Search results

LGBTQ+ spaces are often considered as safe havens for the LGBTQ+ community, as they can gather free from prejudice and fear. This research explores the effect that heterosexual people attending LGBTQ+ venues have on this community. This paper considers the impacts on the community, the importance of their safe spaces and identifies practical implications to be considered in protecting these spaces.

The study implemented a multi-method qualitative data collection approach with LGBTQ+ community venue attendees in the UK. Stage 1 utilised an online qualitative survey and collected data from 558 respondents. Stage 2 saw critical incident techniques (CITs) used with 12 participants. The data collected were analysed using a thematic system.

The LGBTQ+ community has experienced an increase in frustration and fear as a result of more heterosexual attendees infiltrating their safe spaces. Both participants and respondents discussed the importance that security personnel play in ensuring safe spaces. Finally, the findings demystified that not all attendees in LGBTQ+ venues are allies, and that there is a need for those outside the community to better understand the importance of these spaces for the LGBTQ+ community, as many heterosexuals do not consider how they should act.

Limitations associated with the implementation of the CIT were identified. Further training is advised for researchers employing this method to prepare them for dealing with the emotional impact of participants’ experiences.

This study highlighted the need for security and staff working at LGBTQ+ venues to undergo extensive inclusivity training, and for stricter door policies. Participants also argued for LGBTQ+ venues to educate heterosexual attendees about the community and their historical and present-day struggles and culture.

This paper is of practical value to those who organise and manage LGBTQ+ events, bars and nightclubs. An enhancement to the four types of space framework originated by Castilhos and Dolbec (2018) has been identified.

Inquiries, commissions, reviews and the promise of broader data collection about racial and gender disparities are now the reflex defensive responses from state institutions charged with grievous social harm, particularly in the UK. Recommendations from these exercises are rarely implemented. As criminologists, our ability to produce and analyse data that evidences or better illuminates social harm has long been a key offer of the discipline to activism.

How are we to respond to the very institutions activist criminologists seek to challenge immediately offering this very activity, invariably protracted and ineffectual, as a reflex response to activist challenge? This chapter explores this tension. Grounded in the work of groups struggling to end police stop and search, it considers the strategy impasse around research and data production that faces grassroots activists and their accomplice researchers. The chapter proposes new routes for collaboration and action across activist and criminologist communities that may help move past the ‘data trap’. In short, it seeks to answer: do activists need more evidence?

Innovation originally meant ‘change’ or ‘renewal’. Over time, it became associated with creating new products, methods, materials, markets, and forms of organisation. Today, in everyday language, innovation is used as a much broader term that encompasses non-materialistic, non-economical ideas such as social, educational, philosophical, political, environmental, or spiritual innovations. What makes something innovative is subjective and depends not only on the perceived novelty of the content but also on the co-constructed meaning of what is possible or what it changes in our lives. Therefore, innovation leaders must also become experts in co-constructing meanings with their teams. In this chapter, a structured solution-focused framework will be introduced with the intent to support innovative teams in maintaining effective team dialogue, foster more innovative team collaboration, better innovations, or an improved innovation process. In fostering an interactive and dynamic team process, solution-focused leaders engage in deliberate interactions that often initiate a positive dynamic leading into an even more innovative future.

The purpose of this study is to extend Bippus and Young’s (2005) study and examine the effectiveness of the “I-you,” “I,” “You,” “We,” “But” and Question-based “Why” statements from Winer’s (2021) verbal coding program of conflict management using Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory (SLT).

Mixed methods were used using 175 university students from Texas and New York. A cross-sectional convenience sampling approach was conducted. Survey data was collected using Qualtrics.

Descriptive results demonstrated that the “We” statement was the most passive, the “I-you” statement was the most assertive and the “But,” “I,” “You” and Question statements were perceived to be aggressive. In addition, assertive “I-You” statements were perceived to be more effective in resolving the conflict and maintaining a relationship, whereas aggressive statements were less likely to resolve the conflict and maintain the relationship. Qualitative themes also support the “I-You” statement as the most assertive, while the “But,” “You” and “I” statements were found to be the most aggressive statements.

Implications and applications are discussed to stimulate future research among researchers and practitioners when addressing conflict. Being aware of the verbal statements that de-escalate conflict may be helpful in solving conflict in interpersonal, family and professional relationships. Future trainings can adopt effective verbal statements to resolve conflict when experiencing anger issues. Future research can continue to investigate verbal communication statements using SLT to help practitioners and managers address conflict in interpersonal relationships.

This study examines verbal statements in relation to communication styles and conflict management.

The purpose of this study is to explore the sustainability of innovations introduced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic in remote and rural primary care advanced clinical practice.

The methodology includes an exploratory qualitative study of eight key stakeholders from Scottish remote and rural primary care advanced practice (three policymakers and five advanced practitioners). Data were collected using semi-structured interviews during 2022 and analysed thematically.

Advanced practice in remote and rural primary care is characterised by a shortage of doctors, close-knit communities and a broad scope of practice. Covid-19 catalysed changes in the delivery of healthcare. Innovations which participants wanted to sustain include hybrid working, triage, online training and development, and increased inter-professional support networks.

Findings provide valuable insights into how best to support remote and rural advanced practice which may have implications for retaining healthcare professionals. They also identified useful innovations which could benefit from further investment.

Given current healthcare workforce pressures, identifying and sustaining innovations which will support and retain staff are imperative. Hybrid consultations and online access to training, development and support should be sustained to support the remote and rural advanced practice workforce. Further research should explore the sustainability of innovations introduced during the Covid-19 pandemic in other care contexts.

Over the past decade, criminology in Australia, Canada and other settler colonies has increasingly engaged with activist challenges to the penal system. These anti-carceral engagements have been levelled at its laws, institutions and agents. Following a long history of criminology explicating and buttressing penal institutions, the criminological gaze slowly transitioned in the 1970s to a more critical lens, shifting focus from the people who are criminalised to the harms of the apparatus that criminalises. However, the focus remained steadfastly on institutions and dominant players – until much more recently. The COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the strength of activist organisations and grassroots movements in affecting change and shaping debates in relation to the penal system. This chapter will explore the role of activism in informing criminological scholarship during the pandemic period and how criminologists, in turn, have increasingly recognised the need to build alliances and collaborations with grassroots activists and engage in their own activism. The chapter focuses primarily on Australian and Canadian criminology and its growing imbrication with the prison abolition movement, especially in the shadow of ongoing colonial violence. It considers how activist scholars, including ourselves, attempt to build movements for structural change in the criminal system and beyond.

Sustaining a spinal cord injury (SCI) at any point in time is life-altering – physically, emotionally, and financially – for all persons affected by the injury, but it can place unique challenges on younger married couples. This study examines the transition to injury for 18 couples (ages 21–55). Data were collected using individual interviews with each partner at three time points following injury and observation in the rehabilitation setting (Creekview). This resulted in 96 individual interviews and 300 hours of observation. Using the life course perspective as a guiding theoretical framework and thematic analysis, I examined how the healthcare institution influenced the couples' relationship during their rehabilitation stay and the subsequent transition home. Creekview staff and couples accepted and reinforced the dominant cultural narrative that women are natural caregivers, but larger social structures of class, gender, and the division of paid and unpaid labor worked together to push some women into caregiving faster or prevented other women from engaging in caregiving. This study examines how younger couples move through the caregiving career during an off-time transition when the expected outcome is not long-term care placement or death. This study identified three main types of caregivers, each with their own path of caregiving – naturalized, constrained, and resistant caregivers. Overall, the transition to injury is complex and this study highlights some of the ways the marital relationship is affected by a nonnormative, unexpected transition.