Explore the vast range of titles available.

What is needed to be a 'good' citizen for the twenty-first century? And how can schools and curricula address this question? This book addresses these questions and what it means to be a 'good citizen' in the twenty-first century by exploring this concept in two different, but linked, countries. China is a major international power whose citizens are in the midst of a major social and economic transformation. Australia is transforming itself into an Asian entity in multiple ways and is influenced by its major trading partner - China. Yet both rely on their education systems to facilitate and guide this transformation as both countries search for 'good' citizens. The book explores the issue of what it means to be a 'good citizen' for the 21st century at the intersection between citizenship education and moral education. The issue of what constitutes a 'good citizen' is problematic in many countries and how both countries address this issue is vitally important to understanding how societies can function effectively in an increasingly interconnected world. The book contends that citizenship education and moral education in both countries overlap on the task of how to educate for a 'good citizen'. Three key questions are the focus of this book: 1. What is a 'good citizen' in a globalizing world? 2. How can 'good citizenship' be nurtured in schools? 3. What are the implications of the concept of 'good citizen' in education, particularly the school curriculum? [Publisher website, ed].

The authors' goal was to identify ways in which Korean immigrant parents define the concept of parental involvement and to examine the statistical significances of interrelationships among these meanings. Seventy-seven parents responded to an open-ended question that asked them to define the meaning of parental involvement; 141 responses were analyzed. Qualitative analysis resulted in four distinct categories: (a) support at home (68.8%), (b) home-school connection (17.7%), (c) participation in school (5.0%), and (d) duty (8.5%). The category of support at home was divided into three subcategories: Support of nonacademic development (31.9%), support of emotional psychological development (29.1%), and support of academic success (7.8%). A correlational analysis indicated that support of emotional psychological development was negatively correlated with home-school connection and support of academic success. The parents who considered parental involvement to be their duty did not perceive their roles as participating in home-school connections and supporting nonacademic development activities.

Background Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research aims to improve the quality, relevance and appropriateness of research. PPI has an established role in clinical research where there is evidence of benefit, and where policymakers and funders place continued emphasis on its inclusion. However, for preclinical research, PPI has not yet achieved the same level of integration. As more researchers, including our team, aim to include PPI in preclinical research, the development of an evidence‐based approach is important. Therefore, this scoping review aimed to identify and map studies where PPI has been used in preclinical research and develop principles that can be applied in other projects. Methods A scoping review was conducted to search the literature in Medline (PubMed), EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science Core Collection to identify applied examples of preclinical PPI. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction separately. Data were extracted relating to PPI in terms of (i) rationale and aims, (ii) approach used, (iii) benefits and challenges, (iv) impact and evaluation and (v) learning opportunities for preclinical PPI. Findings were reviewed collaboratively by PPI contributors and the research team to identify principles that could be applied to other projects. Results Nine studies were included in the final review with the majority of included studies reporting PPI to improve the relevance of their research, using approaches such as PPI advisory panels and workshops. Researchers report several benefits and challenges, although evidence of formal evaluation is limited. Conclusion Although currently there are few examples of preclinical research studies reporting empirical PPI activity, their findings may support those aiming to use PPI in preclinical research. Through collaborative analysis of the scoping review findings, several principles were developed that may be useful for other preclinical researchers. Patient or Public Contribution This study was conducted as part of a broader project aiming to develop an evidence base for preclinical PPI that draws on a 5‐year preclinical research programme focused on the development of advanced biomaterials for spinal cord repair as a case study. A PPI Advisory Panel comprising seriously injured rugby players, clinicians, preclinical researchers and PPI facilitators collaborated as co‐authors on the conceptualization, execution and writing of this review, including refining the findings into the set of principles reported here.

Customer experience management research is increasingly concerned with the long-term evolution of customer experience journeys across multiple service cycles. A dominant smooth journey model makes customers’ lives easier, with a cyclical pattern of predictable experiences that builds customer loyalty over time, also known as a loyalty loop. An alternate sticky journey model makes customers’ lives exciting, with a cyclical pattern of unpredictable experiences that increases customer involvement over time, conceptualized here as an involvement spiral. Whereas the smooth journey model is ideal for instrumental services that facilitate jobs to be done, the sticky journey model is ideal for recreational services that facilitate never-ending adventures. To match the flow of each journey type, firms are advised to encourage purchases during the initial service cycles of smooth journeys, or subsequent service cycles of sticky journeys. In multiservice systems, firms can sustain customer journeys by interlinking loyalty loops and involvement spirals. The article concludes with new journey-centered questions for customer experience management research, as well as branding research, consumer culture theory, consumer psychology, and transformative service research.

Technological developments are things that must be followed by companies to achieve a competitive advantage to improve performance. To achieve and improve performance, companies need active employee engagement by encouraging motivation and fulfilling their job satisfaction. This study aims to analyze the effect of motivation and job satisfaction on performance with employee engagement as a mediating variable. The research sample is Information Technology (IT) companies located in the cities of Jakarta and Bandung, Indonesia. Research respondents are system developers who handle system development activities for a project or part of an ongoing project. By using the convenience sampling technique 103 responses were obtained from IT developers. The research model analysis method uses Partial Least Square (PLS) with SMART PLS Ver 3.0 software. Empirical findings prove that motivation has a positive effect on the performance of IT employees, while job satisfaction is independent. Employee engagement does not directly affect employee performance, but the effect of mediation through motivation and job satisfaction can have a significant effect on employee performance. The research findings have managerial implications, in increasing high employee involvement, motivation needs to be encouraged to be more active and innovative, and facilitate the achievement of the desired results. AcknowledgmentThis study was made possible because of the full support of the Region III Education Service Institute (LL-DIKTI III), the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia, and the Research Center at Mercu Buana University, Jakarta.

Much of the current debate around the impact of patient/public involvement on research focuses on the lack of empirical data. While a number of systematic literature reviews have reported the various ways in which involvement makes a difference to research and the people involved, this evidence has been criticised as being weak and anecdotal. It is argued that robust evidence is still required. This review reflects on the use of quantitative approaches to evaluating impact. It concludes that the statistical evidence is weakened by not paying sufficient attention to the context in which involvement takes place and the way it is carried out. However, if scientific (systematic, quantitative, empirical) approaches are designed in a way to take these factors into account, they might not generate knowledge that is useful beyond the original context. Such approaches might not therefore enhance our understanding of when, why and how involvement makes a difference. In the context of individual research projects where researchers collaborate with patients/the public, researchers often acquire ‘new’ knowledge about life with a health condition. This new understanding can be described as experiential knowledge—‘knowledge in context’—that researchers gain through direct experience of working with patients/the public. On this basis, researchers’ accounts of their experience potentially provide a source of insight and learning to influence others, in the same way that the patient experience helps to shape research. These accounts could be improved by increasing the detail provided about context and mechanism. One of the most important contextual factors that influence the outcome of involvement is the researchers themselves and the skills, assumptions, values and priorities they start with. At the beginning of any research project, the researchers ‘don’t know what they don’t know’ until they involve patients/the public. This means that the impact of involvement within any particular project is somewhat unpredictable. The answer to the question ‘Is involvement worth doing?’ will always be ‘It depends’. Further exploration of the contextual and mechanistic factors which influence outcomes could give a stronger steer to researchers but may never accurately predict any specific impact. Plain English summary In recent years, there has been considerable interest in finding out what difference patient and public involvement makes to research projects. The evidence published so far has been criticised for being weak and anecdotal. Some people argue we need robust evidence of impact from scientific studies of involvement. In this review, I consider examples of where impact has been measured using statistical methods. I conclude that the statistical evidence is weak, if the studies do not consider the context in which involvement takes place and the way that it is done. Studies designed to take this into account give us more confidence that the involvement did make a difference to that particular project . They do not tell us whether the same impact will occur in the same way in other projects and therefore have limited value. Researchers gain an understanding of involvement through their direct experience of working with patients and the public. This is ‘knowledge in context’ or ‘insight’ gained in the same way that patients gain expertise through their direct experience of a health condition. This means that detailed accounts of involvement from researchers already provide valuable learning to others, in the same way that patients’ insights help shape research. However, the impact of involvement will always be somewhat unpredictable, because at the start of any project researchers ‘don’t know what they don’t know’—they do not know precisely what problems they might anticipate, until the patients/public tell them.

As public involvement in the design, conduct and dissemination of health research has become an expected norm and firmly enshrined in policy, interest in measuring its impact has also grown. Despite a drive to assess the impact of public involvement, and a growing body of studies attempting to do just this, a number of questions have been largely ignored. This commentary addresses these omissions: What is the impact of all this focus on measuring impact? How is the language of impact shaping the debate about, and the practice of, public involvement in health research? And how have shifting conceptualisations of public involvement in health research shaped, and been shaped by, the way we think about and measure impact? We argue that the focus on impact risks distorting how public involvement in health research is conceptualised and practised, blinding us to possible negative impacts. We call for a critical research agenda for public involvement that [a] considers public involvement not as an instrumental intervention but a social practice of dialogue and learning between researchers and the public; [b] explores how power relations play out in the context of public involvement in health research, what empowerment means and whose interests are served by it, and [c] asks questions about possible harms as well as benefits of public involvement, and whether the language of impact is helpful or not.

Background Numerous frameworks for supporting, evaluating and reporting patient and public involvement in research exist. The literature is diverse and theoretically heterogeneous. Objectives To identify and synthesize published frameworks, consider whether and how these have been used, and apply design principles to improve usability. Search strategy Keyword search of six databases; hand search of eight journals; ancestry and snowball search; requests to experts. Inclusion criteria Published, systematic approaches (frameworks) designed to support, evaluate or report on patient or public involvement in health‐related research. Data extraction and synthesis Data were extracted on provenance; collaborators and sponsors; theoretical basis; lay input; intended user(s) and use(s); topics covered; examples of use; critiques; and updates. We used the Canadian Centre for Excellence on Partnerships with Patients and Public (CEPPP) evaluation tool and hermeneutic methodology to grade and synthesize the frameworks. In five co‐design workshops, we tested evidence‐based resources based on the review findings. Results Our final data set consisted of 65 frameworks, most of which scored highly on the CEPPP tool. They had different provenances, intended purposes, strengths and limitations. We grouped them into five categories: power‐focused; priority‐setting; study‐focused; report‐focused; and partnership‐focused. Frameworks were used mainly by the groups who developed them. The empirical component of our study generated a structured format and evidence‐based facilitator notes for a “build your own framework” co‐design workshop. Conclusion The plethora of frameworks combined with evidence of limited transferability suggests that a single, off‐the‐shelf framework may be less useful than a menu of evidence‐based resources which stakeholders can use to co‐design their own frameworks.

Introduction This paper provides a critical reflection from both the researcher and public contributor (PC) perspective on the benefits and the learnings taken from involving PCs in research related to Parkinson's. Approach to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) This paper reports on how PCs shaped the design and development of the PRIME‐UK research programme study materials through input into information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used across three studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. The PRIME‐UK research programme is designed to improve the quality of life of people with Parkinson's and this project included three studies: a cross‐sectional study, a randomised control trial and a qualitative study. We captured these impacts using Public Involvement Impact Logs, which provide a framework allowing researchers and PCs to report on the learnings, immediate outcomes and impacts from PPI. For this project, the impact logs enabled us to provide reflections from PCs and researchers on the process of involving ‘the public’ in Parkinson's research. Findings This paper builds on existing evidence of the range of benefits and challenges that emerge from working with patients and the public in Parkinson's research; this includes reflecting on the changes made to the study materials and benefits for the people involved. Four themes emerged from the reflections that were common to the researchers and PCs; these were the importance of providing a supportive environment; recognition of the benefit of the evaluation of the impact of PPI; acknowledgement that engagement of PPI can make a positive difference to the research process and that timely communication and the use of face‐to‐face communication, where available, is key. Furthermore, we demonstrate how impact logs provide a useful and straightforward tool for evaluating public involvement practices and supporting the feedback process. Conclusion We offer key recommendations for involving patients and the public in Parkinson's research and suggest approaches that could be implemented to capture the impacts of public involvement. Public Contribution Public contributors (PCs) were involved in the design and development of the participant information leaflets, consent forms and other patient‐facing documents used for studies within the PRIME‐UK research programme. In addition, PCs evaluated their involvement using impact logs and co‐authored this paper.

Background There are mounting calls for robust, critical evaluation of the impact of patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research. However, questions remain about how to assess its impact, and whether it should be assessed at all. The debate has thus far been dominated by professionals. Objective To explore the views of PPI contributors involved in health research regarding the impact of PPI on research, whether and how it should be assessed. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting and participants Thirty‐eight PPI contributors involved in health research across the UK. Results Participants felt that PPI has a beneficial impact on health research. They described various impactful roles, which we conceptualize as the ‘expert in lived experience’, the ‘creative outsider’, the ‘free challenger’, the ‘bridger’, the ‘motivator’ and the ‘passive presence’. Participants generally supported assessing the impact of PPI, while acknowledging the challenges and concerns about the appropriateness and feasibility of measurement. They expressed a range of views about what impacts should be assessed, by whom and how. Individual feedback on impact was seen as an important driver of improved impact and motivation to stay involved. Conclusions While there appears to be widespread support for PPI impact assessment among PPI contributors, their views on what to assess and how are diverse. PPI contributors should be involved as equal partners in debates and decisions about these issues. Individual feedback on impact may increase PPI contributors’ potential impact and their motivation to stay involved.