Crafting knowledge exchange in the social science agenda

To any social science researcher the term “Knowledge Exchange” is a key buzzword in the academic community and wider society. In an article by Contandriopoulos, Lemire, Denis, and Tremblay (2010, p. 456) it was pointed out that knowledge exchange “rests on an implicit commonsense notion that this ‘knowledge’ must be evidence based”. This evidence, based within a social science context, relies upon two strands: theoretical data and empirical data. When examining the notion of Knowledge Exchange it becomes apparent that the concept has deep and meaningful connotations. These connotations have been driven by the involvements of the public and private sectors. Moreover, work carried out by Benneworth and Cunha (2015, p. 509) concludes that higher education institutions’ involvement in knowledge exchange “remains dynamic and influenced by universities” own strategic choices and relationships’. Traditionally, universities have had two key missions: to teach undergraduate/postgraduate students and to undertake research. Striukova and Rayna (2015, p. 488) have recently observed that universities now have a third mission, “knowledge exchange”, and that knowledge exchange plays a vital “integral part of the mix, without which the other two missions cannot run successfully.” Knowledge exchange is also a fundamental feature of “sustainable communities” (Powell, 2013) through the partnerships between HEIs and communities by which they serve. This is a point we will return to

Using visual methodology: Social work student's perceptions of practice and the impact on practice educators.

This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Practice: Social Work in Action on 21-6-18, available online: https://doi.org/10.1080/09503153.2018.1476477Practice learning within social work education plays a significant part in students’ educational journey. Little is understood about the emotional climate of placements. This paper presents a small scale qualitative study of 13 social work students’ perceptions of their relationship with a practice educator (PE) and 6 PE’s perceptions of these emotional experiences. Visual methodology was employed over a two-phased research project, first social work students were asked to draw an image of what they thought practice education looked like, phase two used photo eliciation, PEs were then asked to explore the meaning of these images. Results demonstrated that social work students focused on their own professional discourse, the identity of PEs, power relationship and dynamics between themselves and PEs, the disjointed journey and practice education in its entirity. Whilst the PEs shared their personal views of practice education and reflected on this, both groups had a shared understanding of practice education including its values and frustrations. Keywords: social work placements, visual methodology, practice educator

European Robotic Surgery Consensus (ERSC): Protocol for the development of a consensus in robotic training for gastrointestinal surgery trainees.

BackgroundThe rapid adoption of robotic surgical systems across Europe has led to a critical gap in training and credentialing for gastrointestinal (GI) surgeons. Currently, there is no existing standardised curriculum to guide robotic training, assessment and certification for GI trainees. This manuscript describes the protocol to achieve a pan-European consensus on the essential components of a comprehensive training programme for GI robotic surgery through a five-stage process.Methods and analysisIn Stage 1, a Steering Committee, consisting of international experts, trainees and educationalists, has been established to lead and coordinate the consensus development process. In Stage 2, a systematic review of existing multi-specialty robotic training curricula will be performed to inform the formulation of key position statements. In Stage 3, a comprehensive survey will be disseminated across Europe to capture the current state of robotic training and identify potential challenges and opportunities for improvement. In Stage 4, an international panel of GI surgeons, trainees, and robotic theatre staff will participate in a three-round Delphi process, seeking ≥ 70% agreement on crucial aspects of the training curriculum. Industry and patient representatives will be involved as external advisors throughout this process. In Stage 5, the robotic training curriculum for GI trainees will be finalised in a dedicated consensus meeting, culminating in the production of an Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document.Registration detailsThe study protocol has been registered on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/br87d/)