scholarly journals Universities and Economic Development Activities

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 359-374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Moira Decter ◽  
Frank Cave ◽  
Mary Rose ◽  
Gill Peers ◽  
Helen Fogg ◽  
...  

A number of UK universities prioritize economic development or regeneration activities and for some of these universities such activities are the main focus of their knowledge transfer work. This study compares two regions of the UK – the North West and the South East of England – which have very different levels of economic performance. Quantitative data from the UK government's Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey are used to track economic development funding and activity from universities in these two regions. Strategy documents prepared for the fourth round of the government's Higher Education Innovation Fund are analysed to aid interpretations. Elements of evolutionary theory are used to explore the reasons for the differences and a case study of one university programme, Leading Enterprise and Development, is provided as an illustrative example.

1998 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 463-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Wong

The author examines the interrelationship between different organisations in the local economic-development field and the practitioners' response to various policy issues. A sociological perspective is adopted to achieve a sympathetic understanding of the situation as the actors see it, and of the subjective meanings they ascribe to their actions. Empirical findings were yielded both from quantitative and from qualitative data for two case-study areas—the North West and the Eastern regions of England. These two regions were chosen because of their very contrasting socioeconomic experiences, which provide a compelling account of how practitioners perceive different issues and how these perceptions vary between different types of organisations in different localities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 928.2-929
Author(s):  
S. Juman ◽  
T. David ◽  
L. Gray ◽  
R. Hamad ◽  
S. Horton ◽  
...  

Background:Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is widely used in the management of rheumatoid arthritis and connective tissue disease. The prevalence of retinopathy in patients taking long-term HCQ is approximately 7.5%, increasing to 20-50% after 20 years of therapy. Hydroxychloroquine prescribed at ≤5 mg/kg poses a toxicity risk of <1% up to five years and <2% up to ten years, but increases sharply to almost 20% after 20 years. Risk factors for retinopathy include doses >5mg/kg/day, concomitant tamoxifen or chloroquine use and renal impairment. The UK Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) 2018 guidelines for HCQ screening recommend optimal treatment dosage and timing for both baseline and follow-up ophthalmology review for patients on HCQ, with the aim of preventing iatrogenic visual loss. This is similar to recommendations made by the American Academy of Ophthalmology (2016).Objectives:To determine adherence to the RCOphth guidelines for HCQ screening within the Rheumatology departments in the North-West of the UK.Methods:Data for patients established on HCQ and those initiated on HCQ therapy were collected over a 7 week period from 9 Rheumatology departments.Results:473 patients were included of which 56 (12%) were new starters and 417 (88%) were already established on HCQ. 79% of the patients were female, with median ages of 60.5 and 57 years for new and established patients respectively. The median (IQR) weight for new starters was 71 (27.9) kg and for established patients, 74 (24.7) kg.20% of new starters exceeded 5mg/kg daily HCQ dose. 16% were identified as high risk (9% had previously taken chloroquine, 5% had an eGFR <60ml/min/m2and 2% had retinal co-pathology). Of the high-risk group, 44% were taking <5mg/kg. In total, 36% of new starters were referred for a formal baseline Ophthalmology review.In the established patients, 74% were taking ≤5mg/kg/day HCQ dose and 16% were categorized as high risk (10% had an eGFR less than 60ml/min/m2, 3% had previous chloroquine or tamoxifen use and 2% had retinal co-pathology). In the high-risk group, 75% were not referred for spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT). 41% of patients established on HCQ for <5 years, and 33% of patients on HCQ for >5 years were not referred for SD-OCT. Reasons for not referring included; awaiting 5 year review, previous screening already performed and optician review advised.Since the introduction of the RCOphth guidelines, 29% patients already established on HCQ had an alteration in the dosage of HCQ in accordance with the guidelines. In the high-risk group, 16% were not on the recommended HCQ dose.Conclusion:This audit demonstrates inconsistencies in adherence to the RCOphth guidelines for HCQ prescribing and ophthalmology screening within Rheumatology departments in the North-West of the UK for both new starters and established patients. Plans to improve this include wider dissemination of the guidelines to Rheumatology departments and strict service level agreements with ophthalmology teams to help optimize HCQ prescribing and screening for retinopathy.Acknowledgments:Drs. S Jones, E MacPhie, A Madan, L Coates & Prof L Teh. Co-1st author, T David.Disclosure of Interests:None declared


2008 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom L. Catchpole ◽  
Andrew S. Revill ◽  
James Innes ◽  
Sean Pascoe

Abstract Catchpole, T. L., Revill, A. S., Innes, J., and Pascoe, S. 2008. Evaluating the efficacy of technical measures: a case study of selection device legislation in the UK Crangon crangon (brown shrimp) fishery. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, 65: 267–275. Bycatch reduction devices are being introduced into a wide range of fisheries, with shrimp and prawn fisheries particularly targeted owing to the heavy discarding common in these fisheries. Although studies are often undertaken to estimate the impact of a technical measure on the fishery before implementation, rarely have the impacts been assessed ex post. Here, the efficacy of the UK legislation pertaining to the use of sievenets in the North Sea Crangon crangon fishery is assessed. Three impacts were evaluated: on fisher behaviour (social), on the level of bycatch (biological), and on vessel profitability (economic). An apparent high level of compliance by skippers was identified despite a low level of enforcement. The estimated reduction in fleet productivity following the introduction of the legislation was 14%, equalling the mean loss of Crangon landings when using sievenets calculated from catch comparison trawls. Sievenets did reduce the unnecessary capture of unwanted marine organisms, but were least effective at reducing 0-group plaice, which make up the largest component of the bycatch. Clearly the legislation has had an effect in the desired direction, but it does not address sufficiently the bycatch issue in the Crangon fishery.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 27-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Addison ◽  
Victoria ◽  
G. Mountford

In this article we raise questions about fitting in pertaining to various classed identities within two UK Higher Education Institutions (HEI). We discuss the pains and privileges attached to accent and ways of speaking worth: Who is able to mobilize and capitalize on inscribed values, as they come to be attached to ways of talking? Accents and ways of talking are part of embodied class identities and whilst some carry connotations of intelligence, other ways of talking are positioned as lacking value, as well as other cultural meanings ( Sayer 2002 ; Spencer, Clegg and Stackhouse 2013 ; Lawler 1999 ; Skeggs 1997 ; Southerton 2002 ; Taylor 2007 ; Macfarlane and Stuart-Smith 2012 ). In this article we discuss our empirical research carried out in two separate qualitative ESRC-funded research projects in the north of England with undergraduate students (Victoria Mountford) and university staff (Michelle Addison). Focusing primarily on white British ways of talking, we examine how embodying particular accents or ways of talking affect classed notions of ‘fitting in’ or ‘standing out’ (Reay et al 2009: 1; Abraham and Ingram 2013 ) in HE. In a climate of uncertainty in Higher Education we are concerned that the importance of demonstrating one's impact, value and worth comes down to more than just productivity, it is becoming demonstrably about being able to ‘talk the talk’. Here we trouble the practices of speaking ‘what you are worth’.


2007 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
C.D.H. Wilson ◽  
I.D. Williams
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document