Michelle Lefevre
University of Sussex
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Michelle Lefevre.
Social Work Education | 2005
Michelle Lefevre
Practice learning has moved to centre stage in the new Degree in Social Work in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with a 35% increase in placement days. This increase has proved a challenge to existing structures and new models are developing. Student perspectives need to be taken into account. The nature and impact of the relationships formed between social work students and their practice teachers should be one area of focus, as the literature has already highlighted the significance of this relationship in the creation of the learning environment and the development of relationship competency. Findings are presented here from a small scale empirical study into subjective student perceptions of the nature of these relationships and their significance to (a) student learning and (b) accuracy of summative assessment. The implications of these findings for practice learning are considered.
Social Work Education | 2014
Imogen Taylor; Michelle Lefevre
In this first Issue of 2014, we are very pleased to announce the new Editorial team: Professor Hugh McLaughlin from Manchester Metropolitan University, UK, as Editor-in-Chief and Helen Scholar from the University of Salford, UK, as Deputy Editor. As Editorial Board Member since 2010, Hugh is well placed to understand the opportunities and challenges facing the journal. Hugh and Helen are qualified social workers, Hugh’s experience is in child and family work; Helen’s is in criminal justice and probation. They have sustained experience as social work educators, and between them have worked in four UKuniversities. Their research is on social work education: Hugh has published on social work research, including service user involvement in research, and on fitness to practise and interprofessional practice; Helen has published with Hugh on partnership work with employers and non-traditional placements. They will assume the Editorship at the March, 2014 Editorial Board Meeting. We continue to develop our international profile and change is also in process in the international Advisory Boards. In 2013, Professor Christa Fouché from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, took over as Editor of the Australasia Board. Christa is a qualified social worker originally from South Africa where she has retained strong links. Her research interests are in capacity building in social services. In 2014, there will be changes to the Editorship of the North American and Asian Boards as Professors Marion Bogo and Vimla Nadkarni approach the end of their terms. Imogen has just returned fromattending the 2013AmericanCouncil on SocialWork Education (CSWE) Annual Programme Meeting in Dallas, Texas. It was a privilege to attend the Opening Ceremony with Marion Bogo, ‘our’ North American Editor and the first non-American to be presented with a Significant Lifetime Achievement in Social Work Education award. Marion was recognized for her ‘tireless commitment to improving social work education and her groundbreaking contributions to improving the way we assess competence in social work students. . . . . (and her) leadership positions with numerous professional organizations . . . including the Council on Social Work Education and the Canadian Association of Schools of SocialWork’. Imogen’s collaborationwithMarionbegan in1978when ImogenbecameaUniversity of Toronto Field Instructor andMarionwas Field Practicum Co-ordinator. Most recently they coauthored a paper on competence and capability in social work education in England, informed by an analysis of the American Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) (2013). Imogen participated in a CSWE consultation on the first draft of the 2015 EPAS. In 2008, the EPAS adopted a competencies and outcomes approach. CSWE are to be congratulated on their inclusive consultation process over the next two years. The allocation of resource to this project will be remarkable to educators outside the USA. The EPAS have been criticised for lack of attention to interprofessional education and service user involvement. An eloquent keynote from Dr Stefanus Snyman from Stellenbosch University, South Africa spoke to interprofes-
Journal of Social Work | 2018
Barbra Teater; Michelle Lefevre; Hugh McLaughlin
Summary The research activity of social work academics in the UK has been of interest and concern amongst academics and research funders. Multiple initiatives have been implemented to develop social work research activity, yet research by social work academics remains limited, hindered by lack of time, support infrastructures, funding and training. Through the use of a mixed-methods cross-sectional survey (N = 200) and follow-up individual interviews (N = 11), this study reports on the factors that were found to contribute to or impede the amount of time that social work academics reported spending on research. Findings The results from the survey indicated that 73% of respondents were research active. Bivariate analysis revealed that academics spent less time on research and teaching, and more time on administration than expected by their employing universities. Multivariate analysis found that less time spent on administration and teaching, more university supports, and being from a pre-1992 university predicted more time spent on research. Applications The findings indicate that the administrative burdens associated with teaching and assessment in social work education result in academics struggling to fit research into their busy lives, despite initiatives to raise the profile and productivity of social work research. Research support infrastructures and strategies should be reviewed in light of such findings.
Social Work Education | 2013
Imogen Taylor; Michelle Lefevre
In our most recent Editorial (32.4) we introduced the newly launched ‘Best Article’ award, as a result of reviewing articles for 2012 using the following criteria agreed by the Editorial Board: importance/significance, originality/innovation, rigour in conceptual thinking and/or research methodology, and attention to diversity issues. In presenting these criteria we were highlighting the factors which, in the view of the Editorial Board, underpin excellence in publishing in social work education. In this editorial, also in the interests of addressing excellence, we examine the reasons why some papers are rejected by this journal. In 2012, our acceptance rate was just over 56%, a figure that the publisher advised is a little ‘high’ given the robust levels of submission to the journal. This caused the Editorial Board to consider if we are rigorous enough in what we accept. In March 2013 we had 242 assessors from a range of countries, 82 of whom in 2012 assessed more than 3 articles for us in that year. The high number of potential assessors can be explained by the current editorial practice of adding new authors in to the assessor pool. We aim to control for common standards by ensuring that each contribution is independently assessed by at least two assessors, one of whom is a member of the Editorial Board or one of the Associate Boards. If there is a significant difference of opinion between the two assessors, there is a strong likelihood that a third assessor will be involved alongside, or in addition to, the Editors. In addition, new assessors always operate alongside two other assessors for their first review. We do not set out to reject articles lightly and considerable attention is given by assessors and ourselves to supporting authors to achieve a good enough publication for the journal if strong potential is shown in the first submission. Indeed, this often includes more than one round of assessment to refine the article and maximise its contribution, although the Board will keep under review the related resource required from assessors, editors and board members. The first and most straightforward reason for rejection is simply that an article is not suitable for the journal as it is not about social work education, or it may refer to social work education in a tokenistic way but the substantive focus is on another topic. On occasion we receive submissions about education for another profession without addressing education for social work. We would emphasise that we are keen to include
Child & Family Social Work | 2008
Michelle Lefevre; Karen Tanner; Barry Luckock
Child & Family Social Work | 2004
Michelle Lefevre
Archive | 2010
Michelle Lefevre
Child & Family Social Work | 2007
Barry Luckock; Michelle Lefevre; Karen Tanner
Archive | 2008
Barry Luckock; Michelle Lefevre
Child & Family Social Work | 2015
Michelle Lefevre