Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the marketing notion of segmentation in the HR context and specifically how this thinking can be applied to talent and reward programs.

The paper presents a best practice guide and discussion based on a combination of recent survey data and the authors' experience of applying this thinking across a range of companies and industry sectors.

Segmentation can be applied as a principle with benefits across talent and reward programs but it presents a range of change challenges. Long‐term low levels of people spend in Western multinationals may lead to segmented thinking being a logical response to future people challenges. Reward and talent professionals should consider this as a potential response early and strategically.

The article points to the adoption of a bottom‐up, role‐based approach to segmentation as a valuable approach to thinking through the implications of segmentation in any organization.

Purpose: We critically examine the idea of neurodiversity, or the uniqueness of all brains, as the foundation for the neurodiversity movement, which began as an autism rights movement. We explore the neurodiversity movement's potential to support cross-disability alliances that can transform cultures.

Methods/Approach: A neurodiverse team reviewed literature about the history of the neurodiversity movement and associated participatory research methodologies and drew from our experiences guiding programs led, to varying degrees, by neurodivergent people. We highlight two programs for autistic university students, one started by and for autistics and one developed in collaboration with autistic and nonautistic students. These programs are contrasted with a national self-help group started by and for stutterers that is inclusive of “neurotypicals.”

Findings: Neurodiversity-aligned practices have emerged in diverse communities. Similar benefits and challenges of alliance building within versus across neurotypes were apparent in communities that had not been in close contact. Neurodiversity provides a framework that people with diverse conditions can use to identify and work together to challenge shared forms of oppression. However, people interpret the neurodiversity movement in diverse ways. By honing in on core aspects of the neurodiversity paradigm, we can foster alliances across diverse perspectives.

Implications/ Values: Becoming aware of power imbalances and working to rectify them is essential for building effective alliances across neurotypes. Sufficient space and time are needed to create healthy alliances. Participatory approaches, and approaches solely led by neurodivergent people, can begin to address concerns about power and representation within the neurodiversity movement while shifting public understanding.

This chapter explores the importance of early autism spectrum disorder (ASD) assessment and diagnosis to facilitate early treatment. This chapter will have a particular focus on ASD assessment and diagnosis within a Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) context. We propose using a Cultural Competence framework to process, analyze, assessment, and diagnosis results/findings. BME assessments/diagnoses can be delayed by up to 18 months longer when compared to Whites.

ASD Assessment aims to assess certain developmental traits in individuals to identify ASD which is a developmental disability. Autism is a spectrum condition which can manifest differently in each diagnosed individual. There are core features necessary for an ASD diagnosis to be made. These include among other traits: poor eye contact, abnormality in body language: for example, gestures, difficulties with social communication and social interaction, often they exhibit repetitive patterns of behavior, have obsessional interests, rigid thinking patterns, and have an aversion to certain sounds and textures and an unusual interest in sensory satisfaction.

Research into the communication skills of individuals with Cornelia de Lange syndrome (CdLS) is extremely limited. This paper aims to evaluate the nature of these skills and impairments in CdLS using a detailed informant assessment of pre-verbal communication skills.

The study used the Pre-verbal Communication Schedule to evaluate communication skills in individuals with CdLS (n=14), aged five to14 years. The group was compared with a contrast group of individuals with Cri du Chat syndrome (CdCS; n=14) who were matched for age and intellectual ability.

A significant difference was identified in understanding non-vocal communication (p<0.005), with the CdLS group showing a greater deficit. These findings indicate the presence of a syndrome-specific deficit in understanding non-verbal communication in individuals with CdLS and suggest that there may be a dissociation between the processing of verbal and non-verbal communication.

The findings indicate that, in many ways, these two syndrome groups are not dissimilar in terms of their communication skills. However, individuals with CdLS show a syndrome-specific deficit in understanding non-vocal communication relative to the CdCS group.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the nature of knowledge sharing and what is experienced as being shared as knowledge sharing unfolds. In particular, the paper explores affect as a key aspect of knowledge sharing in an organisational context.

A practice theoretical approach is applied to the study combined with a phenomenological research methodology that focusses on the “lived experience” of participants.

Knowledge-sharing practice was found to encompass cognitive, social, bodily and affective dimensions. Affect was found to be a significant component of the practice as revealed by participant emotion and the use of conversational humour.

In light of the findings, the researcher recommends a focus on participant sensings in practice theoretical research, in combination with sayings, doings and relatings.

The approach to the study is significant in that, in contrast to previous practice-based research in information studies, it applied a methodology adapted from phenomenology. This combination of approaches opened the investigation to the multi-dimensional experiential nature of knowledge-sharing practice highlighting the significant role of affect in knowledge sharing.

The purpose of this paper is to summarise what is known about the health of people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

The paper aims to update the unpublished review and scoping paper undertaken by Swift for the Foundation for People with Learning Disabilities; provide a conceptual framework for understanding the key determinants of the poorer health outcomes experienced by people with ASD; undertake a brief option appraisal of existing sources of data that may be of value in addressing the mortality and morbidity of people with ASD; and establish future research possibilities.

The limited literature suggests higher rates of mortality and morbidity among people with ASD.

A simple conceptual framework for understanding the key determinants of poorer health of people with ASD is proposed. Options for studying the mortality and morbidity in ASD using existing data sources are also appraised and recommendations are made for future research in the area.

There is increasing interest from researchers, teachers and other professionals, individuals with autism, and families about the potential for innovative technologies to transform learning experiences and facilitate friendships and social networks. Media accounts have highlighted both the apparently miraculous impacts of technology on supporting communication and learning for people with autism, as well as significant concerns about whether technology use is healthy, safe and socially appropriate for children and young people. Rarely, however, is any evidence reported to support either set of claims. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This short paper reports on an Economic and Social Research Council-funded seminar series in the UK that is critically reviewing and discussing the field with respect to the research evidence base but also the assumptions that are made about where, how and whether innovative technologies may be useful for people with autism and their families.

The first seminar in the series focused on whether technologies create a social bubble for people with autism and presented research demonstrating that technology use can be positive, supportive and rewarding.

This paper offers an up-to-date insight into some of key debates about the benefits and limitations of social technologies for people with autism. Its value lies in raising questions about, and discussing evidence that challenges, some of the negative assumptions that are often perpetuated by the media about the potentially harmful effects of technologies.

The purpose of this paper is to raise important questions from the different perspectives on autism research that arose from a seminar on autism and technology, held as part of an ESRC-funded series on innovative technologies for autism.

The paper focuses on the roles of technology in understanding questions about different perspectives on autism: how do people on the spectrum see neurotypicals (people without autism) and vice versa?; how do the authors use eye gaze differently from each other?; how might technology influence what is looked at and how the authors measure this?; what differences might there be in how people use imitation of others?; and finally, how should the authors study and treat any differences?

The authors synthesise common themes from invited talks and responses. The audience discussions highlighted the ways in which the authors take account of human variation, how the authors can understand the perspective of another, particularly across third-person and second-person approaches in research, and how researchers and stakeholders engage with each other.

The authors argue that the question of perspectives is important for considering how people with autism and neurotypical people interact in everyday contexts, and how researchers frame their research questions and methods. The authors propose that stakeholders and researchers can fruitfully engage directly in discussions of research, in ways that benefit both research and practice.