The current transnational climate (British Council, 2014) in Europe is likely to continue to generate institutional and classroom situations which dictate that difference and otherness be the norm rather than the exception. Unfortunately, in the 1960's, Black and minority ethnic (BME) migrants from the former British colonies had less-than-favorable educational experiences in Britain due to prejudice and stereotyping mainly arising from cultural differences. Since then there have been a plethora of studies, policies, and reports regarding the perpetuation of discrimination in educational institutions. Today, British higher educational institutions have finally begun to recognize the need to reduce progression and attainment gaps. However, their focus tends to only consider the student “Black and Minority Ethnic attainment gap” with almost no attention being given to educators', or more specifically there is a distinctive lack of thought given to the female BME educators' progression and attainment in British HEIs. As such, this paper draws theoretically and conceptually on critical cultural autoethnography, to illustrate the value of conducting research into a female's BME educators' personal and professional experiences, and “gives voice to previously silenced and marginalized experiences” (Boylorn and Orbe, 2014, p. 15). In doing so, I highlight how higher educational institutions underutilisation of such competencies and contributions have and continue to perpetuate BME underachievement. I conclude the paper by questioning the accountability of providing support for BME educators progression and attainment, challenge educational leaders to consider the value and utilization of cultural knowledge, and implore all educators to reflect on how their personal experiences influence their professional identity.
MULTIFILE
Light enables us to see and perceive our environment but it also initiates effects beyond vision, such as alertness. Literature describes that at least six factors are relevant for initiating effects beyond vision. The exact relationship between these factors and alertness is not yet fully understood. In the current field study, personal lighting conditions of 62 Dutch office workers (aged 49.7 ± 11.4 years) were continuously measured and simultaneously self-reported activities and locations during the day were gathered via diaries. Each office worker participated 10 working days in spring 2017. Personal lighting conditions were interpreted based on four of the six factors (light quantity, spectrum, timing, and duration of light exposure). Large individual differences were found for the daily luminous exposures, illuminances, correlated colour temperatures, and irradiances measured with the blue sensor area of the dosimeter. The average illuminance (over all participants and all days) over the course of the day peaked three times. The analysis of the duration of light exposure demonstrated that the participants were on average only exposed to an illuminance above 1000 lx for 72 minutes per day. The interpretation of personal lighting conditions based on the four factors provides essential information since all of these factors may be relevant for initiating effects beyond vision. The findings in the current paper give first in-depth insight in the possibilities to interpret personal lighting conditions of office workers.
MULTIFILE
This pilot study explores the reasons patients have for refusing chemotherapy, and the ways oncologists respond to them. Our hypothesis, generated from interviews with patients and oncologists, is that an ethical approach that views a refusal as an autonomous choice, in which patients are informed about the pros and cons of treatment and have to decide by weighing them, is not sufficient.A different ethical approach is needed to deal with the various evaluations that play a role in treatment refusal. If patients forgo further treatment, while curative or palliative methods are available, there is no perspective from which to integrate the weighing of pros and cons of treatment and the preferences and values of individual cancer patients.A discrepancy thus results as regards what "good reasons" are, evoking misunderstandings or even breaking off communication. Suggestions are given for follow up research.
