Search results
1 – 10 of 69Allen Z. Reich, Galen R. Collins, Agnes L. DeFranco and Suzanne L. Pieper
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments and students’ demand for an education that…
Abstract
Purpose
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments and students’ demand for an education that prepares them for a career, most hospitality programs are now required to have an effective assessment of learning outcomes process. The increasing popularity of the assessment of learning outcomes process is viewed as highly positive because it can be considered as best-practices in higher education. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach
This is Part 2 of a two-part article that provides an overview of the justifications for implementing an assessment of learning outcomes process, the steps that were developed by two hospitality programs, and the experiences of the two programs during implementation.
Findings
The steps in a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process are relatively detailed; however, because of changes in expectations of stakeholders and the requirements of accreditors, they are now mandatory for most hospitality programs. Therefore, the choice is not whether to implement them, but when. From a competitive standpoint, it is to the program’s advantage to begin as soon as possible. Another factor to consider is that the implementation of a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process will take several years to complete.
Originality/value
This paper is presenting a critical view of one of, if not the most important concepts in higher education, the closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process. Hopefully, the information on the process that is provided and the experiences of the two programs can shorten the learning curve for other hospitality programs.
Details
Keywords
Allen Z. Reich, Galen R. Collins, Agnes L. DeFranco and Suzanne L. Pieper
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments, and students’ demand for an education that…
Abstract
Purpose
Because of the increasingly higher expectations of accrediting organizations, calls for greater accountability from state governments, and students’ demand for an education that prepares them for a career, most hospitality programs are now required to have an effective assessment of learning outcomes process. The increasing popularity of the assessment of learning outcomes process is viewed as highly positive because it can be considered as best practices in higher education. The paper aims to discuss this issue.
Design/methodology/approach
This is Part 1 of a two-part article that provides an overview of the justifications for implementing an assessment of learning outcomes process, the steps that were developed by two hospitality programs and the experiences of the two programs during implementation of the seven steps. Part 1 includes foundational principles of the process and the first three of the seven steps.
Findings
The steps in a closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process are relatively detailed; however, because of changes in expectations of stakeholders and the requirements of accreditors, they are now mandatory for most hospitality programs. Therefore, the choice is not whether to implement them, but when to implement them. From a competitive standpoint, it is to the program’s advantage to begin as soon as possible. Another factor to consider is that the implementation of an effective closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process will take several years to complete.
Originality/value
This paper is presenting a critical view of one of, if not the most important concepts in higher education, the closed-loop assessment of learning outcomes process. Hopefully, the information on the process that is provided and the experiences of the two programs can shorten the learning curve for other hospitality programs.
Details
Keywords
Antaine Stíobhairt, David Staunton and Suzanne Guerin
This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the extent to which principles of recovery-oriented practice are evident in the published perspectives and experiences of health professionals and service users on seclusion in adult mental health services.
Design/methodology/approach
A systematic review informed by PRISMA guidelines was conducted, drawing from four databases, which were searched in August 2018 and August 2022. Only original empirical studies rated as having “major” relevance were included. Data were extracted from 31 studies and qualitatively synthesised through deductive analysis using recovery principles as themes.
Findings
There was limited evidence of perceptions of seclusion being being consistent with recovery principles, with greater evidence of perceptions that directly opposed them. Studies of service user perspectives highlighted this more often than staff perspectives. The findings highlight paradoxical relationships between care and control and conflicting rights and emphasise the need to openly acknowledge the complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery.
Research limitations/implications
This review was developed in line with international best practice and the protocol was registered. Using a search string with only three components maximised sensitivity during searches and minimised the risk of relevant literature being missed. Limitations include the focus on studies where the full text was published in English.
Originality/value
This review makes a unique contribution, highlighting that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no studies to date have explicitly explored the perspectives and experiences of staff and service users on the use of seclusion in the context of recovery-oriented practice. The findings are relevant to clinical practice, policy and future research, including amending procedures and practices to partially reconcile seclusion and recovery where the seclusion is deemed necessary.
Details
Keywords
Antaine Stíobhairt, Nicole Cassidy, Niamh Clarke and Suzanne Guerin
This paper aims to explore the roles of psychologists in seclusion in adult mental health services in Ireland, their perspectives on seclusion and its use in recovery-oriented…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to explore the roles of psychologists in seclusion in adult mental health services in Ireland, their perspectives on seclusion and its use in recovery-oriented practice and related professional practice issues.
Design/methodology/approach
A qualitative hermeneutic phenomenological study was conducted from a social constructivist perspective. Semi-structured interviews with 17 psychologists were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.
Findings
Twenty-four themes were identified, which were clustered into four overarching themes. Participants viewed themselves and psychology in Ireland more broadly as peripheral to seclusion. They believed that seclusion possessed no inherent therapeutic value but viewed it as an uncomfortable and multi-faceted reality. Participants regarded seclusion and recovery as largely inconsistent and difficult to reconcile, and they perceived systemic factors, which had a pervasive negative impact on seclusion and recovery in practice.
Practical implications
The findings highlight the perceived complexity of seclusion and its interface with recovery, and the need to conscientiously balance conflicting priorities that cannot be easily reconciled to ensure ethical practice. The findings suggest psychologists are well-suited to participate in local and national discussions on using seclusion in recovery-oriented practice.
Originality/value
This study offers a unique insight into psychologists’ perceptions of seclusion and considers the implications of these views. Participants’ nuanced views suggest that psychologists can make valuable contributions to local and national discussions on these topics.
Details
Keywords
Mitchell N. Sarkies, Joanna Moullin, Teralynn Ludwick and Suzanne Robinson
Juan Pablo Sarmiento, Suzanne Polak and Vicente Sandoval
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evidence-based research strategy (EBRS) used to evaluate eight projects that applied the neighborhood approach for disaster risk…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evidence-based research strategy (EBRS) used to evaluate eight projects that applied the neighborhood approach for disaster risk reduction (NA-DRR) in informal urban settlements in Colombia, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica and Peru, between 2012 and 2017.
Design/methodology/approach
The study covers the first five of the seven EBRS stages: first, identify relevant interventions; second, prepare evaluation questions; third, select evidence sources and implement a search strategy; fourth, appraise evidences and identify gaps; fifth, create an evaluation design to include an extensive literature review, followed by a mixed research method with surveys, focus groups and interviews; disaster risk modeling; georeferencing analysis; and engineering inspections. The last two stages: sixth, apply the evidence, and seventh, evaluate the evidence application, will be addressed in a near future.
Findings
Even though the reference to “evidence” is frequent in the DRR field, it is largely based on descriptive processes, anecdotal references, best practices, lessons learned and case studies, and particularly deficient on the subject of informal and precariousness settlements. The evaluation allowed a deep and broad analysis of NA-DRR in urban informal settlements, comparing it with other DRR strategies implemented by different stakeholders in fragile urban settings, assessing the effectiveness and sustainability of the various DRR interventions.
Originality/value
The abundant data, information and knowledge generated will serve as foundation for forthcoming thematic peer-reviewed publications informing evidence-based DRR research, policy and practice, with emphasis on informal and precariousness settlements in particular.
Details
Keywords
Terry Sloan, Anneke Fitzgerald, Kathryn J. Hayes, Zoe Radnor and Suzanne Robinson and Amrik Sohal