scholarly journals Spiritual Vulnerability, Spiritual Risk and Spiritual Safety—In Answer to a Question: ‘Why Is Spirituality Important within Health and Social Care?’ at the ‘Second International Spirituality in Healthcare Conference 2016—Nurturing the Spirit.’ Trinity College Dublin, The University of Dublin

Religions ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Keenan
1822 ◽  
Vol 112 ◽  
pp. 50-63

My dear Sir, Observatory, Trinity College, Dublin, October 15, 1821. I send you the elements of the comet observed at Valparaiso, the observations of which you were so kind as to send to me. We are indebted to the science of Captain Hall, for adding this comet to our catalogue.


1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (38) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armand Gatti ◽  
Hélène Châtelain ◽  
Wesley Hutchinson

In NTQ 30 (1992) Dorothy Knowles provided a description and explication of the recent work of the visionary French director Armand Gatti. For what he calls his ‘plural writing’ projects, Gatti has increasingly come to recruit not actors but ‘actors’: those exclus or rejects who have been marginalized by society, but whose histories need both to be reclaimed and, in the process, given back to them – together with the dignity of which they have so often been stripped. Whether developing a performance within the close confines of a prison, or accommodating the constraints of ‘the system’ at the Avignon Festival, Gatti's voice and theatre are entirely distinctive – as also, paradoxically, is his ability to speak with and for the unheard voices of others. Here, he speaks for himself, describing both the inspiration and the evolution of his work in a style which characteristically combines pragmatism with lyricism. The article derives from a series of interviews conducted in 1991 by Hélène Châtelain – an actress who has worked with Gatti since 1966 – and first published in Le Monde Diplomatique for February 1992. The translator for NTQ, Wesley Hutchinson, wrote his doctoral thesis on Gatti at Trinity College, Dublin, and now lectures in the English Department of the University of Paris, Nanterre.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-84
Author(s):  
Rob Anderson ◽  
Andrew Booth ◽  
Alison Eastwood ◽  
Mark Rodgers ◽  
Liz Shaw ◽  
...  

Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (14) ◽  
pp. 868-869
Author(s):  
Alan Glasper

Emeritus Professor Alan Glasper, from the University of Southampton, discusses the focus of a new initiative to improve early years health and social care, launched by the Duchess of Cambridge


1898 ◽  
Vol 44 (184) ◽  
pp. 222-223

By the death of Professor Haughton, which took place on October 31, 1897, the University of Dublin has lost one of its most remarkable ornaments and Irish social life one of its most striking figures. Haughton was a man who, under more favourable circumstances (viz., most especially if he had been blessed with a lesser measure of early success), might have been capable of almost any intellectual feat. His versatility and the agility of his intelligence alone amounted to genius. In the humdrum region of university teaching in which unhappily he early lost himself he always seemed the most brilliant pioneer. Unfortunately he yielded to the temptations—to diffusion and lack of concentration—to which a versatile genius is particularly exposed, and consequently he did not really lead in any of the numerous subjects which he illuminated. One example is afforded by his ill-fated remark on Darwin's epoch-making work that it contained nothing new that was true and nothing true that was new. Haughton's knowledge, often profound, always acute, dies with him, for he has written little that will last: his sparkling wit and genial good-fellowship will survive in the memory of those who were favoured with his personal acquaintance. One great work will, we hope, long bear testimony to his zeal for knowledge and his disinterested public spirit. To him is due the revival of the so-called “School of Physic in Ireland” (Medical School of Trinity College, Dublin), and we trust the debt which that school owes him will never be forgotten. Dr. Haughton exhibited much interest in the work of our Association at the Dublin meeting of 1894, though the feeble condition of his health even then precluded his taking any active part in our proceedings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 318-319
Author(s):  
Alan Glasper

Emeritus Professor Alan Glasper, from the University of Southampton, discusses a recent initiative from the Care Quality Commission to fundamentally change its method of health and social care inspections


1986 ◽  
Vol 25 (98) ◽  
pp. 105-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Canny

Two recent books, one on protestantism, the other on plantation, have much in common. Both are by young authors who as undergraduates at Trinity College, Dublin, identified aspects of the history of early modern Ireland that were in urgent need of investigation and who then proceeded with the necessary research in British universities; in one case under the supervision of Dr Brendan Bradshaw and in the other under the tutelage of Dr Toby Barnard. The enthusiasm and combativeness of their undergraduate years still linger on in these pages but there is even clearer evidence of the skills, interests and approaches to historical study that have been cultivated by their graduate mentors. Furthermore, each book derives its authority from the systematic examination of a mass of source material that has previously been neglected, and each author advances his conclusions in a vigorous fashion and relates them to developments in Britain and on the Continent as well as to what was happening in Ireland. The fact that authors of such ability and accomplishment have been forced to make careers for themselves outside the university world is a sad reflection upon Irish national priorities and raises serious questions about recruitment and tenure practices in universities and other third-level institutions that have a concern for the study of Irish history.


1966 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 320-333 ◽  

Robert George Spencer Hudson was Professor of Geology and Mineralogy at Trinity College, Dublin, a former Professor of Geology at the University of Leeds and for nearly thirteen years (1946-1958) geologist and palaeontologist with the Iraq Petroleum Company. He was born on 17 November 1895 and died suddenly on 29 December 1965. He was distinguished for his major studies in Carboniferous palaeontology, stratigraphy and sedimentation in Yorkshire and elsewhere in the north of England; also for his contributions to the understanding of the palaeontology and geology of the Middle East, especially the Mesozoic Stromatoporoids found there. Rather above middle height he was sturdily built and of rugged appearance. He spoke slowly as if evaluating every thought before delivering it; yet conversely on occasions one was surprised by a thoughtless and untimely remark. Nevertheless, he will be remembered for his enthusiasm, courage and kindly nature, especially by many of those who worked with him. Hudson was born at Rugby, the eldest son of Robert Spencer Hudson, a member of a Rugby firm of builders, Parnell and Sons, which built several buildings designed by Sir Edwin Lutyens. A skilled worker in wood, he took charge under Lutyens of the building of Queen Mary’s Dolls’ House. He was prominent in the municipal life of Rugby, serving for many years on its Urban District Council; he became in turn, Alderman, then Mayor and was subsequently elected the first Freeman of Rugby. R. G. S. Hudson’s mother was Annie Wilhelmina, née Goble, of Bicester, Oxfordshire; he had three brothers and two sisters. His schooling began at St. Matthews, a Church of England school in Rugby, under a good headmaster.


Author(s):  
Robert Anderson

This chapter reviews the books The university at war, 1914–25. Britain, France, and the United States (2015) and Trinity in war and revolution, 1912–1923 (2015), both by Tomás Irish. In The university at war, Irish argues that the three western allies—Britain, France, and the United States—had a concerted campaign to mobilise academic ideals as a weapon against Germany during World War I, and as a way of strengthening cooperation among themselves. He shows that American universities were engaged in this project from the start. He also examines a number of significant issues, including the anti-war movements in Britain and America, debates on academic freedom in America, and the promotion of student exchanges in a spirit of internationalism. The broad perspectives of Irish’s general study are complemented by his history of Trinity College Dublin.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document