We are delighted to offer a varied selection of commissioned wokshops. These will take place between 11.00–12.30 on Thursday 10 September 2015. The full information about these workshops will be posted as soon as it becomes available.
Ask the examiner
Hub and spoke practice learning: What does it mean for mentorship?
Undertaking healthcare education: What is the evidence?
Writing for publication workshop
Examination processes often seem more of a “black art” than logical or rational decision-making to the uninitiated. Postdoctoral research examination particularly seems to engender even greater intrigue and more mystery than traditional taught programmes. This is in spite of the volume information given to students and examiners and the rigorous validation and approval processes used in higher education. This workshop seeks to dispel some of the myths.
Adopting a facilitated panel 'Question Time' approach delegates will be able to quiz experienced supervisors and examiners with all those questions they previously have wanted to ask but had not felt able or had not the opportunity. The panel will include a number of international expert supervisors, with collectively decades of examining experience. They will illuminate the national differences and similarities in postdoctoral education and examination and allow an international audience to better understand the complexity of processes and roles.
The workshop will start with a couple of short case examples or salient issues led by our experts to fuel debate. This will be followed by an open facilitated question and answer session.
Hub and spoke practice learning has now been implemented as an integral element of practice learning models in a number of higher education institutions (HEIs) responsible for the provision of pre-registration nursing and midwifery education across the United Kingdom (UK). A key driver of this approach to practice learning, highlighted by a number of HEIs, is the opportunities which can present for more collaborative, practice focused learning experiences for students when employing a hub and spoke approach (Edinburgh Napier University 2011, University of Salford/Manchester and Manchester Metropolitan University 2011, Glasgow Caledonian University 2012, Robert Gordon University 2014). It has also been viewed, by a number of those who have implemented hub and spoke, as a means of better facilitating the student practice learning experience in terms of following the patient journey and gaining a more realistic understanding of what this healthcare journey entails (ENU 2011, GCU 2012, RGU 2014).
Roxburgh et al (2012), Miller (2014) and Roxburgh (2014) have conducted a number of studies designed to either evaluate hub and spoke models of practice learning or to evaluate students’ perceptions of this approach. However, although mentorship is recognised as integral to hub and spoke models, there remain questions for mentorship practice in terms of how the role must adapt to best facilitate student learning in these situations.
The workshop will conclude with a recap of the key benefits and challenges of hub and spoke mentorship, incorporating recommendations for future mentorship practice and development.
This workshop will aim to engage participants in lively and polarising debate on levels of evidence within healthcare education. Internationally, hierarchical ranking systems are used to identify the strength of evidence to guide practice. These systems are based on specific criteria and most use a hierarchy of evidence levels. In the first part of this workshop, various types of research design commonly used in health education research will be explored, with discussion on where each design fits into hierarchical levels of evidence.
In the second part of the workshop, participants will be encouraged to debate the use of hierarchies of evidence. There is a large body of literature where authors have debated the usefulness of criteria, often arguing that many programmes or interventions are complex and context dependent. This part of the workshop will focus on research designs that don’t align neatly within hierarchical levels of evidence, with alternative ways of evaluation and appraisal considered.
Whilst the first two parts of the workshop will create polarised debate and views on what counts as evidence, the final stage of the workshop will encourage participants to think about how different approaches to research could strengthen the evidence that is produced. Through practical, hands-on engagement with different research studies, the debate will move toward a more pragmatic position that will encourage participants to think about how different study designs could strengthen the evidence that is produced.
Participants will leave the workshop with a good understanding of how evidence can be appraised from different perspectives and knowledge of different ways that evidence can be strengthened in their own work.
Motto: 'Rejection is the beginning of the next submission'.
This workshop will be led by Professor Roger Watson, Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Advanced Nursing (JAN). It will be aimed at encouraging and enabling staff in nursing and related subjects to write and publish in refereed journals.
The workshop will explain the process of publication from submission to publication. It will mainly be concerned with strategies to help you to write, in the first instance, and to write successfully. The importance of following journal guidelines will be emphasised and the crucial importance of letting others review your work will be explained.
Some of the ethical aspects of writing and publishing will be covered including plagiarism, duplicate and redundant publications, ‘salami slicing’ and acknowledgments. The importance of checking with editors if you are in any doubt any of the above aspects of your work will be emphasised.
There will also be the opportunity for questions and discussion.