Transgressive Knowing

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires that residents be educated in six general core competencies, but has relied on individual specialties to develop their own definitions, teaching methods and evaluative tools. The Society for Education in Anesthesia took the initiative by organizing a two-day conference to accomplish these goals. Facilitated by four anesthesia educators, anesthesiologists from diverse programs and backgrounds employed open systems theory to better define System-Based Practice and outline key examples specific for anesthesiology. Pre-operative assessment, intraoperative management, inter-disciplinary pain management team, and healthcare facility interactions were selected as forums where observable activities, educational goals and practical assessment tools universal enough to be applicable to most anesthesiology training programs can be developed. The application of open systems theory in the setting of small focus groups proved successful by producing definitions, teaching methods and evaluative tools for SBP. The diversity of the groups should allow the products to have flexibility and widespread use.

The pressure to publish is felt by many in academia as they strive to achieve favorable faculty evaluations and obtain tenure and promotion. Those outside of academia may also have a desire to disseminate important nursing contributions. Regardless of the motivation, it is important to share scholarly work and nursing insight with others through publication. Unfortunately, many people face obstacles that interfere with the writing process, including a lack of time, aptitude, anxiety, fear of failure, lack of confidence, knowledge, or motivation (Cable, Boyer, Colbert, & Boyer, 1; Houfek et al., 2; Ness, Duffy, McCallum & Price, 5). Additionally, writing can be a solitary activity that isolates you and requires discipline and self-direction. Some writers may need the structure and support of a writing community to help them overcome these barriers and become successful authors. A writing community, in the form of a group, retreat, workshop, or another writing partnership may help to address some challenges that authors face. These groups may assist you in dedicating time on task to writing, make you accountable to yourself and the group, provide emotional or editorial support, offer peer or even expert opinions/feedback, and help prioritize writing activities. Additionally, they can offer intellectual stimulation and force participants to reserve time to write. There are a variety of writing community options available so be sure to consider what is the best type of writing group to join. Typically, there are three types of common writing communities or groups (Reeves, 7). The first is a reading and writing group. This group usually provides an opportunity to present work written at a previous time to group members who may offer a critical review and constructive critique, raise questions about the work, or make suggestions. Usually these sessions are a short duration (an hour or two for each meeting) and typically meet regularly during designated preselected days and times. The second type of writing group is a writing practice group. With this approach, writers come together, either physically or virtually, and spend time spontaneously writing. Members of this type of writing group meet together at a designated time, but each member is independently writing about individual topics. The focus for this group is dedicated writing time and not peer or group review of the work. A writing workshop or retreat is the third type of writing community. This approach usually has a director or facilitator who guides participants through a variety of writing activities (writing practice, reading, critiquing, and revision) over an extended time period, usually a full day or multiple days, with the end result being a final written product. Sometimes, long-term support for the ongoing development and finalizing the writing project will continue after the retreat concludes. If you are interested in joining or forming a writing community, there are some things you need to consider so you select the approach that will best meet your needs. One important factor is the size of the writing group, which may vary depending upon the type of writing community. Read and write groups are generally smaller. Kulage and Larson (3) suggest group size membership of 4–7 as reasonable. Small groups such as this ensure that members are provided with the appropriate feedback, critique, and interaction needed to strengthen writing. Some read and write groups involve partners or subgroups of a larger writing group. Frequently this may involve matching a senior mentor with a novice writer. If using this paired approach, the size of the group is not as critical as ensuring a good match of working styles, group commitment, content knowledge, and relationship between the dyad. A group dedicated solely to writing, without the reading and critique can be much larger—almost unlimited numbers. However, this group size can seem a bit impersonal and intimidating for inexperienced writers or those insecure with writing activities. Lastly, the writing workshop size can vary but nursing writing workshops frequently have group sizes of less than 12 participants per facilitator per retreat (National League for Nursing, 4; Oermann, Nicoll, & Block, 6). The critical factor for this type of writing community is to ensure adequate time is available for the facilitator to provide individual guidance and assist with writing project review and development. Another factor to consider involves writing group composition. Nurse authors need to consider if they want to participate in a discipline specific group or an interdisciplinary writing group. Engaging in writing activities with only nurses is helpful for read and write groups or writing workshops since participants will know disciplinary specific venues, be familiar with the topics, aware of gaps in the literature, and can help to provide specific suggestions directed at the targeted readers. However, an interdisciplinary approach may be more appropriate for writing aimed at a more diverse audience or for a writing practice group that doesn't depend upon critique. Another membership factor is how writers join the group. Is the writing community open to all and can participants attend when convenient? Or, does the group have a closed membership with participation by invitation only? Open groups can be effective for writing practice activities but this free flowing participation doesn't work well for read and write groups that depend upon trust and community building that enable authors to freely share their works publically. When exploring what group might work best for you, consider meeting location and timing. Some people may want that physical closeness associated with a face-to-face group meeting where they can see actual written materials in person. Also, this personal meeting helps to ensure accountability where attendance or lack of attendance would be easily noticed. Others may prefer a virtual writing group. These groups rely on electronic communication such as email or Twitter or they may use more sophisticated technology such as interactive video meetings using Skype, Zoom, or other delivery platforms. These virtual group meetings can be advantageous as they do not require travel and can draw members from a wide geographic area. However, one drawback involves the loss of some personal connection due to the limited ability to fully capture physical expression and limitations on group interactions. Writers also need to consider timing of writing groups. Before joining a writing group, it is important to self-assess writing styles, needs, and preferences. Consider how much time can be devoted to participation in a writing group. Do weekly, monthly, or even less frequently occurring groups meet your needs? Also, consider time of day and length of the meeting. For writing practice groups, you would want to select a meeting time that corresponds to your peak writing productivity. Some writing practice groups meet in the early morning before the workday begins. This could be problematic for writers whose performance peaks in the afternoon or evening. Conversely, people who arise early may be tired in the evening and not function effectively for a late day writing practice group. Along with time of day you need to consider how often you can reasonably meet with your group and how long you can devote your time to the writing group on a regular basis. Are you more likely to attend a short weekly meeting held conveniently near your work location or would you prefer to immerse yourself in a day (or multiple day) writing session at an off-site location? Sometimes these group meetings are held locally at a coffee shop or library. Others writing groups may involve traveling to a hotel, rented retreat locations like a conference center or bed and breakfast, or even spa-like settings. These spaces away from home and work offer the freedom to immerse yourself in writing and prevent work and family interruptions. However, travel and accommodation costs may be expensive for these retreats. Once you've decided to either start a writing community or join an existing group there are some general guidelines that must be established. Members must agree upon the purpose and focus of the group. A clear plan for the writing group and meeting times should be mutually agreed upon by group members. They should determine group aim, purpose, process, structure, leadership, and expectations of participants. When working with a writing group it is important that group members agree upon group activities and set some ground rules and expectations. Offering respectful, thoughtful, collaborative and supportive guidance to other writing community members will foster mutual respect and promote success. Realize that sharing writing can be intimidating. Even successful writers may feel exposed and vulnerable when sharing their work. Group members need to acknowledge those feelings of inadequacy and potential rejection and offer feedback in a sensitive manner. Other possible considerations for the group can include discussing a plan for managing non-accountable group members, people who get sidetracked from the writing topic, and prevention of potential uncivil or unsupportive interactions. Suggestions such as responding to writers by asking questions or commenting in a direct, respectful yet kind manner can be a better approach to writer development than harsh criticism and extensive editing (Kulage & Larson, 3). Criticism is vague, negative, and fault finding. Critique, when used effectively, is positive, specific, and structured. Another key strategy for success involves reserving some time at the beginning or ending of the group meeting time for socializing. Having a planned time for sharing of personal updates can help eliminate distractions and digressions during the writing group. Social bonding such as having a drink or a meal together can effectively help to build community and may eliminate diversional discussions during the formal writing group time. Participating in a community committed to writing can provide writing support, eliminate isolation associated with writing, and may offer insight for writing improvements. Literature also supports the effectiveness of writing groups in increasing publication outputs (Oermann, Nicoll, & Block, 6). So, consider what sort of writing group may be most helpful with your writing. Certainly, being in the company of writers warrants exploration for those interested in further advancing their writing. Teresa Shellenbarger, PhD, RN, CNE, ANEF is a Professor in the Department of Nursing and Allied Health Professions at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA where she teaches graduate nursing courses. Dr. Shellenbarger also frequently mentors new faculty and graduate students as they develop into scholars and emerging writers. She is a member of the Authors-in-Residence for Nurse Author & Editor.

In the first issue of Volume 63, we focused our editorial on the need to improve research in teacher education by increasing the rigor and relevance of studies in the field. We referred to individual studies as in a structure that would serve as a knowledge base for researchers, practitioners, and policy makers (Knight, Lloyd, Arbaugh, Edmondson, Nolan, & Whitney, 2012). As researchers, we need to attend to both the quality of individual bricks and the positioning of those bricks within the framework. In other words, by situating our findings within the theoretical frameworks and prior research that undergird the knowledge base, we can advance the field. Research submitted to Journal of Teacher Education (JTE) is steadily improving. Although much of our own evidence as editors of JTE is anecdotal, coming from the hundreds of articles we encounter each year, evidence for improvement is emerging from other sources as well. Our acceptance rate has steadily increased while we have maintained the same high standards for publication. Although not the sole indicator of quality, the change in the impact of the journal may also signal a perceived increase in quality by readers of the journal. In a previous editorial (JTE 63:1), we cited our rank of 18 out of 177 education and education research journals and an impact factor of 1.891 as evidence of our standing in the field. Since that time, thanks to the efforts of previous editors and what we see as the improvement of research in teacher education leading to more citations, JTE has moved to number 10 of 203 journals and has increased the impact factor to 2.292 (Thompson Reuters, 2012). Nevertheless, we still have more to do. As editors, we spend a great deal of time articulating what makes some manuscripts publishable and others not. Manuscripts are often subjected to editorial team review prior to being sent out for peer scrutiny and always before their final acceptance. As we discuss the characteristics of various manuscripts, the complexity of defining research quality in a field with such diverse methods and topics becomes apparent. Others have explored the topic for education research in general (see, for example, National Research Council, 2002). However, as we continue this discussion, we find we are slowly acquiring a set of criteria which can be applied to diverse studies specifically in teacher education. Although these criteria are still emerging, we would like to expand the discussion to the JTE readership by sharing our thoughts on some of the criteria we have formulated to date. Criteria for Quality In judging manuscripts, we consider a number of questions related to criteria for quality. Some questions are dictated by criteria for appropriateness for JTE, but others revolve around more generic issues of quality. As editors of a journal with such a diverse readership, we find that to make the range of studies and topics accessible to proponents of different philosophies, research paradigms, and interests, authors need to be very explicit in their rationale and report of the research and how they have incorporated the criteria for quality in their studies. The following questions may help guide authors in this process. Appropriateness for JTE The first question we ask of any manuscript that comes across our desk is whether the study actually focuses on teacher education, and if so, would it be of interest to readers of the journal. Is the manuscript appropriate for JTE? Two types of manuscripts typically receive a negative response to this question. Studies that focus on teaching or teachers or students in elementary and secondary schools, without making an explicit connection to teacher education, constitute the first category. Merely mentioning the applicability of the findings for teacher education in the implications is not enough. The connection to teacher education should appear in the theoretical framework and the rationale for the study, as well as in the discussion and implications. …

Author’s Introduction In our globalized world individuals are frequently confronted with intergroup encounters. Some of them pass by more smoothly than others. Understanding group members’ motivational dynamics provides the key for positive intergroup encounters and the creation of environments fostering such positive events. For a long time, research on motivation in the domain of intergroup behavior mainly focused on needs and motives such as the need for self‐esteem in social identity theory and the need to reduce uncertainty in uncertainty‐identity theory. In contrast, approaches to motivation in many other domains of psychological research have switched from such need‐based approaches to self‐regulation approaches (i.e., theories and models focusing on the processes underlying motivated action). This change of focus from the content of motivation (i.e., need and motives answering the question what motivates behavior) to studying the motivational processes (i.e., self‐regulation approaches answering the question how motivation translates in to action) has led to an enormous progress. To give just one example, this approach allows for much more precise predictions of behavior. Only recently research on intergroup behavior has adopted this change of paradigms in research on motivation. The current article summarized one line of research within this domain, namely the work applying regulatory focus theory (one of the dominant self‐regulation theories) to intergroup behavior. Author Recommends Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. This is a seminal publication on social identity theory and offers important and fundamental information about what intergroup behavior is. At the same time, it presents the first need‐based approach to intergroup behavior. Otten, S., Sassenberg, K., & Kessler, T. (Eds.) (2009). Intergroup relations: The role of motivation and emotion. New York: Psychology Press. This book provides an up‐to‐date overview of research on motivation in the field of intergroup behavior. It provides a good understanding of a variety of intergroup phenomena and explanations for them based on motivational approaches and social cognition approaches to emotions. Carver, C. S. (2004). Self‐regulation of action and affect. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of Self‐Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (pp. 13–39). New York, NY: Guilford. The whole book provides an excellent overview of self‐regulation research in a variety of domains. The particular chapter is an excellent, comprehensive, and concise introduction to the basic ideas of self‐regulation. Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist , 52, 1280–1300. This is a seminal publication on regulatory focus theory and offers the fundamental information on what regulatory focus is, what its basic principles are, and outcomes it leads to. Higgins, E. T. (2008). Regulatory fit. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 356–372). New York: Guilford. This chapter provides a summary of the more recent developments that followed regulatory focus theory. Its main focus is on regulatory fit (i.e., the fit between an individual’s behavioural strategy and the options provided by the environment). Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.‐A. (2008). Group‐based self‐regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology , 19, 126–164. This article offers a more extensive analysis and overview of the research on regulatory focus and intergroup behavior. It presents a comprehensive narrative review of this research and how regulatory focus and self‐discrepancies operate at the group level. Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H.‐S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 82, 88–101. This article presents the first study applying regulatory focus theory to the group level. It assesses how regulatory focus – manipulated as part of the instructions for a group task – affects small group decision making. Sassenberg, K., Kessler, T., & Mummendey, A. (2003). Less negative = more positive? Social discrimination as avoidance and approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 39, 48–58. The research presented in this article is the first in applying regulatory focus theory to intergroup behavior. In studies making use of the minimal group paradigm, it demonstrates how regulatory focus can help to make more precise predictions about intergroup behavior – in this case social discrimination. Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self‐stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 87, 38–56. This article explains another prominent intergroup phenomenon based on regulatory focus theory, namely stereotype threat. Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K. J., Shah, J. Y., & Brazy, P. C. (2007). Regulatory fit of the ingroup: The impact of group power and regulatory focus on implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92, 249–267. This article connects socio‐structural variables of the intergroup context and regulatory focus by studying how the social power of a group and the regulatory focus of an individual predict whether individuals are interested to become a member of a particular group and how much they like a group they are a member of. Online Materials http://gpi.sagepub.com This is a link to the journal Group Processes and Intergroup relations . Volume 13 will contain a special issue on Self‐regulation within and between groups providing an overview and more examples how self‐regulation approaches allow for a better understanding of (inter)group behavior. In addition, this is a nice place to find some of the current issues being researched in the field of intergroup behavior. It is also a journal to refer students to who are having trouble locating recent articles for class. http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/crow/socialidentityassignment.htm This link leads to a small assignment by Michel Schmitt that illustrates the idea of social identity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyI77Yh1Gg This link leads to the video “A girl like me” which illustrates that from early childhood on group members (here African‐Americans) internalize the characteristics of their group in comparison to ot

The present paper tries to overcome the dualism of group-level vs. individualistic analysis of small group processes, by presenting a model of social identity formation that incorporates factors at both levels of analysis as well as their interaction. On the basis of prior theorising in the social identity tradition and a programme of research spanning several interactive group research paradigms, we suggest that within small groups a social identity can operate as a contextual given, which shapes the behaviour of individuals within the group, as much as the behaviour of individuals within the group can shape social identity. This proposal is supported by a programme of research into social influence within small interactive groups. This research explores deductive (top-down) processes through which existing identities influence group processes, but also shows a reciprocal influence through which intragroup discussion creates a sense of group identity in the apparent absence of any direct intergroup comparison (an inductive, or bottom-up, path). It is the interaction between these two forces that we believe is characteristic of the way in which small groups achieve a sense of social identity. Supporting this view, we describe research that suggests that processes of identity formation play a key role in decision making, productive collaboration, consensualisation, integrative negotiations, and the development of shared cognition.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of implementing individual and small group learning structures with a computer simulation in accounting. College students used one of three learning structures with the simulation: (a) an individual structure, (b) a small group structure with extensive interaction, or (c) a small group structure with occasional interaction. Results indicated that performance scores were high regardless of learning structure. However, students who worked alone expressed significantly more continuing motivation for their learning structure than students who worked with a partner. Responses to student interviews revealed somewhat mixed feelings for the small group structures. Observation data indicated that students who used the extensive small group structure exhibited significantly more discussion and provided more answers to their partners' questions than students who used the occasional group structure. Implications for implementing small group structures with computer-based instruction are provided.

We examined accuracy in detecting the truths and lies of 10 videotaped students who offered their opinions on the death penalty or smoking in public. Student lie detectors were randomly assigned to either the individual condition, where they reported their veracity judgments and confidence independently, or the small group condition, where they recorded their judgments privately and then deliberated with 5 other students before making a consensus judgment of lie, truth, or hung. Results indicated that small group judgments were more accurate than individual judgments when judging deceptive but not truthful communication. Small group individuals also reported greater confidence in their abilities after the task. Finally, groups with a greater number of hung judgments were more accurate, likely due to their employing hung judgments for the most difficult to judge stimulus communicators. These results raise implications for real life group judgments, particularly in light of the increasing availability of technology.

Hand mouthing is a common and often chronic behavior problem exhibited by individuals who have mental retardation. The prevalence of hand mouthing is highest among individuals who have profound multiple disabilities. Individuals with profound multiple disabilities also have extensive heath care needs. Treatment procedures designed to reduce rates of hand mouthing must be integrated with all other services care providers perform for these individuals. This study evaluated the effectiveness of a multi-component intervention designed to simultaneously increase the rate of engagement with alternative activities and reduce the rate of hand mouthing with a group of individuals who demonstrated chronic hand mouthing behavior. Two groups of three individuals who engaged in chronic hand mouthing served as participants. Results indicated that a single therapist could implement the intervention with up to three individuals simultaneously. Five of the six participants displayed reduced rates of hand mouthing and increased rates of engagement with alternative activities. These treatment effects were successfully maintained during daily treatment sessions conducted by direct care providers who were taught the intervention procedures. Usefulness of this strategy and future research needs are discussed.

Editor's note In child and adolescent psychiatry, educational and alternative interventions frequently take place in school, with treatment directed either at the identified individual or with a group of individuals with similar problems, or at the entire class or school or large subsets of the school. There may be educational programmes directed at the teachers who need to be able to handle these troubled children. But interventions can be multi systemic as well and these are in essence directed at the family to help them cope, set limits and deal with the difficult child. But the difficult child may also be removed from the family system and sent to foster care or sent to inpatient hospital. Evidence for any of these interventions is weak but the trend for many of these active and intense interventions suggests a more positive outcome than standard or less intensive treatment. Interventions in schools Various interventions are made to help manage young people's psychological difficulties in schools. Examples of these include but are not limited to: (a) Consultation or training, e.g. to the teacher of a child who has ADHD, may help better manage the child in class (b) Interventions to deal with school-wide issues such as bullying (c) Prevention/early intervention programmes designed to inhibit the escalation of difficulties into clinical problems. These programmes may be applied to children in small groups or as a universal programme to classes of children. (d) Tactics and strategies to help with the psychological difficulties seen in children and staff after traumatic episodes or disasters (Goenjian et al ., 1997; March et al ., 1998; Yule, 1992).

EISI: Extended inter-spike interval for mental health patients clustering based on mental health services and medications utilisation.

Using the theories of General Strain and the Economics of Crime as intermediating mechanisms, I examine whether the 2008 economic recession had any effect on the individual feeling of safety, both short and long term. I use data gathered from 10 countries during 10 rounds of the European Social Survey, from 2002 to 2020/21 (N = 139741). I apply Interrupted Time Series ordered logit regression models with the gologit2 user-written command for Stata. Results indicate that long-term, there was no adverse effect amongst all the participants in the utilized sample. Short-term however, by 2010, the feeling of safety diminished in those that felt the most secure just before the crisis. Dividing the sample into smaller groups, short-term negative effects were observed in four countries (Switzerland, Hungary, Norway, Portugal), and long-term negative effects in Britain and Ireland. In addition, I found short-term negative effects in groups of individuals who had outlier preferences and personal characteristics. Those were people that trusted the legal system and the police the least, their self- reported happiness level was low, had very conservative political views, had little education and reported having difficulties in coping with their current income.

Group Decision Making (GDM) refers to the selection of an alternative from a set of feasible alternatives that better satisfies some criteria according to a group of individuals (experts). There exist several different models to simulate GDM processes, but many of those models do not usually take into account some dynamical aspects of real decision processes. For example, those models normally do not allow the experts set to change during the process (adding or removing experts), the alternatives to change (incorporating or discarding alternatives) or even to change the criteria. In this work we present a new model which allows to undertake GDM situations in which a large number of individuals (for example an on-line community) has to choose among different alternatives. To be able to obtain a good solution of consensus, the group of experts will be firstly simplified into a smaller group (using a simple clustering technique and a kind of trust network) which can then discuss about best solution to be selected.

In this paper we argue that the emergence of the dominant model of university organization, which is characterized by a large agglomeration of many (often loosely affiliated) small research groups, might have an economic explanation that relates to the features of the scientific production process. In particular, we argue that there are decreasing returns to scale on the level of the individual research groups, which prevent them from becoming to large, while we argue for positive agglomeration effects on the supra-research-group-level inside the university. As a consequence an efficient university organization would precisely consist of tying together many small individual research groups without merging them. Basing our empirical analysis on a multilevel dataset for German research institutes from four disciplines we are able to find strong support for the presence of these effects. This suggests that the emergence of the dominant model of university organization may also be the result of these particular features of the production process, where the least we can say is that this model is under the given circumstances highly efficient.

Keck School of Medicine of the University of Southern California.

Team-based learning™ (TBL) is an instructional strategy developed in the business school environment in the early 1990s by Dr Michaelsen who wanted the benefits of small group learning within large classes. In 2001, a US federal granting agency awarded funds for educators in the health sciences to learn about and implement the strategy in their educational programs; TBL was put forward as one such strategy and as a result it is used in over 60 US and international health science professional schools. TBL is very different from problem-based learning (PBL) and other small group approaches in that there is no need for multiple faculty or rooms, students must come prepared to sessions, and individual and small groups of students (teams) are highly accountable for their contributions to team productivity. The instructor must be a content-expert, but need not have any experience or expertise in group process to conduct a successful TBL session. Students do not need any specific instruction in teamwork since they learn how to be collaborative and productive in the process. TBL can replace or complement a lecture-based course or curriculum.