Tagged / education

Congratulations to Social Workers Drs. Oliver & Harvey

BU research, Featured academics, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Dr. Louise Oliver on the publication of their latest article ‘The use of poetry in form of haikus as a tool for critical reflection’ [1].  This latest academic publication has been published in Social Work Education The International Journal.  This interesting article focuses on critical reflection is an integral part of social work education and practice, yet it is widely understood to be hard to learn, teach, and assess. The authors introduced the use of poetry in the form of haikus to three different qualifying social work student groups to trial a creative way of getting students to engage in critical reflection. Ninety-six students took part in the reflection activity and 23 of the students agreed to take part in the research element, which used a mixed-methods approach to explore the value of haikus in critical reflection. Following the thematic network analysis process, we identified one global theme: that haikus were a useful tool for developing critical reflection. There were three organizing themes identified: the need to create a safe learning environment to support engagement; that taking part provoked reactions; and the activity held important elements that aided the development of critical reflection.

 

Well done !

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Faculty of Health & Social Sciences

BU hosting IFIP OCCE 2024 Conference

conferences, Events

BU is hosting an international conference, IFIP TC3 Open Conference on Computers in Education titled Digitally Transformed Education: Are We There Yet? This International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) conference is the 4th after past conferences in Austria, India, Tanzania and Finland. BU is honoured to follow the great steps and efforts in defining technology input in education.

The OCCE 2024 will provide a forum for new research results, practical experiences, developments, ideas, and national perspectives, related to the conference focus and themes for all levels of education (preschool, primary, secondary, higher, vocational, and lifelong learning), including the professional development of educators (teachers, trainers and academic and support staff at other educational institutions) and related questions on educational management. The conference will aim to explore the impact of technology across a range of user experiences including those of students, staff and management. This will create an interesting creative tension during the conference.

The conference includes three keynotes from world renowned speakers: Julia Adamson MBE FBCS, Managing Director, Education and Public Benefit at BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT (whose mission at BCS is to give every young person the digital skills they need to succeed in life and work); Professor Deirdre Butler, a Full Professor at the Institute of Education, Dublin City University (DCU) (whose passion in life is exploring what being digital in learning can mean and what skills or competencies are needed to live and thrive in today’s complex globally connected world); and Professor Kai Rannenberg, Chair of Mobile Business & Multilateral Security, Goethe University Frankfurt, Germany (who has coordinated several leading EU research projects, e.g., the Network of Excellence “Future of Identity in the Information Society” and the Integrated Project “Attribute based Credentials for Trust” (ABC4Trust), and is coordinating CyberSec4Europe, a pilot for the European Cybersecurity Competence Network the EU is aiming for).

The conference includes two panel sessions. The first session chaired by Professor Alastair Irons titled the four nations panel includes members Dr. Parveen Samra, Dr. Fiona Mcneil, Professor Tom Crick and Dr. Michael McEnery. The panel focuses on the development of the computing and computing science curriculum in and across colleges and universities as an interesting, challenging and complex issue. It notes the situation in the UK is not uniform, with differences at school, college and university levels across England and the devolved nations (Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales). It highlights the significant work happening in all four countries in the UK – some in collaboration, for example, degree accreditation, and some devolved, such as the school curriculum.

The second panel session chaired by Dr. Mary Webb is titled Opportunities and challenges for AI in Education: One year after ChatGPT?, and includes members Julia Adamson MBE, Dr. Caitlin Bentley and Professor Angelos Stefanidis. The sudden availability of generative AI to ChatGPT alerted everyone to AI’s rapidly developing capabilities and massive potential. While generative AI, as one type of AI application, can create and edit a range of different media very efficiently, other AI functionalities that are useful to education include: conversational AI, predictive AI, speech recognition, robotics, computer vision, learning and assessment analytics and personalised feedback. But what do all these advances mean for the education sector. The panel will consider this and other themes on this topic.

Other conference activities include 2 symposia, 6 workshops, an invited session and a doctoral consortium. The conference will be held at BU’s Executive Business Centre from 27 February 2024 to 1 March 2024. For more details, please visit the conference website: ww.bournemouth.ac.uk/occe-2024

The conference is being organised by International Programme Committee members:
• Christophe Reffay, IPC Chair, University of Franche-Comté, France
• Margaret Leahy, Editor, Dublin City University, Ireland
• Don Passey, IFIP TC3 Chair, Lancaster University, UK
• Mikko Ruohonen,Tampere University, Finland
• Javier Osorio Acosta, The University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Spain
• Ivan Kalaš, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia

And local Organisation Committee members from BU:
• Nan Jiang, Honorary Chair
• Melanie Coles, Honorary Chair
• Huseyin Dogan, Honorary Chair
• Nicholas Mavengere, Chair
• Lai Xu, Business partnership
• Paul De Vrieze, Finance Chair
• Deniz Cetinkaya, Student volunteers and internal promotion
• Wei Koong Chai, Publicity Chair
• Gernot Liebchen, Volunteers and internal promotion
• Avleen Malhi, Social events
• Mohammad Naiseh, Social events
• Marcin Budka, Digital Chair

Dr. Nicholas Blessing Mavengere
Local organising chair, nmavengere@bournemouth.ac.uk

Conversation article: ChatGPT isn’t the death of homework – just an opportunity for schools to do things differently

BU research, Featured, Research communication, the conversation

Professor Andy Phippen writes for The Conversation about how educate can adapt to AI technology…

ChatGPT isn’t the death of homework – just an opportunity for schools to do things differently

Daisy Daisy/Shutterstock

Andy Phippen, Bournemouth University

ChatGPT, the artificial intelligence (AI) platform launched by research company Open AI, can write an essay in response to a short prompt. It can perform mathematical equations – and show its working.

ChatGPT is a generative AI system: an algorithm that can generate new content from existing bodies of documents, images or audio when prompted with a description or question. It’s unsurprising concerns have emerged that young people are using ChatGPT and similar technology as a shortcut when doing their homework.

But banning students from using ChatGPT, or expecting teachers to scour homework for its use, would be shortsighted. Education has adapted to – and embraced – online technology for decades. The approach to generative AI should be no different.

The UK government has launched a consultation on the use of generative AI in education, following the publication of initial guidance on how schools might make best use of this technology.

In general, the advice is progressive and acknowledged the potential benefits of using these tools. It suggests that AI tools may have value in reducing teacher workload when producing teaching resources, marking, and in administrative tasks. But the guidance also states:

Schools and colleges may wish to review homework policies, to consider the approach to homework and other forms of unsupervised study as necessary to account for the availability of generative AI.

While little practical advice is offered on how to do this, the suggestion is that schools and colleges should consider the potential for cheating when students are using these tools.

Nothing new

Past research on student cheating suggested that students’ techniques were sophisticated and that they felt remorseful only if caught. They cheated because it was easy, especially with new online technologies.

But this research wasn’t investigating students’ use of Chat GPT or any kind of generative AI. It was conducted over 20 years ago, part of a body of literature that emerged at the turn of the century around the potential harm newly emerging internet search engines could do to student writing, homework and assessment.

We can look at past research to track the entry of new technologies into the classroom – and to infer the varying concerns about their use. In the 1990s, research explored the impact word processors might have on child literacy. It found that students writing on computers were more collaborative and focused on the task. In the 1970s, there were questions on the effect electronic calculators might have on children’s maths abilities.

In 2023, it would seem ludicrous to state that a child could not use a calculator, word processor or search engine in a homework task or piece of coursework. But the suspicion of new technology remains. It clouds the reality that emerging digital tools can be effective in supporting learning and developing crucial critical thinking and life skills.

Get on board

Punitive approaches and threats of detection make the use of such tools covert. A far more progressive position would be for teachers to embrace these technologies, learn how they work, and make this part of teaching on digital literacy, misinformation and critical thinking. This, in my experience, is what young people want from education on digital technology.

Children in class looking at tablets.
Young people should learn how to use these online tools.
Ground Picture/Shutterstock

Children should learn the difference between acknowledging the use of these tools and claiming the work as their own. They should also learn whether – or not – to trust the information provided to them on the internet.

The educational charity SWGfL, of which I am a trustee, has recently launched an AI hub which provides further guidance on how to use these new tools in school settings. The charity also runs Project Evolve, a toolkit containing a large number of teaching resources around managing online information, which will help in these classroom discussions.

I expect to see generative AI tools being merged, eventually, into mainstream learning. Saying “do not use search engines” for an assignment is now ridiculous. The same might be said in the future about prohibitions on using generative AI.

Perhaps the homework that teachers set will be different. But as with search engines, word processors and calculators, schools are not going to be able to ignore their rapid advance. It is far better to embrace and adapt to change, rather than resisting (and failing to stop) it.The Conversation

Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

SaferKids VR launch

Awarded & submitted bids, BU research, BU2025, Fusion, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Strategic Investment Areas

Before the pandemic, local school children had a local facility near Wallisdown called SafeWise. SafeWise supported children learning about keeping safe and in particular road safety. However, during the pandemic this facility closed, leaving children without such an important resource. In collaboration with Colin Parnell from Centre VR, Dr Sarah Hodge (from the Department of Psychology) was awarded a bid by Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole (BCP) Council to develop a VR simulation/game about road safety skills; SaferKids VR.

The educational simulation/game was designed and created, with an interdisciplinary team, including psychologists, and game developers and programmers. The team of game developers and programmers, consisted of two BU graduates Sam Walsh and Josh Maddocks, as well as Andrew Ham. Since graduating from his Masters degree, Sam has led the team on the SaferKids VR development.

Within SaferKids VR, there was the creation of SKIE: Safer Kids Interactive Expert (robot pictured above). SKIE supports the player in VR, navigating the friendly real-life interactive virtual world and achieving learning goals and road safety skills. In the United States, every year, thousands of people are injured as a result of someone else’s negligence. You can read this article to know what to do if you ever get into an accident.

Schools can sign up for their pupils to be involved. 

For more information on the project please see the link https://centrevr.co.uk/saferkidsvr/ or contact shodge@bournemouth.ac.uk

New BU PhD education paper

BRIAN, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured academics, international, Research Supervision, Student Engagement, writing

This week the editor of the journal Journal of Education & Research informed us that our paper ‘Reflections on variations in PhD viva regulations: “And the options are….”’ has been accepted for publication [1].  This paper grew out of a discussion between the six authors about the apparent differences between the outcomes of the PhD viva at different universities.  We have all acted as internal or external examiners for a PhD viva and had noted inconsistencies between universities, either in the regulations or in the interpretation of their PhD regulations.  The authors are based at three different universities, on two different continents and, between them, have examined PhD theses submitted to universities based in at least ten different countries.  Three authors are based in BU’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (Prof. Vanora Hundley, Dr. Pramod Regmi & Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen), two authors are based in the School of Human & Health Sciences at the University of Huddersfield (Prof. Padam Simkhada & Dr. Bibha Simkhada and both are Visiting Faculty at BU), and one author is based in the Institute for Global Health in the School of Public Health & Health Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, USA (Prof. Krishna C. Poudel).

This paper outlines the range of outcomes of a PhD examination.  It also includes four short case studies, each reflecting on a particular aspect /differences we experienced as examinees or as examiners. The authors aim to alert PhD candidates and examiners to study the examination rules set by the awarding university, as the details of the PhD examination outcome, and hence the options available to both examiners and the students, may differ more than one might expect.  This is the latest CMMPH education publication around aspects of the PhD [2-5].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, B., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V., Poudel, K.C. (2022) Reflections on variations in PhD viva regulations: “And the options are….”, Journal of Education and Research (accepted).
  2. Way, S, Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E, Walton, G., Westwood, G. (2016) Dr Know. Midwives 19: 66-7.
  3. Wasti, S.P. Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2022) Writing a PhD Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P.P., Hundely, V. & Shreeh, K. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 176-183.
  4. Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Converting your Master’s or Doctoral Thesis into an Academic Paper for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 184-189.
  5. Regmi, P., Poobalan, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) PhD supervision in Public Health, Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health 20(1):1-4. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/32735/28111

Psychology & Sociology Applied to Medicine translated into Greek

BU research, Featured academics, international, Publishing, Research news, writing

The popular medical textbook ‘Psychology & Sociology Applied to Medicine’ published by Elsevier has been translated into Greek.  This 2022 Greek addition was, published last month, was preceded by a Spanish translation last year.  Elsevier’s website call this fourth edition of the textbook, the “definitive and popular introduction to human behaviour in the context of health and illness includes three new chapters, many new contributors and a new co-editor. It is arranged in nine sections to cover the core concepts of psychology and sociology as they apply to medicine.”

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

Reflections on examining a PhD by Publications or hybrid PhD

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured academics, Publishing, Research Integritiy, Research Supervision, Uncategorized, writing

Writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals is increasingly recognised as important for postgraduate students’ career development.   To encourage PhD students to write and submit during their thesis research, more and more UK universities has formally started to accept PhD theses by publication, or a hybrid model of both academic papers and purposely written chapters in a PhD thesis.  For example, both the University of Bath and Bournemouth University offer a hybrid thesis [1-2], whilst Bournemouth University offers separately the opportunity to submit a PhD by Publication.   The paper included in such theses can be: (1) published; (2) accepted/published online first; (3) submitted; or (4) in final draft form for submission.  Published papers, due to the nature of journal word limits are usually much shorter and less detailed than traditional PhD chapter.  The specifically written chapters, of the Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations chapter, and occasionally a Methods chapter will provide the reader (read ‘the examiner’) with further insights into the background of the research and offer details the student had to omit from published papers due to word limit restrictions.  Students may also opt to offer a short explanatory text before or after individual paper.  The overall Discussion chapter should aim to fully contextualise and integrate all papers into the thesis.

It is easy to see that these new format theses may require some adjustment from UK academics examining them.  Below I have listed some of the key issue a PhD examiner may want to consider in a PhD by Publication, such as the notion of integration and repetition, how the critique published papers, especially in quality peer-reviewed journals, and the nature and content of purposely written chapters.

Integration/duplication

Individual papers are free-standing, i.e. they must give enough information about the research question and methods to make sense to the reader.  This means that four papers from the same study in a thesis may appear as both disjointed and repetitive at the same time.  Moreover, details on background and methods are often minimal in papers presenting results.  This offers the examiner an opportunity to ask questions such as:

  • How do the included papers relate to each other in terms of subject matter or theoretical underpinning?
  • Do the included papers together result in a cohesive narrative?

It is worth looking at difference between the included papers.  One of my former students included two qualitative papers, both originating from the same dataset (i.e. the same interviewees) but each paper presented the data analysed in a different way.  The reviewers of the second paper had suggested a different approach to the analysis and the candidate had decided that it was worth the considerable amount of extra work.  This was obviously a topic for debate in the viva.

Peer-reviewed journal articles

It can be daunting for a less experienced examiner to critique an included paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal in one’s discipline.  Perhaps a starting point could be to ask the candidate what the peer reviewers said when the manuscript was first submitted.  Did you receive and conflicting comments from reviewers or the editor?  The examiner may want to ask for further details of published paper, e.g.  “I know you probably had word-length issues for paper X, but why didn’t you expand on the detailed analysis in the Discussion chapter you included in the thesis?”  Interestingly, the University of Bath states that “Examiners are entitled to specify corrections to any part of the thesis… including parts submitted for publication, or already published” [1].  The latter does not mean changing the published paper, but perhaps adding a comment or explanation to the Discussion chapter or to the text introducing that particular paper.

In many discipline academic papers as co-authored, hence you would expect co-authored papers in a PhD by Publication.  This offers to examiner the opportunity to ask about the candidate’s unique contribution to that paper.  Occasionally, one of the included papers may not list the candidate as first author.  If this is the case in one of the four or five included papers this is not problem per se, but worth asking the same question to the candidate: “What is your unique contribution to the paper?”

Another potential issue to look out for in a PhD by Publication is so-called salami-slicing [3], especially if the candidate has published several small parts of the thesis study in different small papers where a single paper would have been more appropriate.

Written chapters

The examiner may want to start by focusing on the candidate’s Introduction, Discussion, or Conclusion chapters.  Or the overall Methods chapter if there is one.  Typically, a PhD by Publication has an Introduction, four or more papers, an overarching Discussion perhaps a short Conclusion.  What is often missing is a Methodology and Methods chapter.  Since individual papers have only basic methods section of a few hundred words, there is little detail in each paper, let alone nuance in the methods. Often methodological issues and reflections are missed, as are more subtle aspects of research ethics.  These are key topics to raise in the viva.

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)

 

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ann Luce, Associate Professor in Journalism and Communication at Bournemouth University for her encouraging me to write this blog post.

 

References:

  1. University of Bath: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/guidelines-for-research-examiners/attachments/Guidelines_for_Examiners_of_Doctoral_Degrees_Nov19.pdf
  2. Bournemouth University (2021-22) 8A Code of Practice for Research Degrees (Policy, Procedure and Guidelines). https://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/pandptest/8a-code-of-practice-for-research-degrees.pdf
  3. Tolsgaard, M.G., Ellaway, R., Woods, N., Norman, G. (2019) Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond?. Advance in Health Sciences Education 24: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7

Two education chapters published by BU academics

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured academics, innovation, Publishing, REF Subjects, Uncategorized, writing

This week saw saw the publication of two book chapters on very different aspects of university education.  First, Prof. Debbie Holley, Dr. Ben Goldsmith and Dr. David Fevyer co-authored ‘Inspiring Learning through Technologies’.   This is chapter 5 in the newly published second edition of the textbook Enhancing Teaching Practice in Higher Education published by SAGE [1].

And just a three days ago Emerald Publishing published a chapter on external examining in The Role of External Examining in Higher Education: Challenges and Best Practices.  The chapter ‘Acting as External Examiners in the UK: Going Beyond Quality Assurance’ [2] is co-authored by Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and FHSS Visiting Facutly Prof. Padam Simkhada (University of Huddersfield) and Dr. Amudha Poobalan (University of Aberdeen).

 

References:

  1. Holley, D., Goldsmith, B., Fevyer, D. (2021) Inspiring Learning through Technologies, In: Pokorny, H., Warren, D. (eds.) Enhancing Teaching Practice in Higher Education (2nd edn), London: SAGE: pp. 107-134.
  2. Poobalan, A., Simkhada, P. and van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Acting as External Examiners in the UK: Going Beyond Quality Assurance, In: Sengupta, E., Blessinger, P., Ssemwanga, A. and Cozza, B. (eds.) The Role of External Examining in Higher Education: Challenges and Best Practices (Innovations in Higher Education Teaching and Learning, Vol. 38), Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, pp. 13-23. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2055-364120210000038002

 

Midwifery education publication published today

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, NHS, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Prof. Sue Way, Dr. Luisa Cescutti-Butler and Dr. Michelle Irving on the publication today of their latest article ‘A study to evaluate the introduction of the Newborn Infant Physical Examination knowledge and skills into an undergraduate pre-registration midwifery education programme’ [1].  This paper published in  Nurse Education Today  uses the principles of FUSION, bring together Education (undergraduate midwifery education), Practice (examination of the newborn) and Research (evaluation study).  This paper adds to the growing list of publication on aspects of midwifery education by academics in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perintal Health (CMMPH).

 

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

  1. Way, S., Cescutti-Butler, L., Irving, M. (2020) A study to evaluate the introduction of the Newborn Infant Physical Examination knowledge and skills into an undergraduate pre-registration midwifery education programme, Nurse Education Today, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2020.104656.

 

The Government’s Areas of Research Interest

policy

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) have released a new opportunity for research colleagues:

In April POST ran a survey of experts on the COVID-19 outbreak expert database that resulted in the publication of syntheses about the future effects of COVID-19 in different policy areas. From this survey POST developed Parliament’s first Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) which are lists of policy issues or questions that policymakers are particularly interested in.

Currently only the ARIs which are linked in some way to Covid have been released. However, they are not all health based and touch on a range of themes from crime, economics, inequalities, trade, supply chains, mental health, education, sustainability across several sectors, and so on.  Do take the time to look through the full question list to see if it touches upon your research area.

Alongside the publication of the ARIs is an invitation to experts to add current or future research relevant to the topics to a repository that Parliament may use to inform future policy making and Parliamentary work. Research with relevant research across any of the disciplines are invited to submit their work.

BU colleagues are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this rare opportunity to present their research to policy makers. The Policy team is here if you need any help. If you’re ready to go please do respond to the call directly, afterwards please let both the Policy team and your faculty’s Impact Officer know that you have responded.

Publication success BU postgraduate researchers

BU research, PG research, Research news, student research, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Bournemouth University researchers Adam Spacey, Orlanda Harvey and Chloe Casey on the acceptance of their research paper ‘Postgraduate researchers’ experiences of accessing participants via gatekeepers: ‘Wading through treacle!’’ [1]  The study is partly based on their experiences as postgraduate researchers interacting with gatekeepers which they used to design an online questionnaire for postgraduate researchers. The results of the survey highlighted that postgraduate researchers face a range of challenges when using gatekeepers to access participants for studies, and that there is a negative emotional impact arising when challenges are faced. Thematic analysis revealed six themes  (1) Access to participants; (2) Relationships; (3) Perceptions of research; (4) Context for gatekeepers; (5) Emotional impact; and (6) Mechanisms to address challenges.  This paper is forthcoming in the Journal of Further and Higher Education (published by Taylor & Francis).

 

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH)

 

Reference:

  1. Spacey, A., Harvey, O., Casey, C. (2020) Postgraduate researchers’ experiences of accessing participants via gatekeepers: ‘Wading through treacle!’, Journal of Further and Higher Education (accepted)

Donning the ‘Slow Professor’

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion themes, humanities, international, open access, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, Women's Academic Network, writing

Congratulations to the Bournemouth authors who published the paper ‘Donning the ‘Slow Professor’: A Feminist Action Research Project’ earlier this month [1].  This paper was published in the journal Radical Teacher.  The paper argues that the corporatisation of Higher Education has introduced new performance measurements as well as an acceleration of academic tasks creating working environments characterised by speed, pressure and stress. This paper discusses findings from a qualitative, feminist participatory action research (PAR) study undertaken by an interdisciplinary team of women academics at a modern, corporate university in England. The study illuminates how corporatized HE erodes faculty autonomy, degrades learning environments, damages professional satisfaction and health. Strategies for resistance and liberation developed through the PAR process are discussed.

The writing collective for this paper comprised: Sara Ashencaen Crabtree, Ann Hemingway, Sue Sudbury, Anne Quinney, Maggie Hutchings, Luciana Esteves, Shelley Thompson, Helen Jacey, Anita Diaz, Peri Bradley, Jenny Hall, Michele Board, Anna Feigenbaum, Lorraine Brown, Vanessa Heaslip,  and Liz Norton.

Reference: Ashencaen Crabtree, S., Hemingway, A., Sudbury, S., Quinney, A., Hutchings, M., Esteves, L., Thompson, S., Jacey, H., Diaz, A., Bradley, P., Hall, J., Board, M., Feigenbaum, A., Brown, L., Heaslip, V., Norton, L. (2020) Donning the ‘Slow Professor’: A Feminist Action Research Project , Radical Teacher, Vol. 116

New midwifery paper CMMPH

Featured academics, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Luisa Cescutti-Butler and Prof. Sue Way in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) on the publication of their latest research article.  This new paper called ‘The experience of student midwives being taught newborn infant physical examination (NIPE) as an extracurricular activity at a university in the UK: A descriptive survey study’ has been accepted by Nurse Education in Practice [1].  The paper went online pre-publication earlier this week.

Congratulations

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH