The tensions of cyber-resilience : from sensemaking to practice

The growing sophistication, frequency and severity of cyberattacks targeting all sectors highlight their inevitability and the impossibility of completely protecting the integrity of critical computer systems. In this context, cyber-resilience offers an attractive alternative to the existing cybersecurity paradigm. We define cyber-resilience as the capacity to withstand, recover from and adapt to the external shocks caused by cyber-risks. This article seeks to provide a broader organizational understanding of cyber-resilience and the tensions associated with its implementation. We apply Weick’s (1995) sensemaking framework to examine four foundational tensions of cyber-resilience: a definitional tension, an environmental tension, an internal tension, and a regulatory tension. We then document how these tensions are embedded in cyber-resilience practices at the preparatory, response and adaptive stages. We rely on qualitative data from a sample of 58 cybersecurity professionals to uncover these tensions and how they reverberate across cyber-resilience practices

Fitting In: How Two New Teachers Perceived and Related to the Dominant Norms at a High School

New teachers are vital for maintaining the U.S. education system as teacher retirements increase; yet, they are becoming difficult to retain. In fact, a high percentage of new teachers leave their positions after only a few years. Everyone loses - school districts, students, and communities - when valuable new teachers do not stay in the teaching profession for more than a short time. In this case study, the socialization experiences of two new teachers at a public high school were explored in order to illustrate how they learned about their school\u27s norms (as informed by and reflected in values), and how the norms they perceived might have influenced their inclinations to stay with or to leave their positions. The study results offer rich descriptions that readers may be able to relate to their own situations and experiences. It also contributes to previous research suggesting that one\u27s perception of \u27fit\u27 with organizational norms can influence one\u27s decision to stay with or leave the organization

Framework for empowering student nurses for social justice praxis

INTRODUCTION Social justice is considered the root of nursing responsibilities due to historical and enduring practices of promoting health and redressing social barriers that impact on health. This statement is supported in the literature and philosophies of national and international nursing organisations. However, in the United Kingdom, scholarly interest and nursing organisational position is ambiguous on social justice. AIM AND OBJECTIVES My research aim was to explore ideas for empowering student nurses to engage in actions that promotes social justice practices. The objectives included understanding the meaning of social justice, recognising the impact of social injustice on health, ascertaining the visibility of social justice learning in nurse education, and developing ideas for incorporating social justice practices in nurse education. METHODS Research methods were situated in critical interpretivism and constructivism grounded theory qualitative research design. Data was collected from semi-structured interviews with eleven student nurses and focus groups with eleven nurse educators, in a City of London nurse education institution. Data was analysed using Charmaz’s grounded theory initial, focused, and theoretical coding levels. FINDINGS Firstly, social justice was understood as conditions that fosters health experience. Secondly, social injustice was recognised as conditions that hinders health experience. Thirdly, social justice learning was found to be equivocal in nurse education. Lastly, it was discovered that frameworks can be used to incorporate social justice learning into nurse education. DISCUSSION I have created a framework on Awareness for Social Justice Action for the purpose of developing the critical student nurse for social justice awareness and action. This is my unique contribution to knowledge that reconcile educational theories with aspirations of research participants in the context of nurse education. CONCLUSION Doing the Professional Doctor of Education programme provided opportunities for shaping my research ideas. Systematic processing of these ideas was demonstrated throughout my research and contributed to my framework on promoting social justice nurse education to address persisting health inequities

Research supervision: faculty perspectives

Background: Research supervision is an increasingly important professional role of faculty members. There is now a growing body of research that explores factors which underpin good supervisory practice. Despite the progress in this area, there is scarcity of existing literature about the readiness of academic faculty who are involved in both undergraduate and postgraduate research supervision. One of the main obstacles in not being able to understand these issues is the lack of appropriate tools to measure research supervision skills. The aim of this thesis is to develop a valid and reliable scale to explore research supervision practices among health science faculty members, identify factors affecting the supervisory process and assess research supervisor’s readiness/preparedness towards guiding students’ research projects. Methods: A stepwise mixed methods study was carried out to develop and validate an instrument, the Research Supervision and Academic Readiness Scale (RSARS) that explored research supervision and academic readiness among health sciences faculty. The first stage (stage I) involved expert’s opinions, a focus group and a Delphi technique which generated appropriate items that were deemed necessary to be included in the instrument. The scale was piloted to identify the main dimensions/domains which included administrative and personal skills and interpersonal factors while looking for the internal consistency and the strengths of individual items. In stage II, a follow up in-depth qualitative study of the research supervisors’ experiences and practices was conducted with 18 participants from two universities to explore factors that influence academic supervision and to further refine the RSARS. Finally (stage III) was carried out to test the instrument in two different academic institutions representing two different contexts: King Saud Bin Abdul Aziz University for Health Sciences (KSAU-HS) and the University of Sydney (Sydney). To identify the underlying relationships between the items under each domain, Cronbach’s alpha were calculated and Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) performed to evaluate items step by step and 15 items were finally retained for the main study. Results: In stage I, the experts’ opinions highlighted the different questionnaire sections and domains. Findings from analysis of the focus group confirmed these domains and helped in refinement and additional items. The Delphi rounds helped in further items refinement and modification. Two rounds were considered adequate and all developed items were approved by 75% of the expert panel in agreement. The developed scale at this stage consisted of a total of thirty-eight items and Cronbach alpha of 0.98 showed item redundancy indicating the need for further review. In stage II (semi-structured interviews), the results were summarized into five main emergent themes, including institutional factors, supervisor/student interaction, professional development opportunities, motivational factors and challenges faced by supervisors. These issues are related to supervisors, students and their contexts. There was consensus among all participants regarding their motivation, challenges, and personal concerns when supervising research students. Rewards, recognition and time management were important factors expressed by the majority of the participants. Students’ personal characteristics such as enthusiasm, professional level and progress were of importance to the research supervision process. Contextual factors included clear institutional rules and regulations of supervision, valuing and recognition of supervisors, which were essential to majority of the supervisors. However, some structural differences were observed between the KSAU-HS and Sydney research supervisors. The majority of Sydney University participants had reservations about being co-supervisors rather than primary supervisors compared to KSAU-HS. In stage III, the RSARS was further developed and completed by a total of 235 participants as part of a survey including participant characteristics. There were 112/235 (47.7%) from KSAU-HS and 123/235 (52.3%) from the University of Sydney in the sample. The majority of KSAU-HS participants were males (p-value of 0.002); of younger age group (p-value of < 0.001), and had less teaching and supervision experience with a p-value of < 0.05 than their counterparts at Sydney. There was a highly significant difference between the two groups in the areas of initiating new studies or number of published papers with p-values of < 0.001. However, there were no significant differences between the two study areas with regard to the number of research students supervised (p-value < 0.36) or the number of times they were the primary supervisor (p-value of < 0.18). Also, there was variability in the supervisors’ personal skills and professionalism scores between the two study sites. Despite those differences, all study participants were in agreement with the need for more institutional support while also encouraging faculty enhancement activities for better supervision outcome. Conclusions: This study developed and validated a tool to assess the needs and readiness of research supervisors for individual assessments and faculty development interventions. The finding reports a range of validity evidence to support the use of the Research Supervision and Academic Readiness Scale (RSARA). This study highlighted that research supervision is influenced by multiple factors that need to be recognized and implemented for improving research supervisory skills. It is envisaged that this will have important implications for research supervisors' professional development. Future research is needed to further explore these factors from the perspective of supervisees as well as other relevant stakeholders