The ‘Peripheral’ Student in Academia: An Analysis

Pulling together the various themes that emerged within and across the narratives, this chapter explores four broad categories of challenges and opportunities: Demands associated with being a ‘peripheral’ student and the function of social networks in developing a sense of belonging. Issues related to supervisory and other faculty relationships. Struggles related to identity, language and/or culture. The role of expert, novice and ‘impostor’ labels in internalizing a scholarly identity. Each category is unpacked, while also examining the personal characteristics and institutional features that helped the authors along the journey to becoming scholars. After each section, implications for institutional policy and planning are also discussed

Belonging and Becoming in Academia: A Conceptual Framework

Establishing the conceptual framework for this book as a whole, this chapter looks at the process of developing an academic identity through the lens of ‘becoming’ a scholar, with particular emphasis on the challenges facing international, part-time EdD students. This process involves not only an intellectual breakthrough, but also an emerging sense of belonging. The inner journey – which intersects with and shapes academic progress – comprises a complex set of interactions between the social groups to which we belong, our beliefs about ourselves that come about through experience, the various contexts in which we operate, the position we hold within those contexts, and the agency we exercise in responding to various pressures. In addition to exploring the relevance of this inner journey, the chapter also situates author experiences within broader educational trends facing universities and key elements of doctoral programs

What's in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research

In this paper, we discuss two competing interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature and consider the implications for both research and policy. The first interpretation, which can be referred to as the “end point” approach, views vulnerability as a residual of climate change impacts minus adaptation. The second interpretation, which takes vulnerability as a “starting point,” views vulnerability as a general characteristic generated by multiple factors and processes. Viewing vulnerability as an end point considers that adaptations and adaptive capacity determine vulnerability, whereas viewing vulnerability as a starting point holds that vulnerability determines adaptive capacity. The practical consequences of these two interpretations are illustrated through the examples of Norway and Mozambique. We show that, if the underlying causes and contexts of vulnerability are not taken into account, there is a danger of underestimating the magnitude (large), scope (social and environmental) and urgency (high) of climate change

Navigating the Pass: Distance, Dislocation and the Viva

Channon examines the challenges of completing a doctoral degree across different geographical locations and changing job roles. His experience illustrates how logistical challenges involved in carrying out research far removed from the research site, political turmoil and changes in employment status can all necessitate changes in the planned research trajectory. He reflects on an emotional journey, including a particularly challenging viva experience, where he struggled to maintain ownership of his work as a result of distance, dislocation and attempting to heed Introduction 7 conflicting sources of advice. Importantly, Channon’s story brings to light a less-studied phenomenon: the role of faculty feedback, beyond the supervisor, and the effect of such feedback on the research trajectories of doctoral students

Mortality and pulmonary complications in patients undergoing surgery with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection: an international cohort study

Background: The impact of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) on postoperative recovery needs to be understood to inform clinical decision making during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. This study reports 30-day mortality and pulmonary complication rates in patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods: This international, multicentre, cohort study at 235 hospitals in 24 countries included all patients undergoing surgery who had SARS-CoV-2 infection confirmed within 7 days before or 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome measure was 30-day postoperative mortality and was assessed in all enrolled patients. The main secondary outcome measure was pulmonary complications, defined as pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, or unexpected postoperative ventilation. Findings: This analysis includes 1128 patients who had surgery between Jan 1 and March 31, 2020, of whom 835 (74·0%) had emergency surgery and 280 (24·8%) had elective surgery. SARS-CoV-2 infection was confirmed preoperatively in 294 (26·1%) patients. 30-day mortality was 23·8% (268 of 1128). Pulmonary complications occurred in 577 (51·2%) of 1128 patients; 30-day mortality in these patients was 38·0% (219 of 577), accounting for 81·7% (219 of 268) of all deaths. In adjusted analyses, 30-day mortality was associated with male sex (odds ratio 1·75 [95% CI 1·28–2·40], p\textless0·0001), age 70 years or older versus younger than 70 years (2·30 [1·65–3·22], p\textless0·0001), American Society of Anesthesiologists grades 3–5 versus grades 1–2 (2·35 [1·57–3·53], p\textless0·0001), malignant versus benign or obstetric diagnosis (1·55 [1·01–2·39], p=0·046), emergency versus elective surgery (1·67 [1·06–2·63], p=0·026), and major versus minor surgery (1·52 [1·01–2·31], p=0·047). Interpretation: Postoperative pulmonary complications occur in half of patients with perioperative SARS-CoV-2 infection and are associated with high mortality. Thresholds for surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic should be higher than during normal practice, particularly in men aged 70 years and older. Consideration should be given for postponing non-urgent procedures and promoting non-operative treatment to delay or avoid the need for surgery. Funding: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, NIHR Academy, Sarcoma UK, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research

Two blind men and an elephant? Using regime theory and organization theory to explain processes of structural design in regime-dependent environmental IGOs

This thesis stems from the assumption that it is important to have a theory or conceptual model that can be used to understand how regime-dependent environmental IGOs end up looking the way they look and working the way they work. Despite the growing numbers of such organizations, there is currently no model or theory that can be applied without hesitation. Instead, there are two different practical approaches: regime theory and organization theory. Regime theory would seem relevant because a regime-dependent environmental IGO is indeed part of a regime. Organization theory would also seem relevant because a regime-dependent environmental IGO is an organization. However, these two theories have shown little interest in regime-dependent IGOs (environmental or otherwise). Thus the first research question of this thesis is to what extent regime theory and organization theory are even capable of sufficiently capturing processes of structural design in regime-dependent environmental IGOs. To answer this question, the thesis introduces a methodological framework called the ASEP framework. This framework was designed to organize discussions of both theory and study objects in terms of agent, structure, environment, and process. By applying the framework, it is argued that a sufficient theoretical explanation for structural design processes in regime-dependent environmental IGOs would be one that takes into account the following: that agents comprise people, states, and other IGOs; that structure reflects both the why (the purpose of the IGO in the general regime) and the how (the specific formal normative structure); that environmental influence comes from three main holds: the political environment (the constellation of state interests), the scientific environment (the nature of the environmental issue area), and the institutional environment (the norms, rules, and institutions with which the IGO interacts; and that there is some kind of process mechanism that explains change over time. The thesis then introduces regime theory (as exemplified by utilitarianism) and organization theory (as exemplified by contingency theory). Application of the ASEP framework shows that both of these theories fall short of a sufficient explanation at a theoretical level. The example of the IPCC as a real-world illustration of a regime-dependent environmental IGO then demonstrates that these shortcomings also have implications for the empirical study of these kinds of organizations. The second research question then explores to what extent it might still be useful to apply concepts from these theories to the study of regime-dependent environmental IGOs despite their apparent insufficiency. The question is approached by first reviewing what the theories can contribute and arguing that both can provide important pieces of the puzzle. It is then explored whether a merger between the two theories might be a fruitful endeavor, and it is argued that until we know enough to concentrate on only a few variables such a merger would cost more in parsimony than it might gain in validity. Finally, theoretical developments within regime theory and organization theory are explored. It is demonstrated that developments are taking place at three different levels: assumption relaxation, concept borrowing, and the use of more problem-directed approaches. It is argued that the rich theoretical development indicates that there is no reason to assume that the shortcomings in these theories are truly inherent. Throughout the thesis, the parable of the blind men and the elephant is used as a metaphor for using regime theory and organization theory to explain processes of structural design in regime-dependent environmental IGOs. Like the blind men in the parable, regime theory and organization theory used in their pure forms are able to capture only a part of the phenomenon and miss the significance of the whole. While current developments in the fields of regime theory and organization theory mean that these theories are perhaps no longer blind when viewing regime-dependent environmental IGOs, there is still a long way to go before either one of them can claim 20/20 vision

Writing for scholars : a practical guide to making sense and being heard

xii, 214 p.; 24 c

Lost in Quantification: Scholars and the Politics of Bibliometrics

As scholarship becomes increasingly globalized, bibliometric systems for quantifying research productivity have become increasingly relevant to academia. Bibliometric indicators are used to convert information about research activity (primarily publications and citations) into numbers that, in their apparent neutrality, seem to transcend linguistic and cultural (including disciplinary) boundaries. Developed as a way to study academic publication and citation patterns statistically, bibliometrics were originally used mostly for research purposes – to substantiate claims about who produces what and under which circumstances. Today, however, bibliometrics are most familiar to scholars as evaluative devices. Bibliometric indicators are used to assess research performance not only at the institutional level, but increasingly at the individual level in the context of hiring or promotion decisions. The aim of this chapter is to look at bibliometrics as a specific instance of quantification, and thus – as with any other form of quantification – as a form of governing things and people. The politics of bibliometrics deserve to be unpacked because even with the best intentions, developers of bibliometric indicators must make non-trivial decisions about how to measure things that are notoriously difficult to quantify

Kjønnsforskjeller i vitenskapelig publisering og publiseringspoeng: Analyser og simuleringer

Dette arbeidsnotatet er en delrapport under NIFUs Balanse-prosjekt, finansiert over Norges forskningsråds Balanse-program

What's in a word? Conflicting interpretations of vulnerability in climate change research

In this paper, we discuss two competing interpretations of vulnerability in the climate change literature and consider the implications for both research and policy. The first interpretation, which can be referred to as the “end point” approach, views vulnerability as a residual of climate change impacts minus adaptation. The second interpretation, which takes vulnerability as a “starting point,” views vulnerability as a general characteristic generated by multiple factors and processes. Viewing vulnerability as an end point considers that adaptations and adaptive capacity determine vulnerability, whereas viewing vulnerability as a starting point holds that vulnerability determines adaptive capacity. The practical consequences of these two interpretations are illustrated through the examples of Norway and Mozambique. We show that, if the underlying causes and contexts of vulnerability are not taken into account, there is a danger of underestimating the magnitude (large), scope (social and environmental) and urgency (high) of climate change