuous working condition

 6

	External Load	-2σ	-σ	0	-2σ	+2σ
	2.5 kg, Shoulder [s] 60.155 140.125 233.984 338.456 451.520
	Us of 30 s *	0.283	0.198	0.152	0.124	0.104
	2.5 kg, Elbow [s] 509.083 936.582 1413.831 1928.300 2472.535
	Ue of 30 s *	0.097	0.065	0.049	0.039	0.033
	2.5 kg Holes	2	5	8	11	15
	3.5 kg, Shoulder [s] 37.623 100.198 174.683 258.268 349.221
	Us of 30 s	0.330	0.231	0.178	0.144	0.122
	3.5 kg, Elbow [s] 325.501 621.517 955.564 1318.062 1703.315
	Ue of 30 s	0.127	0.085	0.064	0.052	0.043
	3.5 kg Holes	1	3	6	9	11
	External load	Recovery time for 30 s drilling work [s]
	3.5 kg Shoulder	83.542 75.758 69.815 65.011 60.981
	3.5 kg Shoulder	61.945 52.576 45.774 40.432 36.033
	2.5 kg Elbow	80.243 72.301 66.270 61.412 57.343
	2.5 kg Elbow	55.584 46.101 39.240 33.863 29.439

*Us, Ue : Fatigue index of shoulder and elbow

Table 7 : Parameters used in VSR discomfort index

 7

	( )	1	max(	)	2	max(	)