Suchergebnisse

This chapter focuses on questions surrounding universities' societal responsibility in connection to language use, going beyond the national language(s) versus English dichotomy. As a result of university internationalisation and increased migration, both student and faculty populations at Nordic universities have diversified. Nordic universities are currently facing multiple challenges: to maintain academic autonomy and freedom of thought, to protect democratic ideals, to prove the validity of scientific findings, and to conduct most of their activities with the support of digital media. Drawing on findings from recent research conducted in Sweden and Finland and the latest Nordic language policy document (Gregersen et al. 2018), our chapter critically discusses how researchers and students with transnational trajectories perceive their language use. In particular, we consider the role of English vis-à-vis the national language(s) and other languages for purposes of research outreach and widening participation. We argue that there is a mismatch between university policies assuming that societal responsibility concerning language use is largely limited to local national and (to a lesser extent) minority languages, and the translocal experience of university stakeholders who often deal with a range of linguistic resources on a daily basis. ; Peer reviewed

Objectives: The Shape of Training report recommended that full registration is aligned with medical school graduation. As part of a General Medical Council-funded study about the preparedness for practice of UK medical graduates, we explored UK stakeholders' views about this proposal using qualitative interviews (30 group and 87 individual interviews) and Framework Analysis. Setting: Four UK study sites, one in each country. Participants: 185 individuals from eight stakeholder groups: (1) foundation year 1 (F1) doctors (n=34); (2) fully registered trainee doctors (n=33); (3) clinical educators (n=32); (4) undergraduate/postgraduate Deans, and Foundation Programme Directors (n=30); (5) other healthcare professionals (n=13); (6) employers (n=7); (7) policy and government (n=11); (8) patient and public representatives (n=25). Results: We identified four main themes: (1) The F1 year as a safety net: patients were protected by close trainee supervision and 'sign off' to prevent errors; trainees were provided with a safe environment for learning on the job; (2) Implications for undergraduate medical education: if the proposal was accepted, a 'radical review' of undergraduate curricula would be needed; undergraduate education might need to be longer; (3) Implications for F1 work practice: steps to protect healthcare team integration and ensure that F1 doctors stay within competency limits would be required; (4) Financial, structural and political implications: there would be cost implications for trainees; clarification of responsibilities between undergraduate and postgraduate medical education would be needed. Typically, each theme comprised arguments for and against the proposal. Conclusions: A policy change to align the timing of full registration with graduation would require considerable planning and preliminary work. These findings will inform policymakers' decision-making. Regardless of the decision, medical students should take on greater responsibility for patient care as undergraduates, assessment methods in ...