PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jackie Ford

Publications and source records attributed to Jackie Ford.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

Examining leadership through critical feminist readings.

PURPOSE: This paper seeks to explore a critique of the limitations of mainstream leadership research and publications and offers a critical management analysis through drawing on a feminist reading of leadership in organizations. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: There has recently been witnessed a growing interest in the promotion of effective leadership within both organizational studies literature and organisational policy as the route to ensuring employee commitment and enhanced organisational performance and the achievement of ever demanding goals and targets. This turn to leadership is represented in both an upsurge of research studies and a proliferation in the promotion of leadership as the organisational panacea. An analysis of the literature on leadership was undertaken, giving due consideration to mainstream and more critical accounts in relation to illustrations drawn from the UK National Health Service (NHS). FINDINGS: This paper explores mainstream literature on leadership and finds it wanting, in terms of its failure to deliver a common understanding of the concept, in its generally uncritical accounts, and its inability to expose the androcentric nature of the core assumptions within hegemonic discourses of leadership. Drawing on critical feminist readings in relation to the UK NHS, a more critical account of leadership is presented. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Greater awareness is required for the adoption of culturally sensitive and locally-based approaches that take account of individuals' experiences, identities and power relations and that allows for the presence of a range of masculine and feminine workplace behaviours. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper provides an overview of the dominant themes within the literature on leadership as they relate to the UK NHS, and presents a feminist critique of the more subtle ways in which notions of leadership in organisations fail to consider their potential for bias.

Feminism↗

Researchers' responses to research management and governance for primary care research in England: persistent and escalating problems over time.

PURPOSE: Research Governance has been introduced to regulate research involving National Health Service (NHS) patients and staff but the process is lengthy and bureaucratic and has improved little since its introduction. The paper seeks to investigate changes over time. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A comparison between two studies, one in 2003-2004 and the second in 2004-2005, provided the opportunity of observing the process of Research Governance as it was developing. Both studies included postal questionnaire surveys and interviews with study participants. FINDINGS: In order to achieve Research Governance approval, application forms have to be completed, reviews undertaken, sponsors and indemnity information identified and honorary contracts from individual PCTs applied for. Honorary contracts can require references and health and Criminal Records Bureau checks. The process reduces the time available for research and employs large numbers of people, yet is still inefficient. Some of the requirements reduce the quality of the research and researchers' rights are marginalised. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The studies took place in a rapidly changing research environment. Further studies should continue to assess the situation and report any progress in making Research Governance less onerous for researchers. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: There is an urgent requirement to investigate how procedures can be simplified and made less bureaucratic and costly, and to protect the rights of researchers. Without this, primary care research will be seriously disadvantaged and may become impossible to pursue. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The study compares process over time and shows that achieving Research Governance approval is seriously limiting research in primary care.

England↗

Evaluating self-managed integrated community teams.

After briefly describing self-managed integrated community teams, the authors explore potential and actual methods of evaluating their structures, processes and outcomes. Primary health care staff in three comparable sites were studied using non-participant observation, interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. After describing the fieldwork, the authors examine integrated team structures, which are characterised by a large number of barriers that integrated teams face. Processes surrounding different working practices are explored next. Ways of unifying health care professional practice in integrated teams are suggested using evidence from both the literature and fieldwork. Outcomes that emerged after one year of the new teams' lives are discussed in detail. The difficulty in establishing acceptable outcomes, especially the validity and reliability of outcome measures, is considered. Throughout, the positive and negative aspects of integrated teams emerging from the fieldwork are compared and contrasted with issues in the literature. Finally, recommendations are made to help strengthen integrated teams in the UK.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗