Entrepreneurialism as Discourse: Toward a Critical Research Agenda

Multisociety Task Force for Critical Care Research

ABSTRACTBorderline Personality Disorder (BPD) is a highly contentious psychiatric diagnosis with ongoing tensions over nomenclature, aetiology and treatment recommendations. This article examines a number of these tensions and assesses how greater attention to the voices of people living with BPD may help inform the delivery of new modes of person-centred care. To this end, we present a critical social science research agenda for investigating the experiences, social contexts and support needs of people living with BPD. We canvass issues pertaining to the diagnosis of BPD (including its name), the strongly gendered dimensions of BPD, and the pressing need to improve support for people living with this condition. Throughout our analysis, we indicate how critical interdisciplinary inquiry may drive new responses to these challenges. Our analysis is illustrated with reference to experiences of BPD recounted in two Australia-wide surveys conducted in 2011 and 2017. We argue that greater progress towards person-centred care requires novel forms of evidence grounded in critical social inquiry into experiences of treatment and support among people living with BPD, and the varied social, cultural and political contexts underpinning these experiences.

Internationalization at a distance (IaD) has been loosely defined as distance education across borders or the international mobility of knowledge without human mobility. It is largely celebrated, for example, for its potential to improve global education access and mitigate environmental harm. However, this depoliticized positioning risks overlooking IaD's relationship to uneven human mobility flows structured by global inequities. In response, this paper calls for a critical IaD research agenda, starting by drawing attention to the mobility politics of IaD at the postsecondary level. First, it proposes a more nuanced conceptualization of IaD rooted in insights from critical border studies, described here as bordered distance education. Second, it suggests the use of two theorizations of capital—citizenship and motility—as avenues to deepen future analysis of not only IaD but also international student mobility more generally. Third, to demonstrate the application of these suggestions, it presents a critical policy discourse analysis of international student mobility policies during the COVID‐19 pandemic era and its aftermath (2000–2024) in Canada. This case study shows how (1) distance education can be used as a bordering tool, and (2) governments can manipulate international student mobility policy to ensure IaD primarily serves immigration, as opposed to educational, needs. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topic The growth of internationalization at a distance (IaD) has the potential to shift how international student mobility is structured, experienced and understood. IaD is loosely described as distance education across borders. There are limited critical studies of IaD. What this paper adds IaD is embedded in mobility politics and bordering practices. In addition to its educational purpose, IaD can allow international students to accumulate citizenship capital and motility in new ways. However, IaD can also be used as a governance tool to (1) recruit/distinguish between potential citizens, (2) manage migration flows and (3) ensure the uninterrupted mobility of capital. IaD raises key questions about the meaning of ‘international’ in the study of internationalization. A more nuanced and critical definition of IaD as bordered distance education stresses what is unique about IaD: Distance education characterized by encounters with bordering practices. Implications for practice and/or policy IaD can benefit from a more critical research agenda, as well as returning to distance education's intellectual roots focused on the politics of access. Immigration policies which attempt to govern international students' geographic mobility differently from domestic students' (eg, disincentivizing international student distance education) should ensure such policies do not negatively impact (1) international students' access to education or (2) education institutions' academic programme design.

Critical care is one of the most rapidly growing areas in medicine. In the United States, care for the critically ill and injured consumes about $80 billion each year, an amount that constitutes approximately 1% of the gross domestic product (1). Mortality rates in intensive care units (ICUs) in US hospitals exceed those of all other care areas, with the result that one in five deaths in the United States occurs in the critical care setting (2). The best hope for both improving patient outcomes and containing costs lies in developing innovative treatments and systems of care, implementing new research findings, and identifying critical care research priorities. The field of critical care medicine encompasses a broad spectrum of illness and injury and is practiced in a myriad of physical locations by providers with diverse skill sets. Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, from classroom to the ICU, and from the community to the hospital. It involves many departments, specialties, professional societies and research institutes/ foundations. Consequently, it has been difficult for experts representing the various communities and professional organizations to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. After conducting joint meetings for a number of years, in 2009 the four largest professional societies involved in critical care in the United States–the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM)–formally established the Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC) to explore common issues. At that time, in spite of the importance of critical care, there was no consensus on the research agenda in the United States. The closest approach was the 1995 report of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Task Background: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. Objective: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. Methods: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. Results: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional “silo-ed” approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. Conclusions: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine. (Crit Care Med 2012; 40:254–260)

Robo-advisors, also known as robo-advisory services, significantly reshape customer service in financial advisory industries, transforming retail investor markets by substituting human financial advisory experts with artificial intelligence empowered services. However, existing literature remains scattered across disciplines, with theories on financial customer service predominantly focused on Internet banking, neglecting artificial intelligence empowered interactions. Thus, service providers need a framework for implementing robo-advisors in frontline service and researchers require an advanced agenda to stimulate future research. Through a systematic, interdisciplinary literature review based on Belanche et al.’s service robot framework, this article contextualizes service robot theories into financial advisory services, synthesizing knowledge on artificial intelligence empowered customer service. We contribute to literature on service robots by contextualizing, refining, and extending the original framework by Belanche et al. and by developing a research agenda with critical perspectives. Moreover, the study yields practical and theoretical insights into artificial intelligence empowered financial advisory services.

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the U.S. Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: (1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; (2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; (3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and (4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross-section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine.

Evidence-based assessment (EBA) is a critically important aspect of delivering high-quality, school-based mental health care for youth. However, research in this area is limited and additional applied research on how best to support the implementation of EBA in school mental health (SMH) is needed. Accordingly, this manuscript seeks to facilitate the advancement of research on EBA in SMH by reviewing relevant literature on EBA implementation in schools and providing recommendations for key research priorities. Given the limited number of published studies available, findings from child and adolescent mental health and implementation science research are also included to inform a robust and comprehensive research agenda on this topic. Based on this literature review, five priorities for research on EBA in SMH are outlined: (1) effective identification of assessment targets, (2) appropriate selection of assessment measures, (3) investigation of organizational readiness for EBA, (4) study of implementation support for EBA, and (5) promotion of EBA data integration and use. Each priority area includes recommended directions for future research. A comprehensive and robust research agenda is warranted to build the science and practice of implementing EBA in SMH. Specific directions for this agenda are offered.

PurposeThis study aims to systematize the drivers of nascent entrepreneurship in tourism and to suggest avenues for future research. As a consequence of the pandemic, a reduction in early-stage entrepreneurial activity was reported worldwide. The countries that responded best to this situation were those that fostered entrepreneurship at this early stage, designated as nascent. Hence, research on nascent entrepreneurs requires particular attention.Design/methodology/approachTo address this study’s goal, the authors have examined the development of nascent entrepreneur literature in the last two decades and discussed how the literature on tourism nascent entrepreneurship relates to the mainstream literature in terms of theoretical frameworks. The authors explored specificities of the tourism industry to propose new research avenues to explore the theme of new venture creation in the hospitality and tourism sector.FindingsThe authors divided the implication of tourism specificities into main themes: motivations, human and social capital and government and incubators. Several research questions for future research are proposed.Practical implicationsBy focusing on nascent entrepreneurship, researchers and policymakers can obtain important insights from projects that have not been implemented, going beyond those that have been successfully undertaken, as aimed at in entrepreneurship research.Originality/valueThis research contributes to the nascent tourism entrepreneurship literature by providing theoretical and empirical research questions to advance existing knowledge in tourism nascent entrepreneurship.

In order to foster pro-environmental behavior in the midst of a global ecological crisis, current research in environmental psychology is often limited to individual-related factors and theories about conscious processing. However, in recent years, we observe a certain discontentment with the limitations of this approach within the community as well as increasing efforts toward broadening the scope (e.g., promotions of collective and social identity processes). In our work, we aim for a closer investigation of the relations between individuals, societal factors, and pro-environmental actions while considering the role of the unconscious. We hereby draw on the work of critical social psychology (CSP). From a life course perspective, we emphasize the important role of socialization, institutional and cultural contexts for mindsets and related perceptions, decisions and actions. This link between the individual and the society enables us to understand biographical trajectories and related ideologies dominant within a society. We seek to show that the approach of CSP is helpful for understanding why efforts of establishing pro-environmental actions on a large scale are still failing. In this article, we discuss the theoretical links between environmental psychology and CSP as well as possible implications, paving the way for a comprehensive future research agenda.

Clinical research in pediatric cardiology is under-appreciated and under-funded, yet it has enormous implications for cardiovascular health and healthcare over the entire life-course. Renewed interest in federally funded clinical research makes it timely to propose a comprehensive research agenda that, with its associated rationale, will attract public funds for research into child cardiovascular health and disease. We propose here a comprehensive pediatric cardiology research agenda consisting of 22 topics and associated research questions. We describe the following five topics in more detail: the need for life-course studies of pediatric cardiac disease and epigenetic factors for later onset of cardiovascular effects; the need to study cardiometabolic disease risk in children; recent pediatric cardiology clinical trials and observational studies; the need to explore the role of physical activity in preventing and treating pediatric cardiology patients; and the need to develop and implement evidence-based interventions to manage pediatric cardiovascular problems. If the field of pediatric cardiology can adopt a comprehensive research agenda that identifies the most-needed studies, then research could be better coordinated, long-term and collaborative studies would be more readily organized and funded, and the overall financial and scientific efficiency of research in pediatric cardiology would be improved. Targeted research efforts are more likely to realize potential breakthroughs in areas such as genetic and epigenetic screening, biomarkers, cardioprotective strategies, life-course studies, long-term monitoring technologies, environmental influences on disease, evidence-based practice guidelines, and more rapid and safer development of drugs.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to increase the awareness of the implications of language translation for accounting standard setting, education and research, and to work towards a critical research agenda.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on a selective review of recent intercultural accounting research and literature on translation in accounting, of developments in accounting standard setting and on selected insights from translation studies.FindingsTranslation is not a simple technical, but a socio-cultural, subjective and ideological process. In contrast to the translation turn in other disciplines, however, most qualitative and critical accounting research neglects translation as a methodological and epistemological consideration and as a research opportunity.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper proposes themes for a research agenda on translation in accounting.Originality/valueThe paper identifies opportunities for further and deeper investigations of translation in accounting regulation, education and research. Particular emphasis is given to the implication of translation in accounting research that is grounded in interpretivist and constructivist paradigms, where translation is inextricably linked with data analysis and interpretation and may inadvertently reproduce cultural hegemonies.

This paper suggests the need for a more penetrating research agenda around the theme of leadership for progressive urban and regional change. While a much improved understanding of the leadership contribution is emerging in the urban and regional studies context, no strong organizing discourse has yet surfaced in the debate around the leadership of cities and regions that might serve as a guide to the development of a more critical research and leadership development agenda going forward. This paper seeks to contribute to debate around theory and practice by exploring the idea that it is knowledge “writ large”—how it is created, developed, combined and deployed—that lies at the heart of a progressive transformation of cities and regions. And that consequently, we need to think of how leadership works in, for and through these settings alongside a broader understanding of the dynamics of knowledge. The paper draws on recent research and policy literature to present an argument for a re-framed leadership practice across European cities and regions and concludes with suggestions for a new combined and underpinning research agenda.

This article analyses some of the emerging problems in the field of social studies at the juncture of the domains of health and science. Building on critical perspectives, namely those hailing from social history, postcolonial studies and collaborative research, it argues for the need to ground investigation on concrete historical forms of social suffering. This implies a multi-scale approach which considers: 1) individual suffering and illness experienced in social interactions; 2) the institutionalised expert translations of suffering into disease; and 3) the political rationales, developed by both local and global stakeholders, which assist in the creation of social environments of health and illness. While illustrations of the theoretical proposals derive mostly from the particular field of mental health, it is argued that their implications may apply to a wider range of themes dealing with health and science issues.