Service User and Carers' Views of Best Practice in Student Selection at an English University

Autor/inn/en	Rooney, Joy M.; Unwin, Peter F.
Titel	Service User and Carers' Views of Best Practice in Student Selection at an English University
Quelle	In: Journal of Further and Higher Education, 45 (2021) 5, S.641-653 (13 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Rooney, Joy M.) ORCID (Unwin, Peter F.)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	0309-877X
DOI	10.1080/0309877X.2020.1804539
Schlagwörter	Foreign Countries; Admission Criteria; College Admission; Social Work; Allied Health Personnel; Nursing; Occupational Therapy; Physical Therapy; Program Effectiveness; Health Services; Social Services; Allied Health Occupations Education; Student Recruitment; Patients; Disabilities; Participative Decision Making; United Kingdom (England) + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Ausland; Admission; Admission procedures; Zulassungsbedingung; Zulassungsverfahren; Zulassung; Hochschulzugang; Hochschulzulassung; Soziale Arbeit; Krankenpflege; Beschäftigungstherapie; Physiotherapie; Health service; Gesundheitsdienst; Gesundheitswesen; Social service; Soziale Dienstleistung; Soziale Dienste; Patient; Handicap; Behinderung
Abstract	Service users and carers' (SUACs) inclusion in student selection days at English universities is accepted as standard practice, since such inclusion is mandated by a range of professional health and social work regulators. However, SUACs' voices are little heard; this study addresses this knowledge gap for the first time. Student selection research was co-produced by a member of an English university's SUAC group and an academic. A qualitative, semi-structured interviewing approach was undertaken with SUACs (N = 10/14) involved in selection days across social work, nursing, associate nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, paramedicine and physician associate disciplines. Thematic analysis was employed resulting in four main themes-expected contributions of SUACs; perceived: benefits; challenges; and suggestions for areas of improvement. Sub-themes included: perceived benefits and challenges for students, staff and SUACs, respectively. Within these, a rich tapestry demonstrated the ability of SUACs to 'professionally' undertake their selection duties by providing realistic insight to candidates into what they might expect working with SUACs, while discerning some candidates' limitations, for example, emotional strength and personality. Most SUACs thought that their inclusion was valuable and valued, however, they saw much room for improvement in the transparency and logistics of processes; also perceiving and empathising with the challenges faced by academic staff. Greater reintegration into the planning, delivery and decision-making for candidate selection was desired by SUACs, which was perceived to have diminished over time due to a need to increase student numbers. Recommendations are made which may be relevant to other HEIs and professional regulatory organisations. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01