Search results

The purpose of this service user narrative and viewpoint article is to describe interprofessional and interpersonal barriers to peer support on a men’s mental health ward over the course of a year from a lived experience perspective.

A reflective journal was kept and participant observation was conducted over the course of the year.

There is sometimes a fissure and binary of “Us” and “Them” on the ward. In other words, staff can sometimes perceive peer support workers to be “one of us” (a member of staff) or “one of them” (a service user). For service users, the opposite is sometimes true: “one of us” (a service user) or “one of them” (a member of staff). Peer support workers must bridge this gap and strive to be “one of us” with both these groups, which is no easy task. A good ward manager or peer team leader can smooth over interprofessional differences and support the peer worker in their efforts of care towards the recovery of people with mental health problems.

Little has been written on this topic in a mental health inpatient setting as most papers address community peer support work, which is very different from peer support in hospital. This paper addresses one of the first peer support pilot projects in hospital of its kind in NHS England so is quite innovative and perhaps even unique.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the bias of psychiatrists and other healthcare staff’s perception of “presenting psychosis”. The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to suggest that psychosis, rather than residing in the individual, can be triggered by a hostile ward environment (e.g. very loud emergency alarms) as well as the negative attitudes of staff and friction with other service users; second, to argue that psychosis is not just in the person’s mind but interpreted and negatively labelled by psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals.

This paper is based on the lived experience of Ben, who was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 2003 (when he spent two years in and out of a mental health unit). Ben had a relapse in 2013 and spent six full months in the same unit. Ben has been working as a peer worker on the same ward he was on as a patient for the last 17 months. This paper is informed by participant observation as a patient and peer worker, particularly reflecting on the general ward environment, ward reviews and punitive action faced by Ben and other service users. The title of this paper is based on occasions when Ben has been told that he cannot interact or take service users on leave off the ward, because they were “presenting psychosis”.

Ways of judging whether someone is presenting psychotic behaviour sounds straightforward enough but in fact can be quite complex. Whether someone is presenting psychotic behaviour is open to interpretation. Psychotic behaviour is perceived as latent or inherent within the individual by psychiatry. This paper makes the case that presenting psychotic behaviour is in fact a construct or interpretation by psychiatrists that works to limit people’s freedom, coerce them, take away their leave off the ward and voice, and which expresses power imbalances between staff and service users. The impact for service users of psychiatrists and staff’s decision-making can lead to service users being angry and upset, a negative ward environment and feelings of unfreedom. A good example is that service users present psychotic behaviour due to a hostile and frightening ward environment, with loud emergency alarms (like sirens) and the threat of restraint, restrictive practice and seclusion in de-escalation rooms being used as a threat.

People with mental illness, particularly schizophrenia like Ben, can be stereotyped as psychotic, aggressive and dangerous or a risk to themselves and others. While this can sometimes be the case the majority of people with mental illness that Ben has interacted with for over 20 years could be described as “broken” and in need of care, fixing and giving them hope in their recovery. This paper is of value because it draws on over twenty years of experience of the lived experience of Ben and his diagnosis of the harmful label of schizophrenia. It describes the added value of peer work in an in-patient mental health unit. It also introduces the new idea of “clemency”.

Tax education, a subset of accounting education formed in the early 1900s, was largely ignored as a discipline until the 1970s. Over time, tax became a more prevalent part of accounting practice and the CPA examination. In 1996, the AICPA developed the Model Tax Curriculum (MTC) to give a practitioner’s perspective on how taxation should be taught in higher education. This chapter provides a history of tax education and the responses of tax educators to the MTC Task Force’s recommendations in 1996 and the revisions in 2007 and 2014. The authors surveyed tax educators five times over 23 years to get a sense of the MTC’s adoption, both in the past and future terms. The authors found that tax educators largely ignored the MTC Task Force’s recommendations. This chapter discusses reasons given by respondents for not following the MTC and offers various strategies the MTC Task Force and others might consider when recommending future tax education reforms.

This paper investigates how early-stage founders use the 60-s nascent pitch to attract co-founders, by applying the narrative paradigm.

Videos of supported and non-supported pitches from Startup Weekend were analysed using the Grounded Theory Method.

The findings were used to develop a framework for a successful nascent pitch. It shows that founders who can engage the audience, convey credibility and use symbols effectively are more likely to attract co-founders. Bringing these three elements together through personalisation, that is, making the startup concept tangible and personally relevant for co-founders to visualise, enables the founder to talk a venture into existence.

This paper holds implications for founders and entrepreneurship mentors to craft a powerful, persuasive pitch by drawing on the framework.

The framework brings a holistic understanding to the nascent pitch and explains how nascent founders acquire human resources at one of the earliest stages of venture formation. In this way, concerns of prior fragmented approaches focussed only on narrative elements of investment pitches are addressed.

This paper aims to explore how teacher leaders help teachers improve mathematics and science teaching.

Research focused on a purposive sample of seven teacher leaders selected to vary in their time allocated to teacher leader work and their content knowledge. Each teacher leader was interviewed, as were two teachers and at least one administrator working with that teacher leader. Each interview was first subjected to a mix of deductive and inductive coding before a case study was written for each teacher leader. Ultimately, a cross‐case analysis was written.

Teacher leaders conducted two sets of leadership tasks. The paper finds that support tasks helped teachers do their work but did not contribute to teacher learning. Developmental tasks did facilitate learning. All teacher leaders engaged in support tasks, but only four did developmental tasks as well. Teacher leaders who engaged in developmental tasks had access to one material resource and three social resources not available to other teacher leaders: time to work with teachers, administrative support, more positive relations with teachers, and opportunities to work with teachers on professional development

When teacher leadership is intended to facilitate teacher learning, the payoff comes from engaging in developmental tasks. A key to teacher leader success is administrative support. Schools and districts should not invest in teacher leaders unless they intend to support teacher leaders adequately through time, administrative follow through, and training to help teachers develop the positive social relations on which their work depends.

These findings have implications for how to integrate teacher leaders into larger school improvement efforts.