This research investigates to what extent lecturers at universities of applied sciences do regard differentiated rewards—intended to develop and/or display professionalism—to be fair, and to what extent, and in which form, do these stimulate their willingness to (further) professionalise and/or display professionalism. This was a case study research design, and a factorial survey measurement technique was used to collect data. We argue that lecturers believe it is fair that forms of differentiated rewards are used and applied in order to have them develop and/or display more professionalism. Especially the viewpoints/practices that relate to coordination, consultation, and consideration for personal circumstances have an influence on the justice perceived. This paper contributes to the HRM literature confirming that lecturers appreciate financial stimuli enhancing their professionalism; however, elements such as consultation, respect, coordination, and communication are appreciated even more. It appeals to HRM to design new practices which have more stimulating effect on personal and professional growth in subject-specific knowledge.
Introduction: Nursing students will come across stressful situations during their internships and will continue to do so in future practice. Because of the impact stress can have on performance, nursing students need to be equipped to work and collaborate in such situations. Careful consideration of the needs and desires of nursing students should be taken in account, in order to create a training environment that fosters students' ability to learn to collaborate under stress. Aim: The aim of this study is to identify viewpoints of undergraduate nursing students towards the learning of collaboration in stressful situations, to understand their needs and desires, and to improve educational designs for training to collaborate in stressful situations. Methods: We conducted a Q-methodology study, a mixed methods approach that studies and charts subjectivity, and uses a by-person factor analytical procedure to create profiles of shared viewpoints. The process of our Q-study is based on the following five steps: Q-set development (54 statements), participant selection (n = 29), Q-sorting procedure, data analysis, and factor interpretation. Results: Q-factor analysis resulted in two prevailing factors that answer our research question. Twenty-five students loaded on these two factors, and factor interpretation resulted in Profile 1 “Practice makes perfect, so let's do it” and Profile 2 “Practice is needed, but it scares me”. Whereas Profile 1 regarded learning to collaborate in stress mainly as a challenge, Profile 2 appeared anxious despite feeling the necessity to learn this. An overarching consensus factor revealed the importance of a learning environment in which mistakes can be made. Discussion: The two described profiles align with the biopsychosocial model of challenge and threat, and could help to recognize and address the individual needs of nursing students when learning to collaborate in stressful situations. Incorporating these profiles in training may guide students towards a more challenge-like appraisal of stressful situations.
Introduction: People on the autism spectrum often struggle to transition smoothly between occupations in daily life. Objective: This qualitative inquiry aimed to understand the human and non-human factors that influence occupational transitions from the perspectives of adults on the autism spectrum. Method: Using a constructivist grounded theory design, this study purposively gathered data from eight adults on the autism spectrum who shared their viewpoints via semi-structured interviews and self-produced written texts. Framed by the Cultural Historical Activity Theory, an iterative process of constant comparative analysis was employed, yielding six categories that constituted the assembly of a working theory on occupational transitions among adults on the autism spectrum. Results: Drawn from eight participants, the six categories were: 1) getting ready, 2) the attributes of the occupation, 3) the others, 4) strategies of the moment, 5) cumulative stress, and 6) possible ends of the process. Conclusion: Our findings revealed a nuanced understanding on occupational transitions for adults with autism. First, materiality (non-human entities) serves various purposes in occupational transitions, implying that in some cases, intangible materials (tacit knowledge) would be enough to initiate, aid, or terminate occupational transitions. Second, doing transitions together through the optimization of social support and resources can make occupational transitions more meaningful for adults in the autism spectrum. It is our ambition that these propositions be tested and emphasized in occupational therapy, healthcare, and social care practices.
