19 research outputs found

    Feminist Economics, Setting out the Parameters

    Get PDF
    ___Introduction___ Feminist economics has developed its position over the past decade, towards a firmer embeddedness in economic science and a source of inspiration for activists, policy makers, and social science researchers in a wide variety of fields of research. This development has come about in a relatively short period of time, as is reflected, for example, in the follow-up book of the feminist economic primer Beyond Economic Man (Ferber/Nelson 1993), published ten years later: Feminist Economics Today (Ferber/Nelson, 2003) The strengthened position of feminist economics also shows in the 10-year anniversary of the prize-winning journal Feminist Economics, the flourishing of the International Association for Feminist Economics (IAFFE), as well as the more regular demand for feminist economic policy advise by institutions like the UN, OECD and governments in developed and developing countries, and in well-established training courses in feminist economics, such as at the Institute of Social Studies and University of Utah . It is impossible to give a fair overview of the state of the art of feminist economics in the number of pages available, even when limited to issues pertaining to development and macroeconomics . As a consequence, this is a very sketchy and subjective overview of what I perceive to be recent developments in feminist economics that have relevance for feminist development analysis and policy. The next section recognizes three trends in feminist economics, in particular the engagement of feminist economists with heterodox schools of economics. The following sections will briefly review developments in methodology and methods in feminist economics. These will be followed by three sections on topics that have recently become key themes or areas of research in feminist economics, in particular in the area of development economics: unpaid labour and the care economy; the two-way relationship between gender and trade; and gender, efficiency and growth. Each of these topics will be introduced, with references to the main literature, and some links to policy recommendations. The paper will end with a conclusion

    Exploring UK medical school differences: the MedDifs study of selection, teaching, student and F1 perceptions, postgraduate outcomes and fitness to practise.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Medical schools differ, particularly in their teaching, but it is unclear whether such differences matter, although influential claims are often made. The Medical School Differences (MedDifs) study brings together a wide range of measures of UK medical schools, including postgraduate performance, fitness to practise issues, specialty choice, preparedness, satisfaction, teaching styles, entry criteria and institutional factors. METHOD: Aggregated data were collected for 50 measures across 29 UK medical schools. Data include institutional history (e.g. rate of production of hospital and GP specialists in the past), curricular influences (e.g. PBL schools, spend per student, staff-student ratio), selection measures (e.g. entry grades), teaching and assessment (e.g. traditional vs PBL, specialty teaching, self-regulated learning), student satisfaction, Foundation selection scores, Foundation satisfaction, postgraduate examination performance and fitness to practise (postgraduate progression, GMC sanctions). Six specialties (General Practice, Psychiatry, Anaesthetics, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Internal Medicine, Surgery) were examined in more detail. RESULTS: Medical school differences are stable across time (median alpha = 0.835). The 50 measures were highly correlated, 395 (32.2%) of 1225 correlations being significant with p < 0.05, and 201 (16.4%) reached a Tukey-adjusted criterion of p < 0.0025. Problem-based learning (PBL) schools differ on many measures, including lower performance on postgraduate assessments. While these are in part explained by lower entry grades, a surprising finding is that schools such as PBL schools which reported greater student satisfaction with feedback also showed lower performance at postgraduate examinations. More medical school teaching of psychiatry, surgery and anaesthetics did not result in more specialist trainees. Schools that taught more general practice did have more graduates entering GP training, but those graduates performed less well in MRCGP examinations, the negative correlation resulting from numbers of GP trainees and exam outcomes being affected both by non-traditional teaching and by greater historical production of GPs. Postgraduate exam outcomes were also higher in schools with more self-regulated learning, but lower in larger medical schools. A path model for 29 measures found a complex causal nexus, most measures causing or being caused by other measures. Postgraduate exam performance was influenced by earlier attainment, at entry to Foundation and entry to medical school (the so-called academic backbone), and by self-regulated learning. Foundation measures of satisfaction, including preparedness, had no subsequent influence on outcomes. Fitness to practise issues were more frequent in schools producing more male graduates and more GPs. CONCLUSIONS: Medical schools differ in large numbers of ways that are causally interconnected. Differences between schools in postgraduate examination performance, training problems and GMC sanctions have important implications for the quality of patient care and patient safety

    The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey: an analysis of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in 25 UK medical schools relating to timing, duration, teaching formats, teaching content, and problem-based learning.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: What subjects UK medical schools teach, what ways they teach subjects, and how much they teach those subjects is unclear. Whether teaching differences matter is a separate, important question. This study provides a detailed picture of timetabled undergraduate teaching activity at 25 UK medical schools, particularly in relation to problem-based learning (PBL). METHOD: The Analysis of Teaching of Medical Schools (AToMS) survey used detailed timetables provided by 25 schools with standard 5-year courses. Timetabled teaching events were coded in terms of course year, duration, teaching format, and teaching content. Ten schools used PBL. Teaching times from timetables were validated against two other studies that had assessed GP teaching and lecture, seminar, and tutorial times. RESULTS: A total of 47,258 timetabled teaching events in the academic year 2014/2015 were analysed, including SSCs (student-selected components) and elective studies. A typical UK medical student receives 3960 timetabled hours of teaching during their 5-year course. There was a clear difference between the initial 2 years which mostly contained basic medical science content and the later 3 years which mostly consisted of clinical teaching, although some clinical teaching occurs in the first 2 years. Medical schools differed in duration, format, and content of teaching. Two main factors underlay most of the variation between schools, Traditional vs PBL teaching and Structured vs Unstructured teaching. A curriculum map comparing medical schools was constructed using those factors. PBL schools differed on a number of measures, having more PBL teaching time, fewer lectures, more GP teaching, less surgery, less formal teaching of basic science, and more sessions with unspecified content. DISCUSSION: UK medical schools differ in both format and content of teaching. PBL and non-PBL schools clearly differ, albeit with substantial variation within groups, and overlap in the middle. The important question of whether differences in teaching matter in terms of outcomes is analysed in a companion study (MedDifs) which examines how teaching differences relate to university infrastructure, entry requirements, student perceptions, and outcomes in Foundation Programme and postgraduate training

    Quantum MMIC (QMMIC) VCO’s for Wireless Applications

    Get PDF
    The monolithic integration of heterostructure tuneling diodes with other semiconductor devices, such as HFET’s, creates novel, quantum functional devices and circuits. The enhanced functionality of these devices enables design of both digital and analog circuits with reduced complexity, smaller size and better performance. Several types of QMMIC VCO’s operating in L-band frequency range have been designed and characterized. VCO’s achieved output power of 8-10 dBm at L-band frequency range. All VCO’s exhibited very low phase noise (in the range of –107 to –115 dBc/Hz) at 1.0 MHz away from the carrier frequency
    corecore