Do physiotherapy students perceive that they are adequately prepared to enter clinical practice? An empirical study

Objective. To determine the perceived level of preparedness for clinical practice of third-year physiotherapy students.Design. A prospective, descriptive study, using questionnaires to determine subjective perceptions and clinical test marks for objective measures ofperformance, was undertaken. Two different cohorts were recruited of third-year students entering clinical practice for the first time.Method. A 17-item questionnaire relating to areas of competence was developed. Results of questionnaire scores and test scores from the 2 cohorts were amalgamated and analysed. Participants were grouped according to their clinical placement. The internal consistency of the  questionnaire was tested using Cronbach’s alpha. As this was high at 0.847, the individual scores were added together and the mean score calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to establish if there was a significant difference in scores across different areas of competency and on test marks, across the different clinical settings.Main outcomes measure. Means and 95% confidence intervals of the mean scores of each component of competence indicated a significant differencebetween the scores (p<0.001). One-way ANOVA and post hoc analysis revealed that the students perceived themselves as better prepared in affect (generic skills) than for intervention and overall preparedness ((F(4, 264)=4.8601, p<0.001). There were no significant differences between thecompetency mean scores (F(4,53)=0.804, p=0.528), or in the mean test scores, across the placements (F(4, 77)=0.438, p=0.781).Results. Most of the students perceived their level of preparedness as relatively high across all areas of competence, regardless of placement. Students also achieved satisfactory (>60%) test scores, indicating realistic estimations of their ability.Conclusion. The sense of readiness confirms the alignment of the classroom curriculum and clinical expectations, which has largely come about through the positioning of permanent clinical educators as essential links between the classroom and the clinical setting

Clash of Geofutures and the Remaking of Planetary Order: Faultlines underlying Conflicts over Geoengineering Governance

Climate engineering (geoengineering) is rising up the global policy agenda, partly because international divisions pose deep challenges to collective climate mitigation. However, geoengineering is similarly subject to clashing interests, knowledge‐traditions and geopolitics. Modelling and technical assessments of geoengineering are facilitated by assumptions of a single global planner (or some as yet unspecified rational governance), but the practicality of international governance remains mostly speculative. Using evidence gathered from state delegates, climate activists and modellers, we reveal three underlying and clashing ‘geofutures’: an idealised understanding of governable geoengineering that abstracts from technical and political realities; a situated understanding of geoengineering emphasising power hierarchies in world order; and a pragmatist precautionary understanding emerging in spaces of negotiation such as UN Environment Assembly (UNEA). Set in the wider historical context of climate politics, the failure to agree even to a study of geoengineering at UNEA indicates underlying obstacles to global rules and institutions for geoengineering posed by divergent interests and underlying epistemic and political differences. Technology assessments should recognise that geoengineering will not be exempt from international fractures; that deployment of geoengineering through imposition is a serious risk; and that contestations over geofutures pertain, not only to climate policy, but also the future of planetary order

Climate engineering: early reflections on a complex conversation

This is a background account and formal statement prepared by participants in the Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies’ Climate Engineering Summer Course, held between 2 and 17 August 2014 in Potsdam, Germany

The practice of responsible research and innovation in “climate engineering”

Sunlight reflection and carbon removal proposals for “climate engineering” (CE) confront governance challenges that many emerging technologies face: their futures are uncertain, and by the time one can discern their shape or impacts, vested interests may block regulation, and publics are often left out of decision-making about them. In response to these challenges, “responsible research and innovation” (RRI) has emerged as a framework to critique and correct for technocratic governance of emerging technologies, and CE has emerged as a prime case of where it can be helpfully applied. However, a critical lens is rarely applied to RRI itself. In this review, we first survey how RRI thinking has already been applied to both carbon removal and sunlight reflection methods for climate intervention. We examine how RRI is employed in four types of activities: Assessment processes and reports, principles and protocols for research governance, critical mappings of research, and deliberative and futuring engagements. Drawing upon this review, we identify tensions in RRI practice, including whether RRI forms or informs choices, the positionalities of RRI practitioners, and ways in which RRI activities enable or disable particular climate interventions. Finally, we recommend that RRI should situate CE within the long arc of sociotechnical proposals for addressing climate change, more actively connect interrogations of the knowledge economy with reparative engagements, include local or actor-specific contexts, design authoritative assessments grounded in RRI, and go beyond treating critique and engagement as “de facto” governance