Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide new insights into the social impact of creative research methods.

Using the new methodology of cultural animation (CA), the authors highlight how knowledge can be co-produced between academics, community members and organisational practitioners. Drawing on the UK Connected Communities programme, the authors explore examples of immersive and performative techniques including arts and crafts, drama and poetry.

The authors showcase the practical and theoretical benefit of such exercises to generate impact and influence. Empirically, the authors demonstrate the potential of CA to bring together researchers and community members in useful partnerships that foster dialogical exchange. Theoretically, the authors extend and develop the value of American Pragmatism by highlighting how democratic, iterative and practical learning plays out through the materials, networks and processes of cultural animation.

Exploration of the examples leads us to propose and explore impact as a form of legacy which captures the temporal, processual and performative nature of knowledge sharing and co-production.

The methodology of CA is innovative and has not been tested widely to date although, as the authors illustrate, it is particularly useful for encouraging interaction between academics and the wider world by developing and nurturing interactions and relationships. It carries potential to contribute new insights to the theorisation and lived experience of organisation.

Organizational analysts have long questioned the ways in which professional knowledge becomes powerful. The purpose of this paper is to extend that enquiry by examining two professional groups in the UK – doctors and veterinarians.

The paper examines a selection of social interactions, tensions and disagreements between practitioners and non‐medical actors and draws on a range of qualitative research methods, particularly structured interview and participant observation, to analyse and interpret these as “epistemological conflicts”.

Hospital doctors and veterinary surgeons share a common belief that “truth” and “facts” are at the core of their clinical and surgical work. This positivist paradigm underpins a range of practical engagements with bodies and diseases and lends them a sense of ontological security when dealing with people from outside their professions, especially those without medical training. This paper examines the practical effects that such ontological tensions can have. In exposing some of these effects, this paper questions the often taken‐for‐granted divisions between science and arts, religion and medicine, and takes a more heterdox approach in analyzing social interactions.

The paper advocates philosophical, methodological and theoretical heterodoxy. The findings are viewed through a number of different theoretical lenses; from actor network theory and sociology of technology and science (STS) to deconstruction, frame theory and semiotics. The paper makes no attempt to choose between these approaches and instead argues that a “messy” and multiple understanding, both of theory and practice, is needed to gain insights into the tricky politics of knowledge and its effects in practical settings.

Traditionally, ethnography has been well placed to take account of the messy and complex processes that produce workplace cultures. Likewise, it has always taken interest in the objects, materials and symbolic artifacts that help furnish those organizational cultures. Yet researchers face a particular challenge when the organization in question includes animals. The purpose of this paper is to ask: How do we take account of such others? Are they objects, things, agents or should they be considered to be workers?

The authors consider several examples of animal‐human workplaces, including abattoirs, laboratories and farms, to argue that ethnography can, and should, take account of animals in creative new ways. First‐hand experience of such settings is drawn upon to argue that contemporary post‐human scholarship and the creative arts offer the potential for more subtle research methods.

The authors’ fieldwork shows that it is not always a straightforward desire to care for other species that motivates people to work with animals. Instead, a range of unexpected meanings can be drawn from the interaction with animals. It is also unsatisfactory to claim that those working with animals are always motivated by the promise of paid employment. In many cases, notably the rescue shelter, work is often done on a voluntary basis. So the rewards are not always financial but reach into more symbolic and ethical domains of value creation. Conversely, in slaughterhouses, the mechanization of the shopfloor makes it difficult for workers to relate to the “products” as animals at all. The repetitive nature of this work disconnects those on the production line from the idea that they are dealing with bodies. The complexity of these human‐animal relationships means that field methods for studying them must be adapted and evolved.

This paper provokes some new questions about human‐animal meaning making for organizational ethnographers. It does so to generate creative new ideas about field methods and the nature of the “others” that researchers participate with to observe.

Reports on quality of life (QOL) measures for forensic patients are severely limited. The present paper aims to consider how to assess chronic patient's well‐being and to identify and evaluate the content validity of measures used to assess health‐related QOL in psychosis.

A review was undertaken to gather information on the different QOL measures from relevant databases, exploring their strengths and weaknesses.

Results from the review indicate a broad range of assessment tools are used in practice, although very few have been used in forensic settings. A preference for subjective tools is emerging, in addition to patient rated scales as opposed to clinician rated scales.

The application of QOL measures in the forensic population is of particular interest and a relatively new area of study, thus of value to practicing clinicians. It is hoped that the use of appropriate tools will enhance understanding of the treatment and service needs for mentally disordered offenders.

We learn from various sources that the Cambridge Conference arrangements are well in hand. It is many years since the Library Association gathered in body at either Oxford or Cambridge and the event should therefore be of universal interest. On one point it has a special interest, for the President will be Mr. Jast, the first municipal librarian to hold our highest office for many years past; and no one will do otherwise than rejoice at the somewhat tardy honour thus to be paid him. Cambridge itself is making first‐class history in that it is about to build a new University Library, the elevation of which—and it is a most imposing one—has been published in The Observer and probably elsewhere. Moreover, the university city with its colleges, halls, libraries and quite glamorous history from the literary point of view, offers librarians more than most people the ideal place of meeting.

The aim of this special issue is to bring together contributions from diverse perspectives interested in challenging the quantitative/qualitative divide within organisation and management research.

The papers in this special issue explore at a methodological or paradigmatic level (rather than at the level of particular research methods) the possible ways in which different research methodologies converge, diverge and overlap. Rather that asking questions about the validity and intrinsic value of certain methodologies, we are encouraged to shift gear towards assessing how useful these methodologies are in terms of carrying us from the world of practice to theory and vice‐versa. If methodologies help us to progress our thinking and our practices, they are “true” in a pragmatist sense. If they stall our thinking and do not influence in any way our practices, then they are probably untrue.

It is hoped that the papers presented in this special issue help us process our ideas and experiences in a progressive way, towards finding better, more robust ways of approaching our research practices.

Of course, it is for the reader to decide if this project has made an impact on their own thinking and practical endeavour but we remain convinced that the dichotomy between quantitative and qualitative methodologies is not productive and must be abandoned in favour of a heterodox and more pragmatic approach to methodology.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the characteristics of adults with intellectual disabilities supported by a Community Forensic Learning Disability Team (CFT) and interventions delivered. It discusses the clinical implications of these and examines outcomes such as recidivism.

A retrospective case note review of all 70 service users open to the CFT during June 2013 was carried out, using a structured service evaluation tool.

The majority of service users (74.3 per cent) had a mild intellectual disability. Multiple mental health and/or physical health diagnoses were common, and 28 per cent had problematic drug or alcohol abuse. Almost half of service users had been victims of physical or sexual abuse, or neglect. Sexual offences were the most common index offence, followed by assault and fire-setting. A wide range of multi-disciplinary interventions were delivered within the Community Forensic Team. Following CFT involvement there was an increase in service users living in supported living in the community and a decrease in people in secure or out of area placements. Over half of service users engaged in no further offending behaviour since their referral, and those who did offend generally showed a decrease in the severity of offending behaviours. There was a large decrease in the number of convictions received.

The study shows the benefits of a multi-disciplinary Community Forensic Team for offenders with intellectual disabilities in terms of reduced recidivism and range of interventions delivered. It highlights the importance of clinicians within such a team having the skills to work with people with co-morbid diagnoses (e.g. autism) and people with trauma backgrounds and problematic substance use.

This paper demonstrates the complexity of the service users who are supported by the CFT, as well as the integral role played in supporting individuals to move to less restrictive settings, with positive outcomes.

Although intellectual disability (ID) and criminal offending have long been associated, the nature of this link is obfuscated by reliance on historically unrigorous means of assessing ID and fractionating social cognitive skills. The purpose of this paper is to review and report current findings and set an agenda for future research in social perception, social inference and social problem solving in ID violent offenders.

The literature is reviewed on comorbidity of criminal offending and ID, and on social cognitive impairment and ID offending. In an exploratory case-control series comprising six violent offenders with ID and five similarly able controls, emotion recognition and social inference are assessed by the Awareness of Social Inference Test and social problem-solving ability and style by an adapted Social Problem-Solving Inventory.

Violent offenders recognised all emotions except “anxious”. Further, while offenders could interpret and integrate wider contextual cues, absent such cues offenders were less able to use paralinguistic cues (e.g. emotional tone) to infer speakers’ feelings. Offenders in this sample exceeded controls’ social problem-solving scores.

This paper confirms that ID offenders, like neurotypical offenders, display specific deficits in emotion recognition – particularly fear recognition – but suggests that in ID offenders impairments of affect perception are not necessarily accompanied by impaired social problem solving. The implication for therapeutic practice is that ID offenders might be most effectively rehabilitated by targeting simpler, low-level cognitive processes, such as fear perception, rather than adapting treatment strategies from mainstream offenders.