Harnessing the slipstream: building educational research capacity in Northern Ireland. Size matters

Northern Ireland is uniquely distinguished from England, Scotland and Wales, by being a society in transition, emerging from a prolonged period of civil conflict and political instability that has affected its infrastructure and has increased the need for co-ordinated and specialist research. The paper traces some of the systemic challenges and opportunities for educational research capacity-building that arise from Northern Ireland being uniquely positioned as a small polity and critically appraises how initiatives elsewhere, while providing valuable exemplars, are unlikely to transfer readily to this context. Rather, building on an expanded definition of research capacity, Northern Ireland needs to capitalize cautiously on the current climate of openness between policymaker and researcher communities to develop a shared, cohesive agenda, improve research support and harness the strengths and pockets of excellence that exist. All of these should simultaneously go towards meeting local priority research needs, addressing the developmental capacity building needs of local researcher, while at the same time contributing to local, national and international knowledge production.

Agitating for a design and regeneration agenda in a postconflict city: the case of Belfast

Introduction

Belfast has been a focus of academic attention for the last forty years with most interest centred on various aspects of ‘the Troubles’. Where there has been interest in the built environment, it has largely been about how the ‘security situation’ impacted directly on architecture and on the design and layout of social housing. This paper seeks to go beyond this to explore how the political- administrative culture of ‘the Troubles’ interacted with ‘normal’ market forces to shape the central area of the city, and to consider the responses of a recently formed activist group, known as the Forum for Alternative Belfast (hereafter referred to as the Forum). The paper is written by three of the directors of the Forum.1 Moreover, the empirical research presented here was undertaken by the Forum as part of a campaign to address issues relating to the design, layout and quality of Belfast’s built environment. In the longstanding tradition of participant observation working within an action-research paradigm, the participants have attempted to offer an account that is evidentially and purposefully selfcritical and reflective. It is of course recognised that while this approach offers many positive attributes, such as phenomenological access through immersion in the project, it also has the potential to bring compromise on research detachment and objectivity.2 To address the latter, the authors have attempted
to avoid polemical argument, and to support claims with primary or secondary research evidence. The authors also acknowledge that action-research has a chequered history; however, they would argue
that their approach is faithful to a concept that sees ‘research’ defined as understanding and ‘action’ defined as seeking change. The Forum’s very purpose is to seek change, but to do this requires evidence, collaboration and demonstration. And in this sense, it is a learning process for all participants, including the research activists, government officials, community organisations and students. The authors also recognise the complexity of factors that affect urban management and change, particularly in a city such as Belfast, which has had to cope with political violence for over thirty years. And they appreciate that in the context of conflict, governance is skewed to cope with political realities. Hamdi reminds us, however, that in practice there is an ‘important dialectic between top-down planning, with its formal and designed laws and structures, and bottom-up selforganizing collectivism—those “quantum and emergent systems” which Jane Jacobs argued long ago give cities their life and order.’3

British Society of Haematology, Slide Session presented at the Annual Scientific Meeting, Brighton 2009

P>Seven cases were discussed by an expert panel at the 2009 Annual Scientific Meeting of the British Society of Haematology. These cases are presented in a similar format to that adopted for the meeting. There was an initial discussion of the presenting morphology, generation of differential diagnoses and then, following display of further presenting and diagnostic information, each case was concluded with provision of a final diagnosis.

Different rooms, different voices: double-breasting, multi-channel representation and the managerial agenda

Double-breasting has been identified as where companies run union voice and non-union voice mechanisms across different plants. While research has focused on the incidence of such arrangements, there is a dearth of evidence into the dynamics of it. This article seeks to complement existing research by examining the contours of double-breasting in a case study organisation. The findings suggest that more research is necessary into the dynamics of double-breasting in terms of how voice in sites affects each other and the extent to which running different regimes affects the managerial agenda.

Non-union employee representation, union avoidance and the managerial agenda

Non-union employee representation is an area which has attracted much interest in the voice literature. Much of the literature has been shaped by a dialogue which considers NERs as a means of union avoidance. More recently however scholars have suggested that for NERs to work in such contexts, they may need to be imbued with a higher set of functionalities to remain viable entities. Using a critical case study of a union recognition drive and managerial response in the form of an NER, this article contributes to a more nuanced interpretation of the literature dialogue than hitherto exists. A core component of the findings directly challenge existing interpretations within the field; namely that NERs are shaped by a paradox of managerial action. It is argued that the NER failed to satisfy for employees because of a structural remit, rather than through any paradox in managerial intent.

Why multiples matter: Reconceptualising the population referred to child and family social workers

Building on a body of previous research by the author and colleagues in relation to multiple adverse childhood experiences (MACE), this paper addresses the question of ‘why multiples matter’ in relation to issues of cumulative adversity. Illustrative evidence is drawn from three research domains, epidemiology, multiple services use and child maltreatment to demonstrate the collective weight of evidence to suggest a targeting of those children and families experiencing multiple adversities to diminish the effects of such adversities realised across the life-course. Whilst the history of previous largely unsuccessful attempts to widen the range of children prioritised for intervention by child and family social workers might lead to pessimism in relation to their ability to respond to a MACE informed public health agenda, there are clear possibilities for developing agency structures, assessment tools and social work practices directed toward meeting the needs of those sub populations already prioritised by social workers: namely Children in Need, Children in need of Protection and Looked after Children.