Analysing organisational culture : a critical ethnography of public relations and personnel specialists in a state bureaucracy

Following an introductory chapter, I examine (i) typologies which have differentiated the literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 2), (ii) the contribution of organisation theory to organisation culture (Chapter 3), and (iii) recent literature on organisational culture and symbolism (Chapter 4). Within these chapters, I adopt Habermas' (1972) notion of knowledge-constitutive interests, assessing the contrubutions to understanding organisational culture made by literature guided by technical, practical and emancipatory cognitive interests. In doing so, I suggest that more critical studies on organisational culture and symbolism have been comparatively neglected. Lamenting this neglect, I suggest that Giddens' theory of structuration can be employed to advance the development of a critical, emancipatory conceptualisation of organisational culture. In particular, I argue that this Giddensian analysis, by penetrating the existential, poltical and material processes of cultural reproduction (Chapter 5), is able to disclose some of the more contradictory features of organisation culture. The remainder of the thesis comprises of a critical ethnography of the work cultures of public relations and personnel specialists located in a state bureaucracy. I begin the ethnography with a dicussion of my research methods (Chapter 6) and an overview of the departments studied (Chapter 7): I then examine (i) the work cultures of the specialists (Chapter 8), (ii) the specialists' management of the relationships with the hosts bureaucracy (Chapter 9); and, (iii) opportunities the specialists had for developing an emancipatory praxis (Chapter 10). Finally, in a concluding section, I offer some critical reflections on the contributions of the thesis and suggest areas for future research.

Developing a robust self evaluation framework for active learning:the first stage of an ERASMUS+ project (QAEMarketPlace4HEI)

In ensuring the quality of learning and teaching in Higher Education, self-evaluation is an important component of the process. An example would be the approach taken within the CDIO community whereby self-evaluation against the CDIO standards is part of the quality assurance process. Eight European universities (Reykjavik University, Iceland; Turku University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Aarhus University, Denmark; Helsinki Metropolia University of Applied Sciences, Finland; Ume? University, Sweden; Telecom Bretagne, France; Aston University, United Kingdom; Queens University Belfast, United Kingdom) are engaged in an EU funded Erasmus + project that is exploring the quality assurance process associated with active learning. The development of a new self-evaluation framework that feeds into a ?Marketplace? where participating institutions can be paired up and then engage in peer evaluations and sharing around each institutions approach to and implementation of active learning. All of the partner institutions are engaged in the application of CDIO within their engineering programmes and this has provided a common starting point for the partnership to form and the project to be developed. Although the initial focus will be CDIO, the longer term aim is that the approach could be of value beyond CDIO and within other disciplines. The focus of this paper is the process by which the self-evaluation framework is being developed and the form of the draft framework. In today?s Higher Education environment, the need to comply with Quality Assurance standards is an ever present feature of programme development and review. When engaging in a project that spans several countries, the wealth of applicable standards and guidelines is significant. In working towards the development of a robust Self Evaluation Framework for this project, the project team decided to take a wide view of the available resources to ensure a full consideration of different requirements and practices. The approach to developing the framework considered: a) institutional standards and processes b) national standards and processes e.g. QAA in the UK c) documents relating to regional / global accreditation schemes e.g. ABET d) requirements / guidelines relating to particular learning and teaching frameworks e.g. CDIO. The resulting draft self-evaluation framework is to be implemented within the project team to start with to support the initial ?Marketplace? pairing process. Following this initial work, changes will be considered before a final version is made available as part of the project outputs. Particular consideration has been paid to the extent of the framework, as a key objective of the project is to ensure that the approach to quality assurance has impact but is not overly demanding in terms of time or paperwork. In other words that it is focused on action and value added to staff, students and the programmes being considered.

Prevalence of the use of cancer related self-tests by members of the public:A community survey

Background: Self-tests are those where an individual can obtain a result without recourse to a health professional, by getting a result immediately or by sending a sample to a laboratory that returns the result directly. Self-tests can be diagnostic, for disease monitoring, or both. There are currently tests for more than 20 different conditions available to the UK public, and self-testing is marketed as a way of alerting people to serious health problems so they can seek medical help. Almost nothing is known about the extent to which people self-test for cancer or why they do this. Self-tests for cancer could alter perceptions of risk and health behaviour, cause psychological morbidity and have a significant impact on the demand for healthcare. This study aims to gain an understanding of the frequency of self-testing for cancer and characteristics of users. Methods: Cross-sectional survey. Adults registered in participating general practices in the West Midlands Region, will be asked to complete a questionnaire that will collect socio-demographic information and basic data regarding previous and potential future use of self-test kits. The only exclusions will be people who the GP feels it would be inappropriate to send a questionnaire, for example because they are unable to give informed consent. Freepost envelopes will be included and non-responders will receive one reminder. Standardised prevalence rates will be estimated. Discussion: Cancer related self-tests, currently available from pharmacies or over the Internet, include faecal occult blood tests (related to bowel cancer), prostate specific antigen tests (related to prostate cancer), breast cancer kits (self examination guide) and haematuria tests (related to urinary tract cancers). The effect of an increase in self-testing for cancer is unknown but may be considerable: it may affect the delivery of population based screening programmes; empower patients or cause unnecessary anxiety; reduce costs on existing healthcare services or increase demand to investigate patients with positive test results. It is important that more is known about the characteristics of those who are using self-tests if we are to determine the potential impact on health services and the public. © 2006 Wilson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.