Search results

University faculty, researchers and graduate students are increasingly working out of hotdesks, nonterritorial workspaces available on a “first come first served” basis and cleared of all work and personal possessions at the end of every work session. The aim of this study of the hotdesking experiences of doctoral students in a US public university facility is to identify the themes and coping behaviors associated with hotdesking and examine their implications for campus workspace design and policymaking.

This study uses multiple methods – direct and participant observation of flex workspaces in the study site, semi-structured interviews of doctoral students hotdesking in the study site and archival research of public institutional data.

Study participants work early or late to secure suitable hotdesks, perform important tasks in locations other than the study site, incur co-working space and home office costs, etc. to cope with the themes of uncertainty, lack of control and lack of workspace continuity associated with hotdesking. Workspace reservation systems, storage lockers and workspaces for diverse tasks can improve the on-campus hotdesking experience. Off-campus support such as financial support for setting up and maintaining a home office, subscription to co-working spaces, etc. can facilitate productivity and foster a sense of connection in hotdesk users.

This study contributes evidence that hotdesking doctoral students operate in a hybrid work environment composed of on- and off-campus locations. This study provides original insight that hotdesk users need on- and off-campus workspace support to experience productivity, connection and well-being in a hybrid campus work environment.

India’s Mental Healthcare Act 2017 provides a right to mental healthcare, revises admission and review procedures, effectively decriminalises suicide and has strong non-discrimination measures, among other provisions. The purpose of this paper is to examine Indian mental health professionals’ views of these changes as they relate to stigma and inclusion of the mentally ill.

The authors held nine focus groups in three Indian states, involving 61 mental health professionals including 56 psychiatrists.

Several themes relating to stigma and inclusion emerged: stigma is ubiquitous and results in social exclusion; stigma might be increased rather than remedied by certain regulations in the 2017 Act; stigma is not adequately dealt with in the legislation; stigma might discourage people from making “advance directives”; and there is a crucial relationship between stigma and education.

Implementation of India’s 2017 Act needs to be accompanied by adequate service resourcing and extensive education, including public education. This has commenced but needs substantial resources in order to fulfil the Act’s potential.

India’s mental health legislation governs the mental healthcare of 1.3bn people, one sixth of the planet’s population; seeking to use law to diminish stigma and enhance inclusion in such a large country sets a strong example for other nations.

This is the first study of stigma and inclusion since India’s 2017 Act was commenced and it highlights both the potential and the challenges of such ambitious rights-based legislation.