Search results

Inspired by the work of the Keep Safe Advisory Group, this paper aims to explain and make the case for co-production as a powerful model for working alongside people with learning disabilities.

The collaborative approach of the Keep Safe advisory group is the authors’ springboard for a deep dive into the power and potential of co-production as a model. As organisational leaders – one with and one without a learning disability – the authors draw on their personal experience to argue that co-production is essential to recognising the adulthood of people with learning disabilities.

Co-production means the equal sharing of power and responsibility from the start, best served by the leap of faith of a blank agenda. Co-production values different kinds of expertise as complementary – broadly considered as expertise from lived experience and professional expertise. When working co-productively, a deep investment of time to understand people pays dividends in outcomes and everyone’s personal and professional growth. Co-production enriches the lives of everyone taking part.

Co-production, though common currency in health and social care, remains too rarely understood and practiced. Readers will benefit from this reflective viewpoint, which aims to clarify and deepen what co-production really means. In particular, enabling people with learning disabilities to take responsibility for themselves and others is rarely considered but is presented here as foundational to human maturity and adulthood.

As self-advocate leaders, the authors aim to present the perspective of people with learning disabilities on “Behaviour that Challenges: A Unified Approach”. Building on firsthand accounts which reveal compassion and cruelty in the health-care system, the authors propose ways of working, which confirm and add to the thinking in “A Unified Approach”, especially “Capable Environments”.

To ensure integrity, the authors engaged contributors with lived experience of admission to secure care after acting in ways that put themselves or others at risk. The authors included the perspective of people whose severe learning disabilities limit them to few or no words as best they could by interviewing their parents. The authors were supported and advised in the writing of this commentary while retaining full control throughout.

While recognising compassionate care, the authors suggest the provider’s power over a person’s life is a central reason for the care system’s vulnerability to the cruelty evident in firsthand accounts. The authors propose practical ways to offset this power. Firsthand accounts suggest the key features of capable environments are communication, valuing families and developing a valued, caring, well-trained workforce. Lived experience in workforce training and peer-support to individuals offer great potential to transform outcomes.

The perspectives of diverse contributors with learning disabilities bring lived experience insight to the challenges of “behaviour that challenges”. The authors aim to add value by blending lived experience viewpoints with the emotion of firsthand accounts of care. The insights of lived experience – too often a marginal consideration in health-care design – are presented here as central to care that fully achieves what people want and need.

This commentary reflects on peer advocacy in relation to citizen advocacy in the context of the vital need for advocacy in all its different forms.

The authors reflect from the standpoint of developing peer advocacy in secure mental health settings as an organisation based on self-advocacy and co-production.

By reflecting on peer advocacy and citizen advocacy side by side, the authors affirm both and all kinds of advocacy as being vital to people with learning disabilities living full and free lives as citizens.

The authors hope this commentary will enrich people’s understandings of the essential role of peer advocacy within different kinds of advocacy, and the need to enlarge the range of possibilities and choices open to a person.

The paper introduces a new conceptualisation of entrepreneurship that promotes a broader perspective of the phenomenon. The purpose of the paper is to re-conceptualise the act of entrepreneurship so as to reduce it to the fundamental behaviours and processes.

The paper sets out the motivations for and challenges in establishing a broader definition of entrepreneurship. Following this, current approaches to defining entrepreneurship are reviewed. In light of these, a definition of entrepreneurship is offered that captures a new perspective in understanding entrepreneurship. A critique of the offered definition is offered with regards to promoting theory development, empirical research, quality predictions and a distinctive research domain.

The authors argue that a definition of entrepreneurship that is focussed on the development and validation of ideas provides a thought-provoking re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship. Extant perspectives on entrepreneurship as business/organisation creation, uncertainty, innovation, value creation and opportunity recognition/creation are drawn on to demonstrate the applicability of the definition.

The pursuit for an encompassing definition of entrepreneurship has been both extensive and earnest, which has inadvertently resulted in a sizable pool of definitions. The authors offer a re-conceptualisation of entrepreneurship with the intent to provide a broad yet coherent definition that encompasses all acts of entrepreneurship. A benefit of this conceptualisation is the establishment of the endpoint of the entrepreneurship process that delineates it from the domain of management.

The growing time‐based competition (TBC) literature coincides with an increased emphasis on time in manufacturing organizations. In a 1993 survey, 93 per cent of US and European managers identified reliable delivery times as having above average importance, while overall delivery speed was cited by 88 per cent and 89 per cent, respectively. At the same time, 82 per cent of Japanese managers rated rapid new product introduction as having above average importance. Highlights potentially different sources of time‐based advantages. The factors described above are linked by a common emphasis on time, but the driving strategies and tactics used to achieve them can differ or possibly conflict. Presents a framework of time‐based competition for manufacturers. Demonstrates how differences between engineer‐to‐order, make‐to‐order, assembly‐to‐order and make‐to‐stock manufacturers result in the need to use different approaches to implement TBC.

The paper is a commentary (an outline or explanation) about the theme of this edition (supporting independence) from the point of view of people with learning difficulties. The paper has been co-written by people with and without learning difficulties.

The paper is based on discussions using several open prompt questions around what people understand by independence and why it is important to them.

The team found that being listened to and taken seriously, having real involvement in the community, good support that is personalised and co-produced services are all key to ensuring people can be as independent as possible.

The paper is uniquely co-written by people with and without learning difficulties and provides an insight into why independence is so important for people with learning difficulties.

Before providing an overview of the conference with the above title and this Special Issue, this paper aims to present a view of the meaning of systemic risk, factors that affect systemic risk and measures of systemic risk. Thereafter, the conference presentations and the papers in this issue are summarized.

Characteristics and measures of systemic risk are reviewed. Conference papers and presentations are summarized.

While some aspects of systemic risk of a financial institution can be measured, an important aspect associated with contagion through markets is not easily captured by simple measures.

The conference and the papers in this issue contribute to the policy debate about sources and characteristics of systemic risk.