Search results

The development of telecare services across the UK has been supported by grants from the respective governments of Scotland and Wales, and by the DH in England. New services are being established to sometimes operate alongside existing community equipment services and community alarm services. Elsewhere they are embracing a wider range of services including rehabilitation, intermediate care and health services designed to reduce the use of unscheduled care services. This paper discusses the difficulties in understanding the scope of telecare services, and the definitions of services that will need to be confirmed so that service users can choose appropriately if offered direct payments. Two different service models are offered, one of which uses telehealth as an umbrella term to cover all telecare, e‐care and m‐care, and telemedicine where the former includes all such services offered in the service user's home, including those of a medical nature. The second model views telecare alongside assistive technologies and telemedicine as one of three different technology groups designed to make people more independent or to bring care closer to home. There is significant overlap between the three groups, which justifies the introduction of a new term ‐ ARTS (assistive and remote technology services) ‐ to describe this area of support.

The development of telecare services in the UK has been supported by grants from the respective governments of Scotland and Wales, and by the Department of Health in England. New services are being established, sometimes to operate alongside existing community equipment services and community alarm services. Elsewhere they are embracing a wider range of services including rehabilitation, intermediate care and health services designed to reduce use of unscheduled care services. This paper discusses the difficulties in understanding the scope of telecare services, and the definitions of services that will need to be confirmed if service users are to be able to choose appropriately if offered direct payments. Two service models are offered, one of which uses telehealth as an umbrella term to cover all telecare, e‐care and m‐care, and telemedicine, where the former includes all such services offered in the service user's home, including those of a medical nature. The second model views telecare alongside assistive technologies and telemedicine as one of three technology groups designed to make people more independent, or to bring care closer to home. There is significant overlap between the three groups, which justifies the introduction of a new term ‐ ARTS (assistive and remote technology services) ‐ to describe this area of support.

Telecare services based on sensors that provide an early and identified warning of an emergency in the homes of vulnerable people are being established quickly across the UK. More advanced systems based on lifestyle monitoring (LM) are being proposed that will be both reactive and responsive in nature. They will require the recording of much more data and will involve more system intelligence in order to analyse changes in a dynamic manner. Data will be collected both continuously from a battery of sensors, and intermittently from a variety of sources including monitoring centres and specialist medical devices. Many new applications will be possible ranging from an automatic assessment of risks and needs through to long‐term detection of a decline in well‐being and interventions using reminders and remotely controlled electrical equipment. Most of these applications will not be possible in a reliable manner using simple systems with few sensor inputs and limited or no system intelligence. More sophisticated systems will be capable of measuring subtle changes of relevance to many medical conditions. However, they will require significant attention to issues of ethics, consent, data ownership, storage and access because of their potentially intrusive nature.

This chapter contributes to literature illustrating accounting’s impact in making things governable, thinkable, and knowable. Although critical accounting research has been exemplary in examining consequences of its practices on vulnerable populations, there has been a scarcity of investigation regarding incarcerated populace. This chapter begins the process of exploring neoliberal discipline, rule, and calculative techniques intersecting with gender, race, and class in prisons. For this disenfranchised population the construction of the “feared and deviant other” is of particular significance. A crime-control dynamic mythologizing and dreading the criminal has become so institutionalized that discourses justifying surveillance, dominance, and injustice have become normalized, in which accounting takes part. We are particularly interested in the impact for incarcerated women who are shackled, sterilized, and at risk, modes of control that are extraordinary. As such, the dynamics of knowledge creation challenges us to ask what initiates visibility and transformation. We suggest the narratives of incarcerated women are potential devices in this process, and add to an emerging literature revealing the emancipatory possibility of alternative, or counter-accounts. Seen as tools of resistance and change, we give voice to their narratives. As their accounts demonstrate resilience and power, we reject an inevitability of silence. Rather, these critical accounts provide pathways for thinking differently and aspiring for a change, as the social never disappears.

Our examination of accounting and violence aims to reinvigorate what it means to provide accountability and visibility given that knowledge and values are socially constructed. The authors follow the legacy of critical accounting research in this essay, using counter accounts, shadow accounting, and narratives to uncover the discipline’s relationship to violence, women, and migrants.

This chapter addresses current trends regarding how the meta-theory of critical realism (CR) frames comparative and international education research and practice. It introduces the key tenets of CR and explores how these ideas have been and can be applied in educational research. It demonstrates how CR provides a valuable alternative to the positivist, interpretivist and constructivist paradigms, and leverages elements of all three to provide new approaches to develop knowledge that is free from the dualisms embedded in their ontological assumptions. I argue that by offering a dialectical understanding of structure and agency, as well as the material and ideational dimension of social reality, CR provides an ontological framework that does not do conceptual violence to the reality we seek to research. This ontological basis is particularly valuable to the social justice agenda of educational research in general because it allows researchers to work beneath the surface of empirical research to disclose the field of possibilities for social action.

Corporate Strategy (CS) has traditionally played a pivotal role in the undergraduate business curriculum and is normally a required final year course. While the managerial experience of students at postgraduate level provides a clear justification for requiring students to study CS, the decline of work experience and the massification of UK higher education raises question marks regarding the relevance of CS in undergraduate business education. CS may also be criticised as being overly concerned with simplified and abstract theories inappropriate in a rapidly changing post‐Fordist economy. In response to these challenges there needs to be a re‐conceptualisation of CS as a preparation for empowered and informed employees rather than as a preparation for potential senior managers. The teaching of CS also needs to take greater account of changes in the economic environment such as the growth of smaller businesses and the importance of ethics.