Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a literature review on what is known about unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse from the people they provide care for and relevant policy/legal and practice responses for affected family carers.

A literature search was carried out to locate literature relating to unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse from the people they provide care for. This also incorporated grey literature, including policy guidance and law, to determine the existing knowledge base, gaps in practice and areas that might require further research.

The findings suggest that although carer harm is serious, it is under-researched. In addition, the unique needs of unpaid family carers who are at risk of or have experienced abuse, violence and harm from the people they provide care for are subsumed in safeguarding policy/law processes and practice under the auspices of the protection of “adults at risk” rather than the protection of “carers at risk”.

It is important that those who support unpaid family carers who are at risk of abuse and harm know about their unique safeguarding needs and concerns to offer appropriate support. It is also apparent that policy and law need to address the gap in provision relating to the unique safeguarding concerns involving the abuse of unpaid family carers by the people they provide care for. This paper is based on this literature review and not on other types of research.

The paper provides insights into what is known about the abuse of unpaid family carers by the people they provide care for, and the policy/legal and practice responses to affected unpaid family carers. It contributes to the body of knowledge on carer abuse and safeguarding carers from abuse and harm.

Why is it that highly trained and seasoned executives fail? On the surface, this doesn’t make sense because they are very successful; yet research in the organization sciences provides no shortage of evidence to prove just that. From the classic Mann Gulch fire disaster of Weick’s famous collapse of sensemaking study, to studies of myopia of learning, escalation of commitment, threat-rigidity, dominant logic, the architecture of simplicity, the Icarus Paradox, to core competencies turning into core rigidities, and navigating new competitive markets using “old” cognitive maps, and many more such examples point to a ubiquitous phenomenon where highly trained and experienced professionals find themselves “stuck” in the heat of battle, unable to move and progress. On the one hand, for some, there is a desperate need for change, but are unable to do so, due to their trained incapacities. On the other hand, some simply cannot see the need for change, and continue with their “business as usual” mentality. For both, their visions of the world shrink, they have a tendency to cling onto their past habitual practices and oversimplify the complexity of the situation. In moments like these: DROP YOUR TOOLS and UNLEARN! This book chapter introduces a framework (grounded in clinical psychology) that has had consistent success in helping seasoned executives and key decision-makers open up the alternatives whenever they find themselves stuck with complexity.

The very soul of cultural and arts entrepreneurship (CAE) is aesthetic. However, what is the importance of being aesthetic in CAE? An understanding of aesthetics substantially improves both our comprehension of CAE and our capacity to theorise about entrepreneurship and creative industries. Furthermore, when seeking to understand CAE, the authors expand their knowledge about aesthetics, an ordinary but complex and neglected kind of knowledge. The authors mobilise three perspectives in organisational aesthetics theory (sensible knowing, connection, and judgements) to develop and propose initial ways to connect aesthetics to CAE. These perspectives help to explore and explain the vital importance of aesthetics in CAE and its innovation process. Aesthetics is a source of innovation in CAE, and the authors propose to perceive entrepreneurial innovations as aesthetic learning, persuasion, and flow.

Socially responsible firms are known to improve competitive advantage and create workplaces that protect employees and the society in the long-term. Yet, the transitionary and project-based nature of the construction industry makes it difficult to espouse socially responsible practices. This study aims to adopt a person-centric conceptualisation of social responsibility by drawing on processes of individual sensemaking to gain a deeper understanding of small-business social responsibility (SBSR).

The authors conducted semi-structured interviews with 11 people from the construction industry in Sri Lanka to develop retrospective narratives.

The findings suggest that individuals in small-business construction firms rely on intraindividual, organisational and wider societal considerations to make sense of SBSR. What drives these interviewees to be responsible is determined not so much by profitability or reputation but by their own SBSR sensemaking process.

This study examines how individuals make sense of social responsibility in transitionary project-based small businesses in the construction industry.

This paper aims to introduce International Digital Collaborative Autoethnographical Psychobiography (IDCAP).

This paper describes how IDCAP was developed to answer research questions about what it takes and what it means to recover from mental illness. During its development, IDCAP combined the diverse and intersectional experiences, knowledge and interests of an Anglo-Swedish research team with what could be found in different publications concerning the experiences and the mental illnesses of the musicians Syd Barrett, Peter Green and Brian Wilson.

IDCAP combines features of autoethnography and psychobiography to offer a novel qualitative research method.

Whilst IDCAP was created to focus on recovery from mental illness and musicians, it can be applied to other areas of research. It shares the same limitations as autoethnography and psychobiography, although some of the features of IDCAP may go some way to mitigate against these.

IDCAP is a novel research method that is offered to other researchers to develop and enhance further through application.

IDCAP is a collaborative research method that encourages the involvement of a wide range of researchers from different countries and cultures. It can be used to give voice to marginalised groups and to counter discrimination and prejudice. Recovery from mental illness is a topic of great personal and social value.

IDCAP is a novel research method that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has not been explicitly used before.

This paper aims to explore how historical context influences the content and selection of rhetorical legitimation strategies. Using case study method, this paper will focus on how insurance companies and labor tried to defend their legitimacy in the context of enactment of Medicare in the USA. What factors influenced the strategic (rhetorical) decisions made by insurance companies and labor unions in their institutional work?

The study is empirically grounded in archival research, involving an analysis of over 9,000 pages of congressional hearings on Medicare covering the period 1958–1965.

The authors show that rhetorical legitimation strategies depend significantly on the specific historical circumstances in which those strategies are used. The historical context lent credibility to certain arguments and organizations are forced to decide either to challenge widely held assumptions or take advantage of them. The authors show that organizations face strong incentives to pursue the latter option. Here, both the insurance companies and labor unions tried to show that their positions were consistent with classical liberal ideology, because of high respect of classical liberal principles among different stakeholders (policymakers, voters, etc.).

It is uncertain how much the results of the study could be generalized. More information about the organizations whose use of rhetorics the authors studied could have strengthened our conclusions.

The practical relevancy of the revised paper is that the authors should not expect hegemony challenging rhetorics from organizations, which try to influence legislators (and perhaps the larger public). Perhaps (based on the findings), this kind of rhetorics is not even very effective.

The paper helps to understand better how organizations try to advance their interests and gain acceptance among the stakeholders.

In this paper, the authors show how historical context in practice influence rhetorical arguments organizations select in public debates when their goal is to influence the decision-making of their audience. In particular, the authors show how dominant ideology (or ideologies) limit the options organizations face when they are choosing their strategies and arguments. In terms of the selection of rhetorical justification strategies, the most pressing question is not the “real” broad based support of certain ideologies. Insurance company and labor union representatives clearly believed that they must emphasize liberal values (or liberal ideology) if they wanted to gain legitimacy for their positions. In existing literature, it is often assumed that historical context influence the selection of rhetorical strategies but how this in fact happens is not usually specified. The paper shows how interpretations of historical contexts (including the ideological context) in practice influence the rhetorical strategies organizations choose.