Conformity, deformity and reformity

In any given field of artistic practice, practitioners position themselves—or find themselves positioned—according to interests and allegiances with specific movements, genres, and traditions. Selecting particular frameworks through which to approach the development of new ideas, patterns and expressions, balance is invariably maintained between the desire to contribute towards and connect with a particular set of domain conventions, whilst at the same time developing distinction and recognition as a creative individual. Creativity through the constraints of artistic domain, discipline and style provides a basis for consideration of notions of originality in the context of activity primarily associated with reconfiguration, manipulation and reorganisation of existing elements and ideas. Drawing from postmodern and post-structuralist perspectives in the analysis of modern hybrid art forms and the emergence of virtual creative environments, the transition from traditional artistic practice and notions of craft and creation, to creative spaces in which elements are manipulated, mutated, combined and distorted with often frivolous or subversive intent are considered. This paper presents an educational and musically focused perspective of the relationship between the individual and domain-based creative practice. Drawing primarily from musical and audio-visual examples with particular interest in creative disruption of pre-existing elements, creative strategies of appropriation and recycling are explored in the context of music composition and production. Conclusions focus on the interpretation of creativity as essentially a process of recombination and manipulation and highlight how the relationship between artist and field of practice creates unique creative spaces through which new ideas emerge

Improving the analysis and use of patient complaints in the English National Health Service

The English National Health Service (NHS) receives over 200,000 patient complaints annually. Complaints provide rich narratives of poor and unsafe care, and are often submitted with the aim of preventing harm from occurring to others. Inquiries into safety failures have demonstrated that complaints signal problems where internal systems fail. Yet, their insights remain underutilised due to their complex unstructured nature, a disregard for their informational value, and a complaints process designed for case-by-case redress. This work develops evidence-based and theory-informed approaches towards improving the analysis and use of complaints in the English NHS. Using process modelling and realist review methods, this thesis generates theory on how and under what conditions healthcare settings can achieve both case-by-case redress and system-wide analysis of complaints. Findings identify the need for a robust coding taxonomy to detect systemic problems with healthcare delivery, and support the prioritisation of deeper qualitative analysis and investigation. The inter-rater reliability of the existing NHS complaints reporting scheme ‘KO41a’ is tested across four NHS Trusts, and compared to the psychometrically robust and theory-informed Healthcare Complaints Analysis Tool (HCAT). Results highlight the limited discriminative value of KO41a, and indicate HCAT as a reliable alternative in most investigated settings. Drawing from social science approaches to safety, the final study conducts data linkage and narrative analysis of complaints and staff incident reports, and demonstrates the contributions of using complainants’ interpretation and sense-making of adverse events to test, challenge, and complement staff representations of the causes and severity of harm. Collectively, the work in this thesis demonstrates why patient and staff perspectives need to be combined for a more holistic understanding of patient safety, and provides a pragmatic, evidence-based pathway towards integrating complaints into the historically staff-driven quality monitoring and improvement systems.Open Acces

Industry 4.0: the impact of strategic leadership behaviour on organisational response to the adoption of technological innovation.

The rapid development and cross-interaction between emerging technologies is called Industry 4.0, and it is being called the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Organisational leaders are seeking to understand how to lead their firms to benefit from the opportunities that these technologies offer, as well as mitigating against the threats that the technologies could pose. This thesis aims to examine how Industry 4.0 and strategic leadership behaviours are intersecting and influencing each other. This study forms part of the requirement for completion of a Doctorate of Business Administration, a professional doctorate that was undertaken whilst the researcher was in full time employment in a leadership role. Partially influenced by professional practice, the research philosophy that underpins the study is pragmatic. Data collection was completed using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data analysis included inductive and deductive thematic analysis to re-signify strategic leadership behaviour in the context of Industry 4.0. Yukl's 2012 hierarchal behavioural taxonomy was selected as the most appropriate framework to connect to existing literature on leadership behaviour. The primary finding is the display of knowledge management behaviours by strategic organisational leaders. This thesis recommends significant changes to Yukl's behavioural taxonomy by the addition of a metacategory called 'knowledge-based behaviours', and removal of 'externally focused behaviours' metacategory. This metacategory is partially populated by previously-identified behaviours: networking, external monitoring, representing, and facilitating collective learning. The objectives behind these behaviours are revised in line with the findings of this study. Additionally, a novel behaviour of critical evaluation is also included in the knowledge-based behaviour metacategory. Secondary findings include the revising the objectives of existing behaviours, as well as the identification of another novel behaviour 'mission matching'. Finally, the study provides evidence that the enablers and challenges of Industry 4.0 adoption previously theoretically identified in literature are broadly applicable; however, there is divergence on which factors have the most impact. This study also identified additional factors such as scepticism and the lack of a clear definition of Industry 4.0 impeding collective learning behaviours in organisations. This thesis proposes an updated definition of Industry 4.0, as well as a conceptual framework to assist with categorising technologies

Innovation Labs: Leveraging Openness for Radical Innovation?

A growing range of public, private and civic organisations, from Unicef through Nesta to NHS, now run units known as “innovation labs”. The hopeful assumption they share is that labs, by building on openness among other features, can generate promising solutions to grand challenges of systemic nature. Despite their seeming proliferation and popularisation, the underlying innovation principles embodied by labs have, however, received scant academic attention. This is a missed opportunity, because innovation labs appear to leverage openness for radical innovation in an unusual fashion. Indeed, in this exploratory paper we draw on original interview data and online self-descriptions to illustrate that, beyond convening “uncommon partners” across organisational boundaries, labs apply the principle of openness throughout the innovation process, including the experimentation and development phases. While the emergence of labs clearly forms part of a broader trend towards openness, we show how it transcends established conceptualisations of open innovation (Chesbrough et al., 2006), open science (David, 1998) or open government (Janssen et al., 2012)

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

Although significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.El Desarrollo de una Comunidad de Práctica Interdisciplinaria y Trans‐Sectorial bajo el Dominio de los Bosques y los Medios de SubsistenciaResumenAunque se gastan recursos importantes en la investigación y el fomento de la relación entre los bosques y los medios de subsistencia para promover resultados mutuamente beneficiosos, aún existen vacíos críticos en el entendimiento. Una razón nuclear de dichos vacíos es que los investigadores, practicantes y legisladores carecen de espacio para interactuar y colaborar, lo cual es esencial para que la investigación, la práctica y la evaluación sean efectivas e interdisciplinarias. Por esto, los hallazgos científicos, las recomendaciones políticas y los resultados medidos no siempre se han sintetizado en un entendimiento profundo y sistémico; aprender a partir de la práctica y la implementación no encuentra fácilmente su camino dentro de los análisis científicos, y la ciencia comúnmente falla en influenciar a la política. Las comunidades de práctica (CofPs, en inglés) son sistemas socioculturales dinámicas que juntan a las personas para compartir y crear conocimiento en torno a un tema de interés común. Ofrecen a los participantes un espacio y una estructura dentro de la cual pueden desarrollar estrategias novedosas y sistémicas para problemas multidimensionales de un tema común. Informados de manera única por una perspectiva de pensamiento de sistemas y partiendo de la literatura científica y gris y entrevistas profundas con representativos de CofP establecidas bajo el dominio de desarrollo y manejo de recursos, argumentamos que una CofPs bien diseñada y propiamente financiada puede facilitar las relaciones trans‐sectoriales e interdisciplinarias y el intercambio del conocimiento. Las CofPs bien diseñadas integran un conjunto de características y procesos nucleares que aumentan los resultados individuales, colectivos y del dominio; exponen un propósito inicial pero cambiante, promueven el liderazgo diverso, y fomentan el desarrollo de la identidad colectiva. El financiamiento facilita las estrategias efectivas de comunicación (p. ej.: en reuniones de personas). Instamos a nuestros colegas en todos los sectores y disciplinas a sacar provecho de las CofPs para avanzar en el dominio de los bosques y los medios de subsistencia.Article impact statement: Developing a community of practice with a systems lens can drive collaboration and close knowledge gaps in the forest and livelihoods field.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141155/1/cobi12982.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/141155/2/cobi12982_am.pd

The clinical effectiveness of individual behaviour change interventions to reduce risky sexual behaviour after a negative human immunodeficiency virus test in men who have sex with men: systematic and realist reviews and intervention development

Background: Men who have sex with men (MSM) experience significant inequalities in health and well-being. They are the group in the UK at the highest risk of acquiring a human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Guidance relating to both HIV infection prevention, in general, and individual-level behaviour change interventions, in particular, is very limited. Objectives: To conduct an evidence synthesis of the clinical effectiveness of behaviour change interventions to reduce risky sexual behaviour among MSM after a negative HIV infection test. To identify effective components within interventions in reducing HIV risk-related behaviours and develop a candidate intervention. To host expert events addressing the implementation and optimisation of a candidate intervention. Data sources: All major electronic databases (British Education Index, BioMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Educational Resource Index and Abstracts, Health and Medical Complete, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, PubMed and Social Science Citation Index) were searched between January 2000 and December 2014. Review methods: A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of individual behaviour change interventions was conducted. Interventions were examined using the behaviour change technique (BCT) taxonomy, theory coding assessment, mode of delivery and proximity to HIV infection testing. Data were summarised in narrative review and, when appropriate, meta-analysis was carried out. Supplemental analyses for the development of the candidate intervention focused on post hoc realist review method, the assessment of the sequential delivery and content of intervention components, and the social and historical context of primary studies. Expert panels reviewed the candidate intervention for issues of implementation and optimisation. Results: Overall, trials included in this review (n = 10) demonstrated that individual-level behaviour change interventions are effective in reducing key HIV infection risk-related behaviours. However, there was considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity among the trials. Exploratory meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in behaviours associated with high risk of HIV transmission (risk ratio 0.75, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 0.91). Additional stratified analyses suggested that effectiveness may be enhanced through face-to-face contact immediately after testing, and that theory-based content and BCTs drawn from ‘goals and planning’ and ‘identity’ groups are important. All evidence collated in the review was synthesised to develop a candidate intervention. Experts highlighted overall acceptability of the intervention and outlined key ways that the candidate intervention could be optimised to enhance UK implementation. Limitations: There was a limited number of primary studies. All were from outside the UK and were subject to considerable clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity. The findings of the meta-analysis must therefore be treated with caution. The lack of detailed intervention manuals limited the assessment of intervention content, delivery and fidelity. Conclusions: Evidence regarding the effectiveness of behaviour change interventions suggests that they are effective in changing behaviour associated with HIV transmission. Exploratory stratified meta-analyses suggested that interventions should be delivered face to face and immediately after testing. There are uncertainties around the generalisability of these findings to the UK setting. However, UK experts found the intervention acceptable and provided ways of optimising the candidate intervention. Future work: There is a need for well-designed, UK-based trials of individual behaviour change interventions that clearly articulate intervention content and demonstrate intervention fidelity

Making an impact in healthcare contexts::insights from a mixed-methods study of professional misconduct

The scarcity of public sector healthcare resources and the vulnerability of service users make the conduct of health professionals critically important. Health regulators, in delivering their core objective of patient protection, use empirical evidence to identify professionals’ misconduct, improve their understanding of why misconduct occurs, and to maximize the effectiveness of regulatory actions that safeguard public trust in the healthcare system. This paper outlines the contribution of comparative academic analysis of three professions in the UK (doctors, nurses & midwives, and allied health professions) based on 6714 individual cases of professional misconduct. Three dynamic strands of ongoing impact are identified: “dialogue”, that creates an international multi-stakeholder community of interest; “knowledge generation”, which advances conceptual and empirical understanding of counterproductive work behaviour through sequential quantitative and qualitative study; and “dissemination”, where practical learning is utilized by regulators, employers and other academics

Strategic Thinking and Design Initiative: Extended and Updated Report

Introduction 11 This report1 documents the Strategic Thinking and Design work that the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) engaged in from the fall of 2013 through the end of 2015. Fueled by the deep desire of the ARL membership to rise to the challenges facing higher education in the 21st century, and with grants from the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Association engaged in an unprecedented project to reimagine the future of the research library and then reshape ARL, its organization, to help bring that future into being. This report is a collaborative effort. John Seely Brown, who wrote the prologue, inspired the Association to embark upon this journey. The architect of the process you see before you is Ann Pendleton-Jullian. Sue Baughman, David Consiglio, Lee Anne George, Susan Gibbons, David Gift, Kaylyn Groves, Tom Hickerson, James Hilton, Lori Jahnke, Anne Kenney, Wendy Pradt Lougee, Rick Luce, Carol Mandel, Jim Neal, Susan Nutter, Ann Pendleton-Jullian, Dawn Schmitz, Brian E. C. Schottlaender, Elliott Shore, Elizabeth Waraksa, Martha Whitehead, John Wilkin, and Amy Yeager shared their ideas and compiled, wrote, edited, and brought the work to fruition. Paul Soulellis designed this publication. The diagrams were a collaboration between Ann Pendleton-Jullian and Paul Soulellis. Our greatest thanks are to the 365 participants in the Regional Design Meetings and Design Studios who gave their time and best thinking to the Strategic Thinking and Design process. Much of the work described in this report was made possible by grants from the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation