Priorities for future intensive care research in the UK: results of a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

This James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership aimed to identify and prioritise unanswered questions about adult intensive care that are important to people who have been critically ill, their families, and the health professionals who care for them. Consensus techniques (modified Delphi and Nominal Group) were used to generate suggestions using online and postal surveys. Following verification and iterative editorial review, research topics were constructed from these suggestions. These topics were presented in a second online and postal survey for rating. A Nominal Group of 21 clinicians, patients and family representatives subsequently met to rank the most important research topics and produce a prioritised list. The project was coordinated by a representative Steering Group and independently overseen by the JLA. The initial survey and review of the literature generated over 1,300 suggestions. Preliminary editing and verification permitted us to encapsulate these suggestions within 151 research topics. Iterative review by members of the Steering Group produced 37 topic statements, subsequently rated by participants. Using the mode to determine importance, 19 topics were presented to the group from which a ‘top three’ intensive care research priorities were identified and a further nine topics were prioritised. By applying and adapting the JLA methodology to focus on an area of care rather than to a single disease, we have provided a means to ensure that patients, their families and professionals materially contribute to the prioritisation of intensive care research in the UK.

Deconstructing 'Mono'-Lingualism: considerations of value for 'English' 'language' education in a global setting.

Traditionally, language speakers are categorised as mono-lingual, bilingual, or multilingual. It is traditionally assumed in English language education that the ‘lingual’ is something that can be ‘fixed’ in form, written down to be learnt, and taught. Accordingly, the ‘mono’-lingual will have a ‘fixed’ linguistic form. Such a ‘form’ differs according to a number of criteria or influences including region or ‘type’ of English (for example, World Englishes) but is nevertheless assumed to be a ‘form’. ‘Mono-lingualism’ is defined and believed, traditionally, to be ‘speaking one language’; wherever that language is; or whatever that language may be. In this chapter, grounded in an individual subjective philosophy of language, we question this traditional definition. Viewing language from the philosophical perspectives such as those of Bakhtin and Voloshinov, we argue that the prominence of ‘context’ and ‘consciousness’ in language means that to ‘fix’ the form of a language goes against the very spirit of how it is formed and used. We thus challenge the categorisation of ‘mono’-lingualism; proposing that such a categorisation is actually a category error, or a case ‘in which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property’ (Restivo, 2013, p. 175), in this case the property of ‘mono’. Using this proposition as a starting point, we suggest that more time be devoted to language in its context and as per its genuine use as a vehicle for consciousness. We theorise this can be done through a ‘literacy’ based approach which fronts the context of language use rather than the language itself. We outline how we envision this working for teachers, students and materials developers of English Language Education materials in a global setting. To do this we consider Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence as an exemplar to promote conscious language use in context.