Search results

There is little research into how teachers think about and teach creative writing and its redrafting and how this might differ depending upon the age of the pupils being taught. This paper aims to compare the creative writing conceptualisations and practices of primary school teachers (5–11-year olds) and secondary school teachers (11–18-year-olds) in England through a qualitative survey. This comparison enables to think about the influence of policy on creative writing in primary and secondary schools as well as what professional development could look like for these teachers to improve the teaching of creative writing.

A qualitative survey exploring the creative writing and redrafting pedagogies and conceptualisations was responded to by primary school teachers (n = 18) and secondary school teachers (n = 19). Taking an ecological view of creative writing and teacher identity, the authors undertake a comparative analysis of the survey data using the 5A’s theory of creativity (Glaveanu, 2013) and a view of professional identity existing within “landscapes of practice” (Wenger-Trayner, Wenger-Trayner, 2015). This enables to illuminate how and why creative writing is contextually afforded, or otherwise, in primary and secondary landscapes of practice.

This analysis demonstrates how the redrafting of creative writing is marginalised in both landscapes of practice and how redrafting is largely conceptualised as a technical rather than critical or creative action. The authors show how teachers, particularly in primary school, aim for their pupils to produce “products” rather than engaging in the “process” of creative writing. This analysis also shows that whilst creative writing is overall more marginalised in the secondary school landscape, it is often taught through process approaches. In both landscapes of practice, the re-drafting of creative writing is largely taught through product approaches.

This research is potentially skewed by the fact that we recruited our participants through networks relating the teaching of English, including creative writing. What is worrying about this limitation, however, is that the picture of creative writing in schools in England probably leans more to a product approach than the picture this research has uncovered.

Professional development for teachers in both landscapes is needed in relation to pedagogical actions for creative writing and its redrafting. Some of the key differences we have outlined in conceptualisations and practices between primary and secondary schools landscapes, notably the overuse of product-based teaching actions in primary landscapes, and some of the differences we have outlined within discrete landscapes of practice, notably how some primary school teachers feel more confident to challenge the product-based approach, with one conceptualising redrafting as “creative”, indicate that professional development should involve teachers working across schools.

Policy needs to be reformed to move away from the technicist view of creative writing held in both landscapes of practice. Linked to this, the way creative writing is assessed as a product in secondary schools needs to change – the re-introduction of portfolio-based coursework (Bishop, 1990) would provide the affordance of redrafting as an action central to creative writing processes.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is a rare piece of research which compares primary and secondary school teachers’ approaches to teaching creative writing. It shows that primary school teachers can be formulaic in the way they teach creative writing, using product approaches. However, in secondary schools the picture is different: teachers, particularly those, who are writers themselves, give students more agency in redrafting and shaping their writing. This indicates how professional development should involve primary and secondary school teachers in dialogue with one another to cross boundaries of practice.

The purpose of this study is to explore and conducts a critical literature review to answer a fundamental question in the industrial district literature: are clusters and industrial (clusters/IDs) driving sustainability innovation? By intersecting different yet related strands of literature, the authors take stock of what the authors know about sustainability innovation in clusters/IDs.

This paper reviews the literature for conceptualizing sustainability innovation in clusters/districts.

Insights point out that the sustainability innovation process (development and diffusion) in clusters/IDs and their firms couples into mainstream cluster/IDs framework; clusters/IDs enable sustainability innovation through usual mechanisms, fostering collective change toward sustainability innovation, vis-à-vis other settings and strengthening firm sustainability innovation and performance. Sustainability innovation in clusters/IDs requires coupling different multi-scalar institutional systems effectively, and the cooperation of local organizations and policymakers for co-designing dedicated policies. Collective actions are important and firm heterogeneity needs to be considered in the clusters/IDs framework.

This study is original because it provides state-of-the-art on sustainability innovation in clusters/districts, enabling the topic to advance in this direction.

This paper aims to introduce International Digital Collaborative Autoethnographical Psychobiography (IDCAP).

This paper describes how IDCAP was developed to answer research questions about what it takes and what it means to recover from mental illness. During its development, IDCAP combined the diverse and intersectional experiences, knowledge and interests of an Anglo-Swedish research team with what could be found in different publications concerning the experiences and the mental illnesses of the musicians Syd Barrett, Peter Green and Brian Wilson.

IDCAP combines features of autoethnography and psychobiography to offer a novel qualitative research method.

Whilst IDCAP was created to focus on recovery from mental illness and musicians, it can be applied to other areas of research. It shares the same limitations as autoethnography and psychobiography, although some of the features of IDCAP may go some way to mitigate against these.

IDCAP is a novel research method that is offered to other researchers to develop and enhance further through application.

IDCAP is a collaborative research method that encourages the involvement of a wide range of researchers from different countries and cultures. It can be used to give voice to marginalised groups and to counter discrimination and prejudice. Recovery from mental illness is a topic of great personal and social value.

IDCAP is a novel research method that, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, has not been explicitly used before.

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the protection motivation theory’s (PMT) maladaptive coping response to anti-Covid-19 preventive persuasive appeals. PMT is based on coping appraisal that may lead to either an adaptive- or a maladaptive coping response. It has been suggested that the maladaptive coping response is not sufficiently investigated and can be represented by individuals’ resistance to anti-Covid-19 persuasive messages. It has been also supposed that resistance is predicted and modeled through a set of cognitive, affective and individual factors such as information processing style, fear arousal, gender and coping self-efficacy.

An experiment and a survey were conducted online on a random sample of 290 individuals. The sample was divided into two groups, each of which was exposed to an anti-Covid-19 persuasive message.

The findings show that resistance to anti-Covid-19 persuasion is not directly predicted by the individual’s exposure to the message, but channeled through an affective and a cognitive process. It was also reported that resistance is predicted by both the reflective and the nonreflective information processing styles, which are in turn predicted by a high versus a low fear arousal. Fear arousal level was shown to be moderated by gender and coping self-efficacy.

This research brings additional insight to the PMT in so far that it highlights the maladaptive coping response through resistance to persuasion in a pandemic context.

Social media is replete with malicious and unempathetic rhetoric yet few studies explain why these emotions are publicly dispersed. The purpose of the study is to investigate how the intergroup counter-empathic response called schadenfreude originates and how it prompts media consumption and engagement.

The study consists of two field surveys of 635 in-group members of two professional sports teams and 300 residents of California and Texas with political party affiliations. The analysis uses SEM quantitative methods.

Domain passion and group identification together determine the harmonious/obsessive tendencies of passion for an activity and explain the schadenfreude response toward the rival out-group. Group identification is a stronger driver of obsessive passion compared to harmonious passion. Schadenfreude directly influences the use of traditional media (TV, radio, domain websites), it triggers social media engagement (posting), and it accelerates harmonious passion's effects on social media posting.

The study is limited by the groups used to evaluate the research model, sports, and politics.

The more highly identified and passionate group members experience greater counter-empathy toward a rival. At extreme levels of group identification, obsessive passion increases at an increasing rate and may characterize extremism. Harboring feelings of schadenfreude toward the out-group prompts those with harmonious passion for an activity to more frequently engage on social media in unempathetic ways.

This study links the unempathetic, yet common emotion of schadenfreude with passion, intergroup dynamics, and media behavior.