Search results

This paper argues for the need to use multiple sources and methods that respond to research challenges presented by new forms of war. There are methodological constraints and contention on the superiority given to positivist and interpretivist research designs when doing fieldwork in war situations, hence there is a need to use integrated data generation techniques. The combined effect of severe limitations of movement for both the researcher and researched fragmented data because of polarized views about the causes of the war and unpredictable events that make information hard to come by militate against systematic, organised and robust data generation. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to make fieldwork researchers understand significant research problems unique to war zones.

This research was guided by the postmodernist mode of thought which challenges standardised research traditions. Fieldwork experiences in Cabo suggest the need to use the composite strategies that rely on the theoretical foundation of integrative and creative collection of data when doing research in violent settings.

The fieldwork experiences showed that the standardised, conventional and valorised positivist and ethnographic research strategies may not sufficiently facilitate understanding of the dynamics of war. There should not be firm rules, guidelines or regulations governing the actions of the researcher in conflict. As such, doing research in violent settings require reflexivity, flexibility and creativity in research strategies that respond to rapid changes. Research experiences in Mozambique show the need to use blended methods that include even less structured methodologies.

Fieldwork experiences in Cabo challenges researchers who cling to standardised research traditions which often hamper awareness of new postmodernist mode of thought applicable to war settings. It is essential to study the nature of African armed conflicts by combining creativity and flexibility in the selection of research strategies.

This study aims to evaluate the quality of information recorded in Behaviour Monitoring Charts (BMC) for Behaviours that Challenge (BtC) in dementia in an older adult inpatient dementia service in the North of England (Aim I) and to understand staff perceptions and experiences of completing BMC for BtC in dementia (Aim II).

Descriptive statistics and graphs were used to analyse and interpret quantitative data gathered from BMC (Aim I) and Likert-scale survey responses (Aim II). Thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was used to analyse and interpret qualitative data collected from responses to open-ended survey questions and, separately, focus group discussions (Aim II).

Analysis of the BMCs revealed that some of the data recorded relating to antecedents, behaviours and consequences lacked richness and used vague language (i.e. gave reassurance), which limited its clinical utility. Overall, participants and respondents found BMC to be problematic. For them, completing BMCs were not viewed as worthwhile, the processes that followed their completion were unclear, and they left staff feeling disempowered in the systemic hierarchy of an inpatient setting.

Functional analysis of BMC helps identify and inform appropriately tailored interventions for BtC in dementia. Understanding how BMCs are used and how staff perceive BMC provides a unique opportunity to improve them. Improving BMC will support better functional analysis of BtC, thus allowing for more tailored interventions to meet the needs of people with dementia.

The aim of the study is to identify best practices from Business Excellence (BE) award-winning organizations on the use of their BE self-assessment (internal assessment) and third-party assessment (external assessment including BE award assessments) for organizational improvement.

An explanatory sequential mixed methods approach was used to gather data from 50 organizations across 17 countries with varying degrees of BE maturity. Twenty of these, representing 40% of the sample, then participated in semi-structured interviews through which their understanding of the impacts of various practices was explored in more detail. From this sub-sample, three (3) emerged as exemplars used as the case studies reported here.

The findings from the first and broader study of the 50 organizations demonstrate a diverse approach to BE assessments, much of which is tailored to the maturity level of each organization. BE organizations with a high BE maturity level are more likely to conduct regular self-assessments and certificate assessment. Key practices identified in the case study organizations were their unique approach to preparing the organization for assessments irrespective of the BE award criteria, the use of mock assessments to prepare for award assessments, the use of customer-led assessments, thorough action plan review process, the use of internal assessments to grow internal capabilities, participation in regular award assessments, the use of external BE assessors and experts for assessments, increased use of technology to support the assessment process, and varying assessment types by organizational BE maturity.

This research provides a specific and valuable contribution to the existing BE literature by presenting contemporary, real-world examples of best practices in BE assessment. It offers a unique perspective on how award-winning organizations tailor their strategies to meet diverse business needs and strategic objectives.

The purpose of this study is to address a critical gap in the existing literature on business excellence implementation. While various studies have examined different aspects of business excellence, there is still a lack of comprehensive research on the optimal organizational excellence architecture (OEA) for an award-winning business excellence journey. The absence of a unified framework has led to inconsistent practices across organizations. The aim of this research based on data collected from 50 organizations across 17 countries is to address this gap and present a refined OEA model.

This study employed quantitative and qualitative data collection methods. Member organizations from the Global Excellence Model (GEM) Council participated through an online survey administered via the Qualtrics software platform. Quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS and Microsoft Excel software tools, while content analysis techniques were applied to the qualitative data to gain detailed insights.

The findings refine and extend the OEA model. These contributions lead to a refined OEA definition and open avenues for future research, enriching the current understanding of BE implementation.

This study introduces a novel concept of OEA to the literature on business excellence implementation. The refined OEA model provides a fresh perspective on the critical components necessary for an award-winning business excellence journey. This research offers significant value to both practitioners and academics by presenting a unified approach to BE implementation, effectively addressing the previously identified gap in BE research.

There remains a critical issue in sport management scholarship in that the field lacks a well-defined framework for delineating practical implications in research. This research aims to answer the following research questions: (1) What types of practical implications can be identified in sport management research? (2) How can sport management research frame the practical implications of the study in a way that is both theoretically sound and useful for practitioners?

Through a scoping review and within the lens of Jaworski (2011)'s framework for managerial relevance, the study examined 427 articles from European Sport Management Quarterly, Journal of Sport Management and Sport Management Review published between 2000 and 2020.

This study presents a five-pronged framework that identifies target managers, organizational tasks, time horizons, philosophical impact and desired outcomes. Furthermore, the current research offers suggestions for how to present managerial implications in sport management research.

The findings shed light on the managerial relevance of the recent sport management body of work, developing an important framework for practical implications for the field to reflect and incorporate into future studies. With a theoretical understanding of how to frame the practical implications of sport management research, the gap between academia and industry can continue to narrow, and the relevance to the industry may be more pertinent than ever before.

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented disruption to health systems. There is much to be gained by capturing what was learned from changes and adaptations made by health services and systems. The Ministry of Health in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, sought to prioritise health services research (HSR) to address critical issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. We tested a priority setting methodology to create priorities for a specific funding opportunity and to extract generalisable lessons.

A virtual roundtable meeting of key stakeholders was held in June 2020. We used a modified Nominal Group Technique (NGT) for priority setting, with potential items (n = 35) grouped under headings. Data was analysed through a reflective deliberative process.

We engaged 89 senior policy makers, health service executives, clinicians and researchers in the roundtable. The NGT proved an efficient method with participants reaching consensus on eight priorities. Findings included strong support for learning from the rapid response to COVID-19 and addressing needs of vulnerable populations and the health workforce. Opinions differed about strategic areas investment and where learnings should be via internal evaluation rather than funded research. Three of the eight recommended priorities were included in the funding opportunity.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) required unprecedented change and adaptations within health systems, and rapid, applied health services research can help to create, understand and (where relevant) sustain change beyond the immediate impact of the pandemic. While final decisions may be dependent on a wider range of considerations by government, stakeholder enthusiasm for engagement in priority setting exercises may be dampened if they do not perceive their application in decision-making.

A modified nominal group technique can be used to set research priorities in constrained conditions by engaging large numbers of stakeholders in rankings and then using an online delivery of a roundtable and to reach consensus on priorities in real time. Recommended priorities for health services research can be readily generated through rapid engagement but does not guarantee their application.

Australia’s swift response to COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 was perceived as a relative success due to the rapid public health and policy response and a relatively low number of cases. This response was underpinned by systematic knowledge mobilisation including support for targeted and prioritised health services research to fill knowledge gaps.

Setting priority processes can provide rich, engaged input to support government funding decisions about HSR. A wide range of dynamic and iterative processes influence decision-making in a rapidly evolving situation in the health system response to COVID-19. It is crucial to consider how major investment decisions will support a value-based healthcare system.