Martin Luther King Jr.'s Call for Creative Maladjustment Has Much to Offer Educators in the Modern Battleground

This paper explores a rich array of sociological theories that collectively offer lenses through which the intricate dynamics of human society can be comprehended. At the heart of sociological inquiry lies a diverse array of theoretical frameworks that have shaped the discipline and continue to inform research and analysis. From Functionalist perspectives that view society as a system of interdependent parts to Critical Theory, which critiques societal structures and aims to foster social justice, these theories provide distinct insights into societal structures, power dynamics, and human behaviour. The journey through these frameworks elucidates their individual contributions, from Functionalism’s emphasis on societal equilibrium to Conflict Theory’s scrutiny of power differentials. Symbolic Interactionism sheds light on the micro-level dynamics of social interaction, while Feminist Theory advocates for the eradication of gender-based disparities. Structuralism explores the influence of societal structures, Rational Choice Theory delves into individual decision-making, and Social Exchange Theory examines give-and-take dynamics within relationships. Phenomenology challenges the objectivity of reality, emphasizing subjective experiences, while Critical Theory critiques and aims to transform oppressive systems. Synthesizing these perspectives unveils their inter-connectedness, offering a holistic understanding of societal dynamics. They not only enrich our comprehension of society but also position us to critically evaluate societal structures and power dynamics, fostering potential social transformations. The enduring relevance and significance of these frameworks in contemporary sociology underscore their instrumental role in shaping research, policy-making, and societal discourse. The integration and adaptation of these theoretical frameworks continue to empower critical analyses and discussions, paving the way for deeper comprehension of societal complexities and fostering advocacy for social justice. These theories serve as guiding lights, illuminating pathways towards transformative change and a more equitable and just society, a testament to our enduring commitment to understanding and fostering a world where justice and equality prevail.

Photo ID 117847165© Mohamad Faizal Ramli|Dreamstime.com INTRODUCTION In our cosmic narrative, for centuries we believed the Earth held the universe's center, a belief that shifted with evidence and transformed our understanding of our cosmic place. Correspondingly, paradigms surrounding autism have been shaped by medical assumptions that label it a condition, a disorder, or even a tragedy. Just as our understanding of celestial perceptions evolved, that Earth was not at the center of the universe, it is time for a seismic shift in how we perceive and address autism. ANALYSIS Venturing into autism research, we see the prevailing medical paradigm that defines Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) as a developmental disability caused by neurological differences.[1] Social communication, repetitive behaviors, language, movement skills, cognitive abilities, and emotional reactions—all cast as deficits.1 This narrative, embraced by researchers, medical professionals, and society, serves as the foundation of our current understanding. Yet, delving deeper unveils a counter-narrative—one not etched by researchers but articulated by those living with autism. This narrative introduces us to the neurodiversity paradigm, a revolutionary lens that sees autism as a part of the rich tapestry of human neurological development, fostering a stable cognitive landscape.[2] It posits that there is no singular "healthy" brain; and no definitive way of neurocognitive functioning.2 Shockingly, although this perspective is more inclusive, portraying autistic people as crucial contributors to humanity, it remains the more controversial model in society. Contrasting with the classical medical view that treats autism as a disease to be eradicated, the neurodiversity paradigm challenges the notion of normalizing society and underscores the importance of recognizing autism as an advancement. Without it, we would lose invaluable perspectives, strengths in attention to detail, visual perception, creative and artistic talents, mathematical and technical abilities, and expertise in ‘niche’ areas.[3] Asserting that every form of neurological development holds equal validity, deserving of respect and human rights, the neurodiversity paradigm counters the deficit mindset perpetuated by the traditional medical view. The repercussions of our medical-centric assumptions extend beyond perception; they infiltrate the very fabric of societal structures. Autism is labeled a disability. But is it autism that disables individuals, or is it the societal environment that excludes and alienates cognitive diversity? The traditional medical model points fingers at individuals, placing the onus on the differently abled person, not the disabling environments. For example, our societal perspective on disability is largely framed by the medical model, which views disability as an individual problem. According to this model, the disability is located within the person experiencing it—within individuals like me.[4] For instance, I often find myself becoming excessively overstimulated in places like department stores. The bustling environment—loud, brightly lit, unpredictable, and crowded—is a sensory challenge. Following the medical model attributes my struggle in department stores to a perceived problem with the way my brain processes sensory inputs, attributing it to my autism. The consequences of the medical model are far-reaching and profound, particularly in shaping our understanding of autism. This perspective places undue blame on those with autism and directs the focus of research toward "curing" autism rather than addressing societal structures that contribute to exclusion and alienation. One glaring example of this misguided approach is the predominant focus of autism research on finding a cure, as seen in 2020 with a major research theme centered around gene therapies aimed at altering the genetic factors associated with autism-related conditions.[5] Even influential organizations like Autism Speaks, until 2016, subscribed to the notion of seeking a cure.[6] Their evolution, acknowledging the need to listen to the lived experiences of autistic individuals, led to a shift in their mission—from searching for a cure to promoting advocacy, support, understanding, and acceptance.6 This shift highlights the importance of moving away from the medical model. Instead, we should adopt more inclusive models like the neurodiversity or social model of disability, which are rooted in the idea that neurological differences, including autism, are natural variations of the human brain. Listening to the voices of those with autism and embracing the social model of disability allows us to recognize that disabling factors often reside in societal structures, not within the individuals themselves. This paradigm shift is crucial for fostering an inclusive society that values and accommodates cognitive diversity. For instance, when we enter the social model of disability—an alternative lens that shifts the blame from the individual to the environment, it views disability not as a characteristic but as an action done to individuals by society4. In this model, going to a department store is not a struggle for me because there is something inherently wrong with me, but it is a struggle because the environment around me does not cater to my diverse needs. Imagine if our world, including department stores, were designed with neurodiversity in mind—quiet, dimly lit, predictable, and spacious. Neurodivergent individuals would still be cognitively different, but their surroundings would not disable them. Adopting the social model of disability would catalyze shifts in research and attitudes toward autism, reflecting the transformative changes observed in the department store examples. Rather than focusing on changing autistic individuals to fit societal norms, the emphasis would shift to enhancing the lives of neurodivergent people by advocating for structural changes in society. This shift aims to foster inclusivity while preserving individuals' authenticity and embracing their unique differences. Autistic individuals are not seeking a cure for autism because our neurodivergent way of thinking is integral to our identity. Yet, the considerable funding directed toward researching autism's causes for prevention or a "cure" underscores a lack of consideration for our voices in deciding how research funds are utilized. The emphasis on normalization, a cornerstone of the medical model's view of autism, prioritizes societal desires over the well-being of autistic individuals already part of our society. It is imperative to recognize this flaw in research that aims to cure autism, as it risks genetic research for eugenic purposes, necessitating regulation by the autistic community.[7] Redirecting resources from the pursuit of an unwanted cure to research supporting and empowering autistic people to lead fulfilling lives is essential. This redirection involves investing in communication research, offering tools such as communication boards, picture exchange communication systems, speech-generating devices, or sign language for nonverbal or speech-challenged autistic individuals, giving them a voice in our society.[8] Community living research, centered on community inclusion programs, not only provides services but also educates and reinforces accommodations for daily activities such as in schools, workplaces, or even in department stores as stated in the example.[9] Attention to support services for autistic individuals and their families, including residential and day support programs, respite, recreation, and transportation, is crucial.[10] A commitment to promoting lifelong support for autistic individuals necessitates advocating for caregiver support, home and community-based services, financial planning resources, and more.10 Additionally, research aiming to identify qualitative results of adaptation and modification strategies to support inclusive education for autistic students is paramount at school and classroom levels.[11] Research to improve healthcare quality and the healthcare system for autistic individuals is also essential, as they face shorter lifespans and worse health than non-autistics.[12] All these research initiatives align with the principles of the social model of disability. However, as a society that does not follow the social model; the bulk of our understanding of autism is rooted in research driven by medical assumptions and paradigms. In 2022, the United States allocated $306 million to autism research[13]. However, a considerable portion of this research approaches autism as a problem to be solved. An examination of a comprehensive study focused on the allocation of NIH autism research funding from 2008 to 2018 reveals a striking trend. In this distribution, 49.7% of the total funds were allocated to treatment development and evaluation, which represented 53.6% of all projects.[14] This statistic underscores a predominant emphasis on genetic and biological research. However, the goal of such research is not only to understand the underlying reasons for autism so we can cure it. But this research also explores ways of prevention or management of autism through pharmacological treatment or behavioral therapies like intervention or Applied Behavioral Analysis, both of which are intervention models focused on changing the external behaviors of autistic individuals, with the goal of making an autistic person look and act non-autistic.14,[15] Contrastingly, only a minimal fraction of NIH funding—9.1%, approximately $225 million out of nearly $2.5 billion dedicated to ASD research—was channeled towards services-related research.14 This includes critical areas such as improving accessibility and quality of services in the community, characterizing understudied groups, policy development, dissemination, and implementation.14 This glaring discrepancy highlights a dimin

<p>In the rapidly evolving technological landscape, modern innovations such as blockchain (BC), artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT) are playing a pivotal role in realizing the vision of Society 5.0. This concept envisions a harmonious integration of physical, digital, and human elements to create a sustainable and progressive future. Emerging technologies like robotics, biotechnology, quantum computing, 5G/6G networks, smart cities, and the metaverse are expected to further amplify the impact of Society 5.0, driving transformative changes across industries and societal structures. The integration of BC, AI, and IoT within cloud-based frameworks offers a robust solution to enhance security, privacy, and data management. The integration of blockchain, AI, and IoT within a cloud-based framework offers a transformative solution to address the challenges of modern societies. By leveraging these technologies, the proposed platform aims to create a secure, efficient, and sustainable ecosystem that enhances quality of life and drives progress toward the vision of Society 5.0. This approach not only tackles current societal issues but also paves the way for a more interconnected and innovative future. This article introduces a platform that seamlessly combines these technologies to provide a secure and reliable foundation for data collection, sharing, and analysis while enabling the development of smart applications that improve efficiency, productivity, and overall quality of life (QoL).</p>

Background: Nepalese society is characterized by a complex interplay of caste, class, ethnicity, and power dynamics, which have historically shaped social hierarchies and access to resources. The metaphysical foundations of power have perpetuated divisions between dominant and marginalized groups, leading to systemic inequalities. This paper examines the historical and contemporary manifestations of power and class in Nepal, focusing on how societal structures have evolved through political, economic, and social reforms. Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to analyze the transformation of power relations in Nepali society from a historical perspective to the present, with a focus on marginalized communities. It seeks to evaluate how affirmative policies and constitutional provisions have addressed caste and class disparities, promoting social inclusion and equity. Methods: This research employs a qualitative and interpretive methodology, drawing on critical theory and thematic content analysis. Secondary sources, including peer-reviewed articles, policy documents, and historical texts, were reviewed to assess the metaphysical underpinnings of power and class in Nepal. Marxist and post-structuralist frameworks were used to contextualize the findings. Findings: The study reveals that while historical power structures—such as the Rana regime and feudal systems—reinforced caste and class hierarchies, recent policy interventions have initiated transformative changes. Decentralization, constitutional reforms, and affirmative action policies have gradually empowered marginalized groups. However, residual inequalities persist due to deep-rooted socio-cultural norms and uneven policy implementation. Conclusion: Nepali society is undergoing a significant shift toward inclusivity, driven by legal reforms and social movements. While progress has been made in reducing caste and class disparities, sustained efforts are needed to eliminate systemic discrimination fully. Future policies must prioritize equitable resource distribution, participatory governance, and cultural sensitization to achieve lasting social harmony. Novelty: This paper contributes to the discourse on Nepali social stratification by integrating historical analysis with contemporary policy assessments. It highlights the dialectical relationship between power, class, and social change, offering a nuanced understanding of how metaphysical constructs influence societal transformation.

This article explores the urgent need for transformative change toward provisioning systems that align with staying as close as possible to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 °C limit for climate change. Despite historical awareness of the need for change, current unsustainable patterns of production and consumption persist, prompting an examination of the role of societal structures in hindering transformative change. Using the framework of provisioning systems, this study analyses expert and stakeholder views on structural barriers and steps to overcome them. Based on 36 expert interviews and Stakeholder Thinking Labs with 113 participants in five European Union case countries, the study identifies and discusses seven key structural barriers that affect the sustainability of provisioning systems for food, mobility, housing, and leisure. These barriers include the economic growth paradigm, policy incoherence, vested interests, the externalization of environmental costs, dominant narratives of the good life, inequality, and an insufficient integration of environmental concerns in educational systems. When considering the actualization of these structures in concrete provisioning systems, stakeholders emphasize the need for welfare provision with improved resource efficiency; argue for radical measures such as bans, limits, and taxes to address these challenges; and highlight governance challenges related to participation and power. The analysis underlines the complexity of promoting transformative structural change and the interplay of structures in different provisioning systems, emphasizing the need for a holistic approach to achieve sustainable provisioning systems and 1.5° lifestyles.

In the not-distant past, natural resources, the environment, strategic locations, ambitious leaders, gifted individuals, creative ideas, cultures, and states played important, at times decisive roles as agents of change and forces of transformation. Lately, however, the roles of all such agents have been vastly and irreversibly diminished, and the roles of the societal processes of change have been enhanced at their expense. These processes are defined as the sociocultural, the political, the economic, and the infomedia processes. These are social mechanisms evolved over time to facilitate the introduction of change and the management of its consequences. And unlike social systems, the societal processes do not abide by certain rules or laws, and are not subject to effective control by any authority. Nevertheless, the degree of sophistication and activism of the dominant process always reflects the philosophical orientation of society and the developmental stage of its economy. Together, these processes form the larger societal framework within which all social systems and institutions function, and through which all change is introduced and managed in society.KeywordsPolitical ProcessEconomic ProcessConservative ForceCultural TransformationGlobal CultureThese keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Ways Forward in Preventing Severe Maternal Morbidity and Maternal Health Inequities: Conceptual Frameworks, Definitions, and Data, from a Population Health Perspective.

Postmodern feminist theatre in India redefines storytelling by integrating fragmented narratives, cultural hybridity, and active audience engagement to critique societal power structures. It amplifies marginalized voices through mythological reinterpretations, experimental performances, and community-driven initiatives. Themes of gender, caste, class, and identity intersect, fostering dialogue and activism. Embracing innovation, ecofeminism, and intersectionality, this dynamic genre continues to challenge patriarchy, inspire social change, and create inclusive spaces for resistance, dialogue, and empowerment. Unlike traditional theatre, which often relies on realism and imitating life (mimesis), postmodern theatre rejects these conventions, opting for abstract, fragmented, and non-linear narratives instead. This departure from the norm allows the medium to construct unique and thought-provoking representations that serve as powerful tools for social critique. In essence, postmodern theatre acts as a living canvas for resistance, fostering an environment where art, activism, and community intersect. It challenges traditional forms while offering an inclusive platform for exploring diverse perspectives, ultimately contributing to transformative social change. Indian postmodern theatre serves as a powerful platform for feminist expression, bringing to light themes that challenge patriarchal constructs and amplify marginalised voices. These themes, rooted in the complexities of identity, culture, and resistance, redefine the role of theatre as a medium for socio-political critique and transformation.

Postmodern feminist theatre in India redefines storytelling by integrating fragmented narratives, cultural hybridity, and active audience engagement to critique societal power structures. It amplifies marginalized voices through mythological reinterpretations, experimental performances, and community-driven initiatives. Themes of gender, caste, class, and identity intersect, fostering dialogue and activism. Embracing innovation, ecofeminism, and intersectionality, this dynamic genre continues to challenge patriarchy, inspire social change, and create inclusive spaces for resistance, dialogue, and empowerment. Unlike traditional theatre, which often relies on realism and imitating life (mimesis), postmodern theatre rejects these conventions, opting for abstract, fragmented, and non-linear narratives instead. This departure from the norm allows the medium to construct unique and thought-provoking representations that serve as powerful tools for social critique. In essence, postmodern theatre acts as a living canvas for resistance, fostering an environment where art, activism, and community intersect. It challenges traditional forms while offering an inclusive platform for exploring diverse perspectives, ultimately contributing to transformative social change. Indian postmodern theatre serves as a powerful platform for feminist expression, bringing to light themes that challenge patriarchal constructs and amplify marginalised voices. These themes, rooted in the complexities of identity, culture, and resistance, redefine the role of theatre as a medium for socio-political critique and transformation.

Postmodern feminist theatre in India redefines storytelling by integrating fragmented narratives, cultural hybridity, and active audience engagement to critique societal power structures. It amplifies marginalized voices through mythological reinterpretations, experimental performances, and community-driven initiatives. Themes of gender, caste, class, and identity intersect, fostering dialogue and activism. Embracing innovation, ecofeminism, and intersectionality, this dynamic genre continues to challenge patriarchy, inspire social change, and create inclusive spaces for resistance, dialogue, and empowerment. Unlike traditional theatre, which often relies on realism and imitating life (mimesis), postmodern theatre rejects these conventions, opting for abstract, fragmented, and non-linear narratives instead. This departure from the norm allows the medium to construct unique and thought-provoking representations that serve as powerful tools for social critique. In essence, postmodern theatre acts as a living canvas for resistance, fostering an environment where art, activism, and community intersect. It challenges traditional forms while offering an inclusive platform for exploring diverse perspectives, ultimately contributing to transformative social change. Indian postmodern theatre serves as a powerful platform for feminist expression, bringing to light themes that challenge patriarchal constructs and amplify marginalised voices. These themes, rooted in the complexities of identity, culture, and resistance, redefine the role of theatre as a medium for socio-political critique and transformation.

In this paper I reflect on my research interests and the significance of my personal learning in the course of my doctoral research journey. The paper particularly addresses how we learn and how we come to know, as well as considering the implications of this for teaching and learning in schools today. It builds on the many synchronistic experiences – ideas, authors and books – that became sources of inspiration for me, and especially the idea of deep learning. The U describes a deep learning process of transformational change characterised by deepening perception and awareness articulated in three major stages: transforming perception, transforming self and will, and transforming action. The paper represents my participation in a facilitated collaborative research group in which we were encouraged to experiment with creative ideas such as painting, writing Haiku and poetry as a way of exploring and clarifying our research ideas.

This short paper gathers insight about learning environments in design and leadership in the creative industries. The production of expertise is often highly specialised and domain specific, however this study observes a learning situation that places emphasis on collaborative interaction and group dynamics nested within dense creative networks. Design learning demands complex problem solving and decision making in response to contingent situations. These environments defy brevity of explanation, yet are microcosms of radical transformations in the digital economy. The reciprocal relationship between learning environments and industry are explored. Embedding in a network of learners and experts, using ethnographic methods blend situated insight with theoretical oversight. An ethnographic investigation of a learning organisation is applied to generate insight that reveals a dense network of collaborative practices, the production of experts and complex reciprocal relationships between learning and professional practice. Intense and inevitably participatory ethnographic engagements are indicative the processes of transformative change and challenge our understanding of the nature of learning. The role of innovation and flux in societal structures is reflected in these radically different approaches to learning. The image that appears is highly counterintuitive but prescient, providing foundations of new approaches to design education at the boundary. Learning environments that are responsive to a world that is rapidly moving beyond a stable state.

The convergence of neurocapitalism and biodesign presents a promising future for the healthcare and technology industries. Neurocapitalism, a model characterized by monetizing neurological processes and behaviors, has profoundly impacted economies, technologies, and societal structures. Simultaneously, biodesign, which combines biology and design principles to develop innovative solutions, has emerged as a critical approach to healthcare innovation. Armed with the knowledge that neurocapitalism and biodesign rely heavily on data management, this commentary explores how insights from cyber security can protect the data involved. For this research, we delve into the foundational principles of neurocapitalism by elaborating on its core tenets and implications for various aspects of society, we establish a comprehensive understanding of biodesign by highlighting its significance in driving transformative advancements in healthcare, while simultaneously proposing strategies for enhancing the security of the sensitive information connected to the data used in both industries. Meanwhile, we identify intersections between neurocapitalism and biodesign through an interdisciplinary lens, revealing shared principles and potential synergies while proposing strategies for improving data safety. As we address the challenges and ethical considerations associated with combining neurocapitalism and biodesign, we also identify the security risks and the ethical implications that arise because of the lack of security. Looking ahead, we envision a future where the secure data used by neurocapitalism continues to shape the evolution of biodesign unethically. We also envision a future where by embracing a multidisciplinary approach and fostering collaboration across professions, the secure data can be used to create designs that work around neurocaptialism, unlocking new opportunities for innovation and addressing pressing healthcare challenges. By doing this, we are creating the possibility for more meaningful advances in cyber security, biodesign, and ultimately for individuals worldwide. As we conclude, we reflect on how the synergy between neurocapitalism and biodesign offers a fertile ground for exploration and innovation in healthcare and its data security. Through strategic integration and ethical stewardship, we can harness the critique of neurocapitalism to catalyze transformative change and usher in a more beneficial era of healthcare innovation.

INTRODUCTION Dr Geneva R. Johnson (Figure 1) continues to influence physical therapy education as an inspirational participant in the Third Annual Geneva R. Johnson Innovations in Physical Therapy Education Forum (GRJ Forum). Dr Johnson is recognized for her longstanding leadership and mentorship, having contributed to the advancement of physical therapy education, practice, and research for over 60 years. The GRJ Forum started in 2014 through the collaborative efforts of the Academic Council of Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT) and the Physical Therapy Learning Institute (PTLI).3,12 Once again it was the keynote for the 2016 Education Leadership Conference (ELC) held in Phoenix, Arizona. As expected, the Forum continues to foster creative ideas for positive change to promote excellence in physical therapist education, a hallmark of Dr Johnson's legacy. As in previous years, the Forum set the stage for energy, enthusiasm, and excitement for conference participants as discussions evolved to explore new opportunities to promote excellence in education. The GRJ Forum design is like no other in our profession. Key to its success is provocative speakers who share personal perspectives, immediately followed by active engagement all participants. As Tschoepe shared in her recognition to Dr Johnson and the introduction of the Forum, many remember what has become known as “Dr Johnson's 3 Ps of strong leadership skills”: passion, persistence, and perseverance. Illustrations of these, as well as other essential personal leadership skills, were explored throughout the Forum by many speakers at ELC 2016.FigureGeneva R. Johnson, PT, DPT, PhD, FAPTA, is a national leader in physical therapy education through her search of excellence in patient care, clinical research, clinical specialization, administration, staff development, and postgraduate education. Her main contribution to the advancement of the profession certainly was “to expect physical therapists to be responsible for their actions, to care about themselves and each other, to value their contributions to patient care, and to create their own futures.”1 She envisioned limitless possibilities for the profession and shared that vision with others. Dr Johnson's leadership has been acknowledged over the years by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) Mary McMillan Lecture Award and Catherine Worthingham Fellow (1985), the APTA Lucy Blair Service Award (1988), the Army Physical Therapy Program Outstanding Alumni Award (1994,) and the APTA Pauline Cerasoli Education Award (2008). Most recently, her legacy was recognized by the American Council for Academic Physical Therapy (ACAPT), who established the Geneva R. Johnson Annual Forum on Innovation in Physical Therapy Education. 1. Johnson GR. Great Expectations: A Force in Growth and Change. Phys Ther. 1985;65:1690–1695. THE GRJ FORUM: ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE The GRJ Forum is designed to: Create a safe environment for key stakeholders in physical therapy education to discuss the infinite possibilities of the future, rather than solving problems of the past. Encourage vision, innovation, creativity, and provocative new ideas that can positively influence the future of physical therapy education. Challenge educators to proactively advance physical therapy education to prepare graduates to meet projected societal and professional needs rather than merely react to external pressures.3 The 2016 GRJ Forum featured Dr Emma Stokes, an international visionary leader and current World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) president, who energized the over-800 conference participants and set the stage for ongoing conversation and idea development throughout the conference. Her keynote was followed by 3 Ignite Talks from active leaders in physical therapy education in the United States - Dr Michael Majsak, Dr Bob Rowe, and Dr Chris Sebelski. Collectively, they shared individual perspectives of what each believed to be critical to foster graduate success in physical therapist practice that is entrepreneurial in spirit, illustrates personal ownership and accountability, and offers a unique value to the health care team to facilitate optimal, efficient, and effective individual-centered health promotion and management. Discussion by over 200 participants followed these speakers, and they more thoroughly explored the 13 themes presented, and discussed “how might we” or “wouldn't it be great if…” Participants had options to discuss 2 different themes, and table facilitators shared 3 possible highlights that might illustrate innovation and educational change to include education that really matters to better prepare physical therapist graduates for success in their future professional careers THIRD ANNUAL GRJ FORUM HIGHLIGHTS Keynote Address - Walk With the Dreamers Emma Stokes, PT, PhD, is deputy head of the Department of Physiotherapy and a fellow of Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland. She teaches in the university's entry to practice and PhD programs in Dublin and Singapore. Her research focuses on matters related to professional practice; particularly, leadership in the profession. She has received numerous awards and professional recognitions for her contributions to the physiotherapy profession and has been a board member of the World Confederation for Physical Therapy (WCPT) since 2007. She was elected as the president of WCPT in 2015. Dr Stokes opened her inspirational keynote with a quote from John F. Kennedy: “Let us think of education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in each one of us there is a private hope and dream, which if fulfilled can be translated into benefit for everyone.” Stokes brought us on a journey, as an outside international colleague looking in, that examined whether the introduction of the DPT fulfilled its desired intentions; whether, in its current design, it meets the needs and ambitions of the profession, and whether it facilitates leadership skills needed for our graduates to be able to respond to, shape, and serve the future health needs of society. Stokes challenged all participants to reconsider curricular priorities and improve balance in our DPT education programs. Stokes reminded us of the original intentions of the move to the DPT as part of Vision 2020. Rothstein11 stated that the move to postbaccalaureate education was “based on a moral authority derived from educational need and the expectation that a profession serves society before itself,” and the “need to prepare physical therapists to exemplify the highest standards of health care, use evidence, skillfully apply techniques, be thoughtful and effective…within the confines of a healthcare system that can promise nothing but chaos for the foreseeable future.” Her review of the stated aims and key expected outcomes of Vision 2020 led her assessment to confirm that not all of the anticipated outcomes have been realized. For example, she noted the matter of reimbursement, fully implemented and available direct access, and the balance of clinical content with leadership and advocacy within DPT curriculum are not yet fully appreciated. While there is a move in countries such as Pakistan, Iran, and Taiwan to move to entrylevel DPT, as well as discourse in Canada and Australia9 suggesting such a need, the global physical therapy community has not followed suit and the baccalaureate degree remains the most common entry-level qualification. Moreover, the country with unquestionably the largest scope of practice in physical therapy—the United Kingdom—achieves this with an entry-level education requirement of a bachelor's degree. She stated unequivocally that the current DPT education was shying away from what is critically needed to develop the next generation of leaders to be equipped to advocate and lead the transformative change articulated in the ambitious plan of the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) and to respond to the health challenges facing our communities, now and in the future. What does the next generation of DPT leaders need to lead the transformation required? Leadership development cannot be a “footnote” in our core values and in our curricula. Drawing on a conversation with Orla Tinsley, a young woman living with cystic fibrosis (CF) and a passionate advocate for people with CF, she recounted Orla's message to participants: “Sometimes in science it can be hard to reach for the marvelous. We are taught that science is a place of precision and parameters when really these are the elements we need to step into the space of the marvelous. Once we know the rules, we must not be afraid to push forward and learn how to bend and even break them in ways that can be calculated and revelatory.” Stokes asked us to reflect and be sure we have a place for both the marvelous and the matter of fact in our DPT curricula. In other words, have we enough space within a curriculum to teach the next generation of leaders the skills and knowledge they need for successful advocacy and leadership? Her view at current continues to be a resounding “no.” Stokes shared that transformative leadership requires new rules, new ways of acting, and new perspectives. It requires that we consider design not only function; story not only argument; symphony not only focus; empathy not only logic; play not only seriousness; and meaning not only accumulation.10 It will require physical therapists who understand themselves, others, and organizational dynamics, and who have the skills, capacity, and willingness to lead.4 Are we shying away? Stokes maintained the answer is yes, we are shying away from providing leadership and advocacy skills in our entry-level education. She cited the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education's standards for professional entrylevel education, and noted that unfortunately, leadership is cited only 4 times, and on 3 occasions, it related to the faculty. If this is the behavior we want from graduates, then where is the emphasis on leadership and advocacy in these standards? She encouraged us to consider how might we create a greater urgency of the importance of curricular balance at the accreditation, program, and faculty intention levels. Stokes continued by considering the Delors et al5 report for UNESCO on education—“Learning, the treasure within”—and contends that in our entry-level programs, we teach “learning to know, and learning to do” well. However, she is not convinced that we place sufficient time and emphasis on “learning to live together and learning to be,” key aspects of personal leadership development. At the WCPT Futures Forum, Sefan Jutterdal,8 president of the Swedish Physiotherapy Association, called upon the global physiotherapy community to be more like Pippi Longstocking - responsible, courageous, and imaginative. Stokes asked participants to identify and ensure we build into curricula the responsibility to be courageous and transformative. She closed her keynote with some difficult yet insightful questions for the group: Do we reward behaviors we want? If we want the next generation to be leaders, to be advocates, to be transformative, do we reward these behaviors in the same way that we reward clinical skill performance? Do we clearly define and measure our leadership and advocacy deliverables? Do the organizations that evaluate how well we, as academic programs, achieve our educational outcomes, evaluate, and reward inclusion of leadership and advocacy learning experiences? In closing, she wished the group, “for today, for tomorrow, for the rest of the time that we teach and learn and research and educate the next generation of leaders, to ‘walk on air, against your better judgment.’7 Only in this way is it possible to teach what really matters to our future graduates!” IGNITE TALKS The IGNITE speakers had 5 minutes to share their personal perspectives to the Forum question or to offer a response to the key points of Dr Stokes’ keynote address. Each was encouraged to challenge the status quo, share new ideas and approaches, or raise emotional levels of conference participants in a manner to foster evaluation and action of new practices in physical therapy education. First Ignite Talk - Curious: What Does It Take to Believe and Act? Dr Chris Sebelski, PT, DPT, PhD, OCS, associate professor at Saint Louis University, director of the SLU-SSM Physical Therapy Orthopedic Residency Program, and a fellow of the Education Leadership Institute (ELI), offered her IGNITE TALK from a faculty and residency director perspective. She asked, why are physical therapists perceived to be better advocates for their patients than for themselves and the profession? Also, why are physical therapists comfortable with being quietly competent when the profession is in need of a unifying vision and an identifiable, marketable skill that secures a position as a provider and expert of the movement system and movement dysfunction? To answer these questions, she examined self-efficacy and actions of physical therapists in today's practice environments. Sebelski referenced Bandura,1 who describes self-efficacy as the personal judgment or conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior(s) required or execute a desired course of action to produce certain outcomes. In her recent research, over 600 therapists responded to a request to complete a standardized tool on leader self-efficacy. Through a series of questions, an aggregate score was used to determine an overall rating of perceived self-efficacy in leadership. Physical therapists in her study reported moderate to strong beliefs that they have the skills and behaviors to lead. Although the therapists in the study had moderate to strong self-efficacy leader beliefs, those therapists over 40 years of age had greater beliefs that they knew how to coach and how to inspire others, behaviors recognized by several authors to be critical in personal leadership development. These findings lead her and others to explore explicit directions to encourage attainment of positional leadership by those in our profession. Therapists need to develop skills to coach and inspire not only their patients but each other. Seasoned therapists need to live the performance accomplishments of a leader, thus giving the more novice physical therapists role models, examples, and vicarious opportunities necessary to further develop personal leadership skills early in their professional careers. Younger therapists need to be more consistently exposed to a lens where leadership skills beyond the individual patient interaction is explicitly discussed and expected. Leadership training should be intentionally addressed within curricula at entry-level, residency, and fellowship programs. She encouraged harnessing these beliefs of leader self-efficacy into the attainment of explicit leadership skills and the commitment to act in a manner that will advance our profession. Sebelski ended her IGNITE within the spirt of appreciative inquiry: “What would happen if since we strongly believe that we can lead that we actually feel empowered to act and lead?” Second Ignite Talk - Do Great Students Make Great Physical Therapists? Dr Bob Rowe is the executive director of Brooks Institute of Higher Learning (Brooks IHL) within the Brooks Health System, located in Jacksonville, Florida. Currently, he serves as a director on the APTA Board of Directors, and is the immediate past president of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Manual Physical Therapists (AAOMPT). Bob shared his IGNITE from a clinical practice and residency perspective. He pointed to a lack of passion demonstrated by the majority of physical therapists in today's practice environments, as evidenced by the intent “to do nothing beyond the minimum requirements of employment and licensure,” a challenge in our profession. He encouraged the academic community to develop admission criteria that consider passion and to design intentional efforts to develop passion in thoughtful learning experiences within DPT professional entry and postprofessional residency education. Rowe challenged participants to consider the types of students accepted into DPT education programs. He confirmed that we recruit academically superior students who graduate and pass the national licensure exam. Yet, only 30% of physical therapist licensees in the United States are APTA members and only 10% of these members contribute to the APTA Political Action Committee (PAC). Rowe posed 4 reflective questions: How many physical therapists show up to their employment site at the designated time and then leave at the designated end of the day? How much time do physical therapists spend in daily reflection on their patient's needs and progress or their own professional development? How many physical therapists are committed to being actual lifelong learners versus merely meeting the minimum state requirements for continuing education for licensure? How many physical therapists have ever attended a legislative advocacy hearing, or visited their state legislator or member of Congress to advocate for the profession? Rowe acknowledged that physical therapists often provide skilled services, yet questioned why they are not committed to their profession to the extent that we need them to be and wondered what is missing. Rowe compared his observations of medical students and physical therapist students and shared that medical students’ “passion quotient” does not change significantly during 4 years of medical school. Instead, it is within postprofessional residency training that medical residents become new human beings socialized with passion, an appreciation of their profession, and their role within it, with a particular emphasis on the subculture for their specialty area of practice. Rowe's recommendation to improve passion is requiring mandatory postprofessional residency program immediately after entry-level graduation. He shared his belief that residency training is the most appropriate tool to instill and nurture passion, a recognized critical leadership behavior. He was passionate in his IGNITE to share that it is only through intentional processes that we will be able to successfully instill passion that will lead to transformation of the professional, profession, association, and society. Third Ignite Talk - Walking Towards Our Vision: Are We Over Involved and Under Committed? Dr Michael Majsak, PT, EdD, associate professor and department chair at New York Medical College, recognized for his efforts to establish a DPT/MPH dual degree and for his leadership in integrating IPE curriculum across multiple graduate health professions, offered his IGNITE from an ACAPT representative academic administrator's perspective. He focused his talk on the concept of “education that matters,” a key component of this year's Forum question. Dr Majsak acknowledged that his perspectives are shared by numerous program administrators and confirmed that although we are developing excellent clinical skills in our graduates, we may not be developing reflective practitioners who are prepared to lead, represent our profession to others, and practice effectively in a constantly changing health care system. He encouraged all educators not to “shy away” from these latter essential graduate learning outcomes, but instead reevaluate how we may be over committed in teaching a wide breadth of clinical sciences and under committed to issues of professionalism, leadership, and public health necessary to attain APTA's Vision for the profession, “transforming society by optimizing movement to improve the human experience.” Dr Majsak drew a distinction between being involved versus being committed by sharing the whimsical metaphor that a hen is only involved, but a pig is fully committed in contributing to a breakfast plate of ham and eggs. Similar to the pig, Dr Majsak suggested that being committed means sometimes sacrificing things we intrinsically personally value to achieve higher priority goals, such as visions for future DPT professionals, the profession of physical therapy, and ultimately, the health of society. He challenged all stakeholders involved in physical therapist education to design not only transmissive or transactional learning experiences within DPT programs, but rather transformative learning experiences that result in structural and cultural shifts in how students think, feel, and act as a doctoring professional. Majsak went on to challenge educators to ensure that DPT students have sufficient time and experiences for self-reflection and self-directed learning, interprofessional education, and opportunities in service-based learning to appreciate and value issues in public health policy and management, as well as the social determinants of health that ultimately influence the future success of DPT graduates and our profession. CAFE STYLE DISCUSSIONS Small group café style discussions allowed all participants of the GRJ Forum to have their voices heard in reaction to the keynote address and IGNITE Talks. The discussions were facilitated using an appreciative inquiry approach to inspire purposeful changes based on the best of what currently is and with the potential of generating positive unforeseen outcomes. The focus was not on what was wrong or needed to be fixed but on what worked well. To create positive visioning, participants were encouraged to share success stories related to the discussed topic and to finish sentences such as “How might we…” and “Wouldn't it be great if we could…” Each participant had the opportunity to discuss 2 of 13 topics. The tangible outcomes of the discussions were innovative directions for physical therapy educators to explore. The 13 topics and highlights from the discussions are presented in Table 1. The themes of the discussions were on the intentions for DPT education to graduate physical therapists prepared to lead, and In a of with our group of speakers, and the Forum encouraged all 2016 ELC participants to reflect and consider what each might do to illustrate passion, persistence, and within our own of influence in this we as Dr Stokes with the and as Dr Johnson role for many years, the to act in a manner that will advance physical therapist Dr Johnson the efforts and ideas of the 2016 Forum participants and challenged us to it in some way we can share of actions at where she to evaluate our We for their contribution to the success of the Third Annual GRJ Forum and forward to Education Leadership where we will have opportunities to learn about actions by this year's Forum of this year's GRJ Forum can be on the ACAPT To the Board members of ACAPT and for their collaborative efforts in the To PT, and the for their to the Forum in Dr Geneva R. Johnson's To the table Catherine Mary and to Dr Mary ACAPT Program Committee for the necessary to the GRJ Forum a and to the ELC Program Committee members for keynote conference and space within the Education Leadership Conference for this year's

Marine governance faces unprecedented challenges; aquatic ecosystem degradation and increasing ocean industrialization are demanding an integrated response. Despite numerous new governance concepts introduced in recent years, ocean health continues to deteriorate. We argue that a transformation in governance is needed, one that addresses its own patterns and processes. This Special Issue explores reflexive marine governance as a means to reorient and redirect, using both theoretical and empirical insights. We find that reflexive governance requires a cognitive process of (social) learning and a capacity for transformative change across actor practices, governance arrangements, and socio-political structures. Reflexive processes—trigger, reflection, and change—can lead to structural transformation, but multi-level governance dynamics shape how actors can challenge stable structures. The contributions to this Special Issue clarify reflexive marine governance in four ways: (1) specifying who is being reflexive by identifying relevant actors; (2) recognizing triggers as internal or external, with effectiveness linked to actors’ change receptivity; (3) understanding that reflection and learning are necessary but insufficient for transformation; and (4) questioning dominant knowledge, practices, and power dynamics to reveal reflexivity's purpose. Addressing contemporary marine governance challenges requires finding spaces for reflexivity within societal structures to foster adaptive and sustainable change.