Search results

People in prisons have a high prevalence of poly-traumatisation throughout their life span. The behavioural and emotional sequalae of trauma are likely to be managed across the whole organisation. However, there is still a lack of clarity about the key components of a trauma-informed approach within the custodial context. This study aimed to gather in-depth knowledge of staff views on the components of an optimal trauma pathway in a prison and the organisational factors that influence its implementation.

The authors’ research design is qualitative, involving in-depth, semi-structured interviews with eight members of staff from different professional backgrounds at a single prison in the UK that houses sentenced and remand prisoners. Data was analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

Three super-ordinate themes were identified within the data. Firstly, components of a trauma-informed pathway included sub-themes of asking about what has happened and knowing how to respond; providing specialist approaches; enabling residents to cope; screening and detection; and a compassionate relational approach. Secondly, organisational factors were associated with sub-themes of culture and leadership, resources and systems and processes. Thirdly, staff factors were associated with sub-themes of skills development and training, staff well-being and support and staff attitudes.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and complex PTSD in prisons are under-detected, and there are complex psychosocial factors within prisons that mediate the effectiveness of psychological therapies.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study represents the first exploration of staff perspectives on the components of a trauma-informed pathway within custodial settings. Future directions should involve the piloting and evaluation of the components of the trauma-informed pathway, with a focus on longer-term outcomes and exploration of the organisational factors that impact on effectiveness.

In today's risk society, foundations are essential for sustaining democracies. However, the proof of a value-creating function of foundations is rarely assessed. Therefore, this study uses sensemaking theory and the communication value framework to explore to what extent a foundation achieved its overall mission in tackling societal challenges as opportunities.

This study employs a case study approach of a Swiss foundation. Through 20 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, insights about the value-creating function of the foundation were gained, showing how strategic communication activities contributed to the foundation's overall mission in various spheres of action.

The stakeholders overall identified a value-creating function of the foundation. The feedback obtained from the interviews could be structured along the lines of the communication value framework, with minor adjustments, showing that the foundation brought about value through its strategic communication regarding tangible assets (e.g. publicity), intangible assets (e.g. unique reputation), room for maneuver (e.g. renowned network) and opportunities for development (e.g. new formats). However, on each level, value-limiting factors have also been identified (e.g. limited publicity).

This study is the first to employ sensemaking theory to assess a foundation's value-creating function in achieving its overall mission by interviewing direct stakeholders. It is also one of the few studies in the field that analyzes strategic communication of foundations. Thus, this study adds methodological, theoretical and practical knowledge to foundation communication, value-creation and strategic communication management.

The book has generated a passionate dialogue-disagreement (mostly but not entirely) with the book. Dialogue-disagreement is based on challenges, disagreements and rebuttals between opponents, often belonging to different, even irreconcilable, paradigms. The goal of dialogue-disagreement is not so much to convince the opponent to change their mind but rather to critically examine and problematize the two involved paradigms: the authors’ and the reviewer’s. By taking the generated challenges and disagreements seriously, both irreconcilable paradigms can grow through their replies. Dialogue-disagreement gives the participants–opponents the gift of revealing their own paradigmatic blind spots, which are often invisible from within their paradigms. Dialogue-disagreement is exploratory and based on an agnostic relationship between frenemies, i.e. “friendly enemies.”

This is a critical book review essay of Self Managed Learning and the New Educational Paradigm (Cunningham, 2021).

The reviewer views Ian Cunningham’s Self Managed Learning educational paradigm as a hybrid of Progressive and Democratic Education, while the reviewer sees his/her Self-Education paradigm as entirely Democratic (and Dialogic). Elsewhere, the reviewer discussed and critically analyzed the Progressive Education paradigm, which generally involves channeling the student’s learning activism and subjectivity toward learning outcomes desired by an educator. It uses the educator’s manipulation of the student’s subjectivity to make them study what the educator wants them to study. In contrast, the paradigm of Democratic Education assumes that the educatee is the final authority of their own education. The educatee decides whether to study, when to study, what to study, how to study, with whom to study, where to study, for what purpose to study and so on. The educatee makes these decisions by themselves or with the help of other people at the educatee’s discretion and conditions. The reviewer charges that Ian’s Self Managed Learning paradigm is a hybrid of both paradigms, with the Progressive Education paradigm taking the lead and exploiting the Democratic Education paradigm.

The book presented a unique, innovative practice worth a critical analysis. The reviewer’s dialogue-disagreement with the book reveals a particular hybrid of Progressive and Democratic Education which is common to some innovative self-directed learning.

Public health experts and advocates have long raised concerns about the pandemic preparedness of prison systems worldwide – an issue that became increasingly salient at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. People in prison experience poorer health outcomes compared to the general population, making timely access to adequate health services in prison critical for their health and wellbeing. This study aims to identify the extent of the literature on initial changes in mental health and substance use services for people in prison during the COVID-19 pandemic, summarize and synthesize the findings and identify areas in need of further study.

The authors conducted a review of the academic literature published internationally in English between 2019 and December 1, 2020 to describe the disruptions and adaptations to mental health and substance use services in prisons during the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The authors found that mental health and substance use services in prisons around the world were widely disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic – predominantly consisting of the complete suspension of services, discontinuation of transfers to off-site treatment sites and limitations on service capacity. Adaptations ranged from virtual service delivery and changes to treatment dispensation processes to information sessions on overdose prevention.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first review to examine the nature and extent of the literature on delivery of mental health and substance use services in prisons during the COVID-19 pandemic.