A Placement for Everyone

‘A Placement for Everyone’ outlines an emergent project in which staff and students collaborate to envision a transformation in their university/art school. Rather than convey pre-existing knowledge and expertise from tutor to students, we are working together as equal but different participants in a reflexive experiment with the institutional conditions and social purpose of learning. A primary influence has been the Artist Placement Group (APG), which from 1966—1979 negotiated for artists to be placed in business, industry and governmental organizations. These placements were not framed as commissions or contracts between the artist and the host, but were developed around the APG concept of ‘the open brief’, with no prescriptions, and no outcomes agreed in advance. In December 2012, I designated my academic post at University of the Arts London (UAL) as an artist’s placement, with a remit to promote creative engagement with the ecological and social-economic crisis. I aimed to connect artistic research with pedagogy, by involving staff and students in aligning our university’s operations with its stated values

Effect of age, genotype and treatment on performance in OF (open field) and EPM (elevated plus maze) tests, analysed by principal component analysis.

<p>Factor scores for 4 types of behaviour (principal components) are shown in A-D. MANOVA was used to analyse significance in effect of age, genotype and treatment, followed by Fisher’s LSD <i>post hoc</i> test for group-wise comparisons: *, **, ***—p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 correspond to differences in factor scores between groups at 9, 12, 15 or 18 months of age; <b>+, ++, +++—</b>p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 correspond to age-effect within groups compared to factor scores at 9 months; ¤, ¤¤, ¤¤¤—p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 correspond to intra-group comparisons of factor scores at 12 months. Bars indicate Means ± SEM Black bars, Wt (n = 14–15); white bars, Tg (n = 12–13); dark grey bars, Wt-paroxetine treated (n = 14–16); light grey bars, Tg-paroxetine treated (n = 6–12, and n = 4 at 12 months of age). 9, 12, 15 and 18 months of age correspond to 0, 3, 6 and 9 months of treatment, respectively.</p

Effect of age, genotype and treatment on social interaction, tested on two consecutive days, analysed by principal component analysis.

<p>Factor scores for 4 types of behaviour (principal components) are shown in A-D. MANOVA was used to analyse significance in effect of age, genotype and treatment, following by Fisher’s LSD <i>post hoc</i> test for group-wise comparisons: *, **, ***—p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 correspond to differences in factor scores between groups at 9, 12, 15 or 18 months of age; +, ++, +++—p < 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 correspond to age-effect within groups compared to factor scores at 9 months; ¤, ¤¤, ¤¤¤—p < 0.05, 0.01, 0.001 correspond to intra-group comparisons of factor scores at 12 months. Bars indicate Means ± SEM Black bars, Wt (n = 15–23); white bars, Tg (n = 12–22); dark grey bars, Wt-paroxetine treated (n = 14–16); light grey bars, Tg-paroxetine treated (n = 7–12, and n = 3 at 12 months of age). 9, 12, 15 and 18 months of age correspond to 0, 3, 6 and 9 months of treatment, respectively.</p

Abbreviation of behavioural variables scored during testing.

<p>Abbreviation of behavioural variables scored during testing.</p

The serum paroxetine levels assessed by UHPLC-MS/MS.

<p>The serum paroxetine levels assessed by UHPLC-MS/MS.</p

Characteristics of patients.

<p>Characteristics of patients.</p

Serum CTLA4 week by week in four patients receiving the conventional 6-week induction.

<p>Serum CTLA4 week by week in four patients receiving the conventional 6-week induction.</p

Serum CTLA4 at baseline and at the end of the induction.

<p>Three different protocols: rush (Panel A), ultra-rush (panel B) and conventional (panel C).</p

Serum IL-10 at baseline, at the end of induction phase and after 1 year of VIT (mean, SD, Kruskal-Wallis comparison).

<p>Serum IL-10 at baseline, at the end of induction phase and after 1 year of VIT (mean, SD, Kruskal-Wallis comparison).</p

Serum CTLA4 (left) and IL-10 (right) at baseline and at the end of VIT induction phase in the whole population.

<p>Values are expressed as mean and SD. Kruskal-Wallis comparisons are also shown.</p