Search

April 2009 saw the publication of the documents generated by the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport's museum Peer Review Pilot. This Policy Review offers both an overview of the process and a conceptual critique both of the Peer Review Pilot and the McMaster Review criteria on which the pilot was based. It is argued that the McMaster Review is grounded on a reading of excellence as “life-changing experiences” predicated on an imagined transformative aesthetic moment and that it is only by defining excellence in this way that McMaster could secure peer review as a legitimate means of identifying excellence. When transferred for the purposes of the Peer Review Pilot to the museum sector - with its long traditions of pedagogic and civic reform - this narrow reading of “changing lives” is no longer sustainable. The dislodging of the McMaster grounding assumption within the practice of the Peer Review Pilot creates conceptual fissures that can be traced throughout the Pilot's documentation. Specifically, a reading of the Pilot suggests both a need for a more careful reading of “peer”, a recognition of museums' multiple lines of accountability (including to the public) and the ongoing need for methodologies that might allow for an understanding of “life changing” within a much border frame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The DCMS paper “Supporting excellence in the arts”, also known as the McMaster Review, raised more questions than it answered in terms of how UK cultural policy is likely to develop in the future. Although many of its intentions are laudable, the report fails to resolve the inherent problems associated with defining, measuring and judging cultural “excellence”, even though this forms the core of McMaster's argument about how policy should develop. This may have significant implications for cultural institutions in the future. In addition, many of the report's recommendations may either be contradictory or impractical in the current policy climate - such as the desire for institutions to take more risks whilst simultaneously increasing visitor numbers and meeting other targets. As such, without a wider change in the Government's approach and a re-acknowledgement of culture's intrinsic value, “excellence” may just become the latest buzzword for practitioners, rather than the key principle upon which future decisions will be based. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper describes the second phase of a research study into the introduction of the 'modern matron' role in the National Health Service. It draws on information from a survey of modern matrons in 10 case study trusts and from semistructured interviews with purposively selected matrons and their key contacts. Three models of role implementation are identified, each typical of 'hybrid management' but with different emphases on matrons' professional (clinical) and corporate management responsibilities. There is evidence that matrons are starting to make an impact on different aspects of quality improvement in their trusts, but this is often limited by lack of forethought about where they should be located in the organization. It is suggested that, before making decisions about establishing modern matron posts, trusts need to have a clearer understanding both of the different contributions matrons can make to quality improvement and the challenges posed by this type of role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Regular Commissions Board is the main mechanism for the selection of British Army officers. This study is the most comprehensive validation of that mechanism that has been undertaken. Current selection, training and reporting procedures were investigated and all types of male entrant were sampled. The validation utilized both training and job performance criteria. Within-study meta-analyses were carried out on the entrant and Corps subgroups. Total group validity coefficients of 0.33 (0.43 with resignations excluded), 0.31 and 0.31 were obtained for the prediction of regimental performance, and general officer and specialist training respectively, it is concluded that, given the current applicant population, the Regular Commissions Board is a fair, moderately valid method for the selection of officers, and it has utility. Observations are made concerning the basis of the Board's validity, and the value and design of assessment centres. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the research assessment exercise (RAE) by Great Britain that found academic excellence was widespread. The findings of an audit regarding the research quality of some of Great Britain's elite institutions has caused speculation on how the annual amount of government funding will be distributed. Topics include the British government and funding councils' criteria for appropriating funds, which is based on the best research, and an in-depth examination of the RAE's results.