CLOSE(D) CARE: Group climate in a secure forensic setting for individuals with mild intellectual disability

This morning ResearchGate alerted me to a new paper/thesis citing Hodges' model. 

I will add this to the bibliography and post again in the new year, relating selected conceptual content of Elien's thesis to Hodges' model.

Background

CLOSE(D) CARE

This study examines associations between group climate, aggressive incidents and coercive measures in adults with mild intellectual disability or borderline intellectual functioning (MID‐BIF) of a secure forensic setting.

Method Participants (N = 248) were interviewed about their perception of group climate utilizing the Group Climate Instrument. Data on aggressive incidents and coercive measures were retrieved from the facilities’ electronic database. A multilevel structural equation model was fitted in which variability in perception of group climate within and between living groups was examined.

Results An open and therapeutic group climate was associated with lower levels of aggression within and between groups. A higher number of aggressive incidents were significantly associated with a higher number of coercive measures.

Conclusions The findings have implications for the understanding of how group climate may play a role in reducing aggressive incidents at the living group in treatment of individuals with MID‐BIF in secure forensic settings.

Elien G Neimeijer (2021) "CLOSE(D) CARE: Group climate in a secure forensic setting for individuals with mild intellectual disability." Radboud University, ISBN: 978-94-6416-713-9
https://www.trajectum.nl/sites/default/files/proefschrift_e._neimeijer_pdf.pdf

PhD position on "Analyzing the Interactions Between Spaces of Argumentation in Different Contexts"

We are seeking applicants for a PhD position on «Analyzing the Interactions Between Spaces of Argumentation in Different Contexts» at LAMSADE (University Paris-Dauphine).

The Covid19 crisis shows us that arguments can circulate between different social worlds, as they have done between scientific and academic worlds, media, and social media, in different directions. However, the way people discuss in these different environments is very different and rely on different standards to recognize proofs.

How can different groups advance in a debate when sharing information, evidence on a complex issue, refer to different notions of arguments and proof standards?

For example, in recent months we could observe some ideal-typic description of the shape of the argumentation:

1. in the mediatic world: repeat, follow, approve/disprove, exaggerate, attack ad hominem;
2. in the scientific world: decide paradigm, decide hypothesis, test, revise, purify, consolidate, invalidate, give examples, give counter-example.

The literature on argumentation theory has elaborated several defeasible argumentation schemes, which are abstract argument forms that do not necessarily fall into the classical deductive or inductive argument structures, and that capture also what traditionally is classified as a fallacy.

For a detailed description see:

https://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/fileadmin/mediatheque/lamsade/documents/propositions_theses_2020/pigozzi.pdf

*Required Profile*

- Master degree in Computer Science (or equivalent) with good GPA
- Knowledge in Computer Science, Mathematics, Economics and Logic
- Minimal programming skills
- Strong interest for multidisciplinary research
- Autonomy and ability to work in a team
- Good writing skills in English

*Application procedure and deadline*

Interested candidates should send the following PDF documents to Juliette Rouchier (juliette.rouchier AT dauphine.fr) and Gabriella Pigozzi (gabriella.pigozzi AT dauphine.fr) before 11 April 2021:

- CV
- Scan of transcripts of marks with their ranking
- A letter of motivation
- One letter or recommendation

A first selection will be performed amongst eligible applications, and selected candidates will be interviewed.

PS: Please forward this email to potential candidates.

My source: 

Philos-L "The Liverpool List" is run by the Department of Philosophy, University of Liverpool https://www.liverpool.ac.uk/philosophy/philos-l/

Grid Design: The architecture of care? c/o Brinson (2007)

The context of Brinson's (2007) thesis is graphic design, but there are many insights, overlaps and references in a study that ...

"explores the logical integration of conceptual meaning into the grid structure" (p.61). 

 “All innovation and most design is the result of connections—the link between experience and action, between deductive logic and inductive insight, between the analysis of a problem and the verification of its solution”1 (p.2) 

“The important thing to remember is that while a grid can help to generate a sense of unity and continuity in a design, it is within itself creative. In the hands of unskilled designers, grids can become straightjackets that inhibit creative concepts.”4 (p.5)

 “Ostensibly, the best grids are based on a general evaluation of content and reflect the particular character and presentational requirements of that content.”78 (p.105)

individual

|

INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES

humanistic -------------------------------------------  mechanistic

SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL

|

group-population

While analysis is to the fore in the thesis there is less emphasis on synthesis amid talk of deconstruction. Hodges' model can (I believe) be used for conceptual analysis and synthesis. A tool to deconstruct, to identify the parts and integrate the whole. As a representational frame Hodges' model could also represent change through time.

Brinson, Valorie Michelle, "An evolution in grid structures: a study for conceptual grid structure design" (2007). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. Paper 14805.

Doctoral student quest... (Delamont et al. 2000 - so true...!)

individual
|
INTERPERSONAL : SCIENCES
humanistic ---------------------------------------  mechanistic
SOCIOLOGY : POLITICAL
|
group

It is apparent that there is no single  definition of the personal, intellectual quest on which doctoral students embark. Indeed we should not expect there to be one . . .	Scientific and academic knowledge  does not rest on a purely mechanistic set of definitions and requirements.  (Delamont et al. 2000: 51)

My source: Module 6 reading list.

Delamont, S., Atkinson, P. and Parry, O. (2000). The Doctoral Experience: Success and Failure in Graduate School. London: Falmer.

cited in:
Murray, R. (2003). How to Survive Your Viva : Defending a Thesis in an Oral Examination. Maidenhead: Open University Press.