Search results

There has been a paradigm shift within research exploring autistic experience in recent decades towards greater participation, agency and voice for autistic researchers and the autistic community more generally (Fletcher-Watson et al., 2019). This approach has shown a greater focus on research oriented towards the priorities or preferences of the autistic community (Fletcher-Watson & Happé, 2019; Pellicano et al., 2014), curtails concerns regarding epistemic injustice and has influenced understandings of autistic ontology and neurology. Co-produced research, characterised by the inclusion of diverse stakeholders, builds trust between participants. Nonetheless, co-production in research requires careful planning and support (Stark et al., 2021), sometimes proving ‘turbulent’ and ‘challenging’ (Worsley et al., 2021). This chapter explores the experiences and reflections of a team of autistic and non-autistic researchers conducting co-produced research amid the global COVID-19 pandemic. With research practices and systems altered due to increased remote work, online communication and limited in-person interaction, this topic is especially pertinent. With the increasing emphasis on involving members of the autistic community in research at all levels of development, the impact of the pandemic on how participatory research is carried out may be complex. This chapter has implications for planning and conducting co-produced research in our new reality, considering both the opportunities and obstacles it presents.

In this chapter, we discuss the merits and challenges of organic communication within an inclusive, iterative research design through our research project ‘Improving the quality of life of families with parents with intellectual disabilities (IDs) and their children (<12 years) by means of assistive robotics’. We will discuss the research process, its key steps and preliminary findings, as well as how inclusivity of participants was taken along throughout this process. The links between research design, designers and project participants are explored and reflected on. Our positions as researchers within the research process are also reflected upon. We will additionally address the implications of our research for the broader field of inclusive design for assistive robotics and the creative methodologies employed and tailored to the needs of families headed by parents with an ID and their children. In this, we keep a close eye on the difficulties such families face within the context of our research project. Lastly, we reflect on several key markers of collaboration within marginalised communities we encountered in our research.

In academia, assessment is often narrow in its focus on research productivity, its application of a limited number of standardised metrics and its summative approach aimed at selection. This approach, corresponding to an exclusive, subject-oriented concept of talent management, can be thought of as at odds with a broader view of the role of academic institutions as accelerating and improving science and scholarship and its societal impact. In recent years, open science practices as well as research integrity issues have increased awareness of the need for a more inclusive approach to assessment and talent management in academia, broadening assessment to reward the full spectrum of academic activities and, within that spectrum, deepening assessment by critically reflecting on the processes and indicators involved (both qualitative and quantitative). In terms of talent management, this would mean a move from research-focused assessment to assessment including all academic activities (including education, professional performance and leadership), a shift from focus on the individual to a focus on collaboration in teams (recognising contributions of both academic and support staff), increased attention for formative assessment and greater agency for those being evaluated, as well as around the data, tools and platforms used in assessment. Together, this represents a more inclusive, subject-oriented approach to talent management. Implementation of such changes requires involvement from university management, human resource management and academic and support staff at all career levels, and universities would benefit from participation in mutual learning initiatives currently taking shape in various regions of the world.

In particular, it is worth mentoring new and more efficient solutions that can meet the increasingly specific needs of each company, especially in food management. A business intelligence (BI) solution can help your food company better understand and manage business processes more effectively. Management information is essential for all levels of an organisation to make quick and correct decisions. However, what exactly is BI, and what can it mean for a food company?

The PRISMA stands for (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) and content analysis strategy used the SLR (systematic literature review) methodology to examine 151 papers published in peer-reviewed academic journals and industry reports between 2016 and 2023.

The findings show that artificial intelligence and digitalisation are linked to the UN 2030 Agenda. BI management ranks first (66%), followed by crop and land mapping systems (40%), agricultural machinery monitoring tools (39%) and decision support systems (31%). The road to digital transformation remains extended, with the main impediments being more compatibility between enterprise systems and a shortage of expertise.

The section relating to methodological perspective adopts the PRISMA methodology for systematic review. Interoperability is easily managed by assigning qualified teams to projects. The added value of a consulting firm with extensive project management experience in the food industry is closely related to the results achieved.

BI: What exactly is it, and why a data-driven culture is essential in the food and beverage industry?

Worldwide academia is going through a major transformation because of Open Science and Recognition and Rewards movements that are linked to big societal challenges such as climate change, digitalization, growing inequality, migration, political instability, democracies under threat and combinations of these challenges. The transformations affect the human resource management (HRM) and talent management of universities. The main focus of this chapter is on collaborative innovation and the way universities participate in coalitions and strategic alliances on national and international levels. These platforms not only discuss the transformations and support the academic changes but also act as talent pools and talent exchange. This chapter provides an overview of the current state of affairs with respect to Open Science and Recognition and Rewards in academia. Next, a theoretical foundation is presented on the concepts of collaborative innovation, coopetition and HRM innovation in general. The leaders or leading organizations in the HRM innovation models often can’t make it happen on their own, in particular in highly institutionalized contexts such as academia. The legitimacy of transformations requires coalitions of the willing and therefore strategic alliances on different levels. The coalitions in academia can also contribute to academic talent management through sectoral transformations (see Recognition and Rewards) and through the way these coalitions operate.

This case study is based on fraudulent press releases by Turbo Global Partners, Inc., an Over the Counter (OTC) traded public company in the United States. After the fraudulent press releases, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) suspended the trading of securities of Turbo Global Partners, Inc. and filed a complaint against the company in the US District Court in the Middle District of Florida. This case study presents accounting students (Intermediate II and auditing students) with various concepts related to fraud, ethics, and financial reporting. Specifically, this case study presents the concepts related to (1) fraud triangle; (2) the impact of fraud to various stakeholders; (3) debt extinguishment; (4) analysis of financial statements; (5) accounting for intangible assets; (6) analytical procedures; and (7) SEC investigation and actions. This case provides students with an opportunity of active learning as they analyze a real-world case of fraud and access professional literature such as Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) and SEC documents.

In this chapter, I assert that the material, gesturing, dancing voices of people labelled as disabled, and that the aesthetic languages developed by these people and their voicings on both the sonic and haptic planes, constructively challenge us to consider the inclusion and integration of these voices into educational environments and cultural discourse in new ways. They motivate us to question not only who, indeed, gets heard in social space but also what kinds of utterances, and by extension, what kinds of bodily configurations and touch qualities, wider society considers to ‘matter’, and beyond this, to celebrate as being ‘beautiful’. To do so, I draw from an experience developing vocal artwork with adults with mild to moderate learning disability in Cork, Ireland. Given that most of us project large and often deeply prejudicial identities and suppositions onto the voices we hear (Bonenfant, 2018c), the chapter shows how the incredibly interesting utterances produced by groups involved in developing the resulting Loop Love project throw up delightful new educational territories for adventurous artists to explore while also deeply challenging our assumptions about how ‘teaching’ should work.