writing a case study monash

• Subject guides
• Law research and writing skills
• Juris Doctor

Law research and writing skills: Juris Doctor

• Getting started
• Approaching law assignments This link opens in a new window
• Legal problem solving This link opens in a new window
• Research skills
• Note-taking This link opens in a new window
• Writing legal essays This link opens in a new window
• Writing case notes This link opens in a new window
• Writing legal memos This link opens in a new window
• Writing policy papers This link opens in a new window
• Citing and referencing
• Exam preparation This link opens in a new window
• Graduate researchers
• Learn HQ This link opens in a new window
• Back to Law guide

Research Skills 

Law librarians are available to help support your studies.

Library   Research skills consultations with a librarian can be booked Monday to Friday 10am-5pm subject to availability  via ZOOM .

A short consultation (up to 15 minutes) :  Meet with a Librarian .

A longer consultation (up to 55 minutes): Consult With a Librarian 

Email the Law Library team at [email protected]

Use the side navigation tabs on this guide to find information and advice about researching and writing.

Use the home page of the  Law Library Guide to find resources including Legislation, Cases and Legal Commentary.

Monash University Study Support

The Student Academic Success team of Learning and Language Advisers can help you get on track with your learning and stay on track to boost your grades.

You can  book a learning or language consultation  for support with:

• improving your academic writing (sentence structure, grammar and tense or share a sample of your writing to get feedback)
• managing your study time and preparing for assessments and presentations
• demonstrating the knowledge you’ve gained in your assessments
• how to ask the right questions to demonstrate your critical thinking skills
• where to access interactive online modules to develop your skills at your own pace
• and much more

In your first trimester, you should participate in scheduled workshops as part of LAW5000, Australian Legal Reasoning and Methods (ALRM). Details and materials are available in your LAW5000 Moodle unit.

Workshop 1 - Finding and Researching cases -   (Week 2)

Workshop 2 - Finding and Researching legislation  - (Week 4)

Workshop 3 - Legal research using secondary sources  - (Week 5)

Text books 

Where possible the Library has purchased electronic versions of your text books. Some of these have a limited number of simultaneous users, so if it’s in use try again at another time.  Links to these will be in your Moodle units and via Search

Look at our eTexts for Law  page to see whether there is an eText available for a particular area of law.

Library Node at the Law Chambers 

Postgraduate law students can also place 'Requests' for books held at Library branches (via Search) to be sent to the Node for pick up, borrowing, and returning.

The Node is not a staffed branch of the Monash University Library. It has been established for the convenience of Law postgraduate students, so please help to keep it tidy and remember to borrow the books when you remove them from the Library Node.

For more information about the Library Node, go to The Library Node webpage.

Take a  virtual tour  of the Law Library, Clayton Campus.

• << Previous: Mooting
• Next: Graduate researchers >>

• Help & FAQ

Beyond self-translation: Amara Lakhous and translingual writing as case study

• Translation Studies

Research output : Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceeding › Chapter (Book) › Research › peer-review

Publication series

• self-translation
• cultural identity
• Intercultural communication

T1 - Beyond self-translation:

T2 - Amara Lakhous and translingual writing as case study

AU - Wilson, Rita Pierina

N2 - Taking an author-oriented approach to the study of self-translation, this chapter seeks to explore the links between self-translation as rewriting and the negotiation of cultural identity. In particular, it investigates how self-translation practices in translingual writing dramatize not only the cohabitation of languages, but also explore the implications of the ‘self’ in translation, which, in turn, encompasses a much wider field of possibilities than moving from a source text to a target text. It is argued that translingual writing viewed as self-translation underlines the question of agency, how the subject can sustain complex, fluid, heterogeneous notions of identity by working with the intricacy of languages. In each case, the linguistic choice of translingual writers is understood to be political in valence and to represent an ideological statement about identity. An exemplary case is provided by the work of Amara Lakhous, who writes in both Arabic and Italian, and for whom writing across languages constitutes a liberating, empowering force potentiating encounter and transformation. Through a critical reading of Lakhous’s work, the chapter aims to show how translingual writing represents and reflects upon contemporary ‘sites of translation’ that are the by-product of international migratory flows, and, by doing so contests critical concepts such as ‘mother tongue’ and ‘original’ as well as challenging simplistic assumptions of citizenship, national and cultural identity.

AB - Taking an author-oriented approach to the study of self-translation, this chapter seeks to explore the links between self-translation as rewriting and the negotiation of cultural identity. In particular, it investigates how self-translation practices in translingual writing dramatize not only the cohabitation of languages, but also explore the implications of the ‘self’ in translation, which, in turn, encompasses a much wider field of possibilities than moving from a source text to a target text. It is argued that translingual writing viewed as self-translation underlines the question of agency, how the subject can sustain complex, fluid, heterogeneous notions of identity by working with the intricacy of languages. In each case, the linguistic choice of translingual writers is understood to be political in valence and to represent an ideological statement about identity. An exemplary case is provided by the work of Amara Lakhous, who writes in both Arabic and Italian, and for whom writing across languages constitutes a liberating, empowering force potentiating encounter and transformation. Through a critical reading of Lakhous’s work, the chapter aims to show how translingual writing represents and reflects upon contemporary ‘sites of translation’ that are the by-product of international migratory flows, and, by doing so contests critical concepts such as ‘mother tongue’ and ‘original’ as well as challenging simplistic assumptions of citizenship, national and cultural identity.

KW - self-translation

KW - cultural identity

KW - Intercultural communication

M3 - Chapter (Book)

SN - 9781137507808

T3 - Palgrave Studies in Translating and Interpreting

BT - Self-Translation and Power:

A2 - Castro, Olga

A2 - Mainer, Sergi

A2 - Page, Svetlana

PB - Palgrave Macmillan

CY - London UK

Fostering Boys' Writing: A Case Study of Three Victorian Schools

Principal supervisor, year of award, department, school or centre, degree type, usage metrics.

• Other education not elsewhere classified

• Open access
• Published: 15 May 2024

Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke

• Helena Teede 1 , 2   na1 ,
• Dominique A. Cadilhac 3 , 4   na1 ,
• Tara Purvis 3 ,
• Monique F. Kilkenny 3 , 4 ,
• Bruce C.V. Campbell 4 , 5 , 6 ,
• Coralie English 7 ,
• Alison Johnson 2 ,
• Emily Callander 1 ,
• Rohan S. Grimley 8 , 9 ,
• Christopher Levi 10 ,
• Sandy Middleton 11 , 12 ,
• Kelvin Hill 13 &
• Joanne Enticott   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4480-5690 1  

BMC Medicine volume  22 , Article number:  198 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

228 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

In the context of expanding digital health tools, the health system is ready for Learning Health System (LHS) models. These models, with proper governance and stakeholder engagement, enable the integration of digital infrastructure to provide feedback to all relevant parties including clinicians and consumers on performance against best practice standards, as well as fostering innovation and aligning healthcare with patient needs. The LHS literature primarily includes opinion or consensus-based frameworks and lacks validation or evidence of benefit. Our aim was to outline a rigorously codesigned, evidence-based LHS framework and present a national case study of an LHS-aligned national stroke program that has delivered clinical benefit.

Current core components of a LHS involve capturing evidence from communities and stakeholders (quadrant 1), integrating evidence from research findings (quadrant 2), leveraging evidence from data and practice (quadrant 3), and generating evidence from implementation (quadrant 4) for iterative system-level improvement. The Australian Stroke program was selected as the case study as it provides an exemplar of how an iterative LHS works in practice at a national level encompassing and integrating evidence from all four LHS quadrants. Using this case study, we demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare improvement. We emphasize the transition from research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler and a solution for impact in healthcare improvement.

Conclusions

The Australian Stroke program has nationally improved stroke care since 2007, showcasing the value of integrated LHS-aligned approaches for tangible impact on outcomes. This LHS case study is a practical example for other health conditions and settings to follow suit.

Peer Review reports

Internationally, health systems are facing a crisis, driven by an ageing population, increasing complexity, multi-morbidity, rapidly advancing health technology and rising costs that threaten sustainability and mandate transformation and improvement [ 1 , 2 ]. Although research has generated solutions to healthcare challenges, and the advent of big data and digital health holds great promise, entrenched siloes and poor integration of knowledge generation, knowledge implementation and healthcare delivery between stakeholders, curtails momentum towards, and consistent attainment of, evidence-and value-based care [ 3 ]. This is compounded by the short supply of research and innovation leadership within the healthcare sector, and poorly integrated and often inaccessible health data systems, which have crippled the potential to deliver on digital-driven innovation [ 4 ]. Current approaches to healthcare improvement are also often isolated with limited sustainability, scale-up and impact [ 5 ].

Evidence suggests that integration and partnership across academic and healthcare delivery stakeholders are key to progress, including those with lived experience and their families (referred to here as consumers and community), diverse disciplines (both research and clinical), policy makers and funders. Utilization of evidence from research and evidence from practice including data from routine care, supported by implementation research, are key to sustainably embedding improvement and optimising health care and outcomes. A strategy to achieve this integration is through the Learning Health System (LHS) (Fig.  1 ) [ 2 , 6 , 7 , 8 ]. Although there are numerous publications on LHS approaches [ 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 ], many focus on research perspectives and data, most do not demonstrate tangible healthcare improvement or better health outcomes. [ 6 ]

Monash Learning Health System: The Learn Together for Better Health Framework developed by Monash Partners and Monash University (from Enticott et al. 2021 [ 7 ]). Four evidence quadrants: Q1 (orange) is evidence from stakeholders; Q2 (green) is evidence from research; Q3 (light blue) is evidence from data; and, Q4 (dark blue) is evidence from implementation and healthcare improvement

In developed nations, it has been estimated that 60% of care provided aligns with the evidence base, 30% is low value and 10% is potentially harmful [ 13 ]. In some areas, clinical advances have been rapid and research and evidence have paved the way for dramatic improvement in outcomes, mandating rapid implementation of evidence into healthcare (e.g. polio and COVID-19 vaccines). However, healthcare improvement is challenging and slow [ 5 ]. Health systems are highly complex in their design, networks and interacting components, and change is difficult to enact, sustain and scale up. [ 3 ] New effective strategies are needed to meet community needs and deliver evidence-based and value-based care, which reorients care from serving the provider, services and system, towards serving community needs, based on evidence and quality. It goes beyond cost to encompass patient and provider experience, quality care and outcomes, efficiency and sustainability [ 2 , 6 ].

The costs of stroke care are expected to rise rapidly in the next decades, unless improvements in stroke care to reduce the disabling effects of strokes can be successfully developed and implemented [ 14 ]. Here, we briefly describe the Monash LHS framework (Fig.  1 ) [ 2 , 6 , 7 ] and outline an exemplar case in order to demonstrate how to apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement and embed real-world research for optimising healthcare. The Australian LHS exemplar in stroke care has driven nationwide improvement in stroke care since 2007.

An evidence-based Learning Health System framework

In Australia, members of this author group (HT, AJ, JE) have rigorously co-developed an evidence-based LHS framework, known simply as the Monash LHS [ 7 ]. The Monash LHS was designed to support sustainable, iterative and continuous robust benefit of improved clinical outcomes. It was created with national engagement in order to be applicable to Australian settings. Through this rigorous approach, core LHS principles and components have been established (Fig.  1 ). Evidence shows that people/workforce, culture, standards, governance and resources were all key to an effective LHS [ 2 , 6 ]. Culture is vital including trust, transparency, partnership and co-design. Key processes include legally compliant data sharing, linkage and governance, resources, and infrastructure [ 4 ]. The Monash LHS integrates disparate and often siloed stakeholders, infrastructure and expertise to ‘Learn Together for Better Health’ [ 7 ] (Fig.  1 ). This integrates (i) evidence from community and stakeholders including priority areas and outcomes; (ii) evidence from research and guidelines; (iii) evidence from practice (from data) with advanced analytics and benchmarking; and (iv) evidence from implementation science and health economics. Importantly, it starts with the problem and priorities of key stakeholders including the community, health professionals and services and creates an iterative learning system to address these. The following case study was chosen as it is an exemplar of how a Monash LHS-aligned national stroke program has delivered clinical benefit.

Australian Stroke Learning Health System

Internationally, the application of LHS approaches in stroke has resulted in improved stroke care and outcomes [ 12 ]. For example, in Canada a sustained decrease in 30-day in-hospital mortality has been found commensurate with an increase in resources to establish the multifactorial stroke system intervention for stroke treatment and prevention [ 15 ]. Arguably, with rapid advances in evidence and in the context of an ageing population with high cost and care burden and substantive impacts on quality of life, stroke is an area with a need for rapid research translation into evidence-based and value-based healthcare improvement. However, a recent systematic review found that the existing literature had few comprehensive examples of LHS adoption [ 12 ]. Although healthcare improvement systems and approaches were described, less is known about patient-clinician and stakeholder engagement, governance and culture, or embedding of data informatics into everyday practice to inform and drive improvement [ 12 ]. For example, in a recent review of quality improvement collaborations, it was found that although clinical processes in stroke care are improved, their short-term nature means there is uncertainty about sustainability and impacts on patient outcomes [ 16 ]. Table  1 provides the main features of the Australian Stroke LHS based on the four core domains and eight elements of the Learning Together for Better Health Framework described in Fig.  1 . The features are further expanded on in the following sections.

Evidence from stakeholders (LHS quadrant 1, Fig.  1 )

Engagement, partners and priorities.

Within the stroke field, there have been various support mechanisms to facilitate an LHS approach including partnership and broad stakeholder engagement that includes clinical networks and policy makers from different jurisdictions. Since 2008, the Australian Stroke Coalition has been co-led by the Stroke Foundation, a charitable consumer advocacy organisation, and Stroke Society of Australasia a professional society with membership covering academics and multidisciplinary clinician networks, that are collectively working to improve stroke care ( https://australianstrokecoalition.org.au/ ). Surveys, focus groups and workshops have been used for identifying priorities from stakeholders. Recent agreed priorities have been to improve stroke care and strengthen the voice for stroke care at a national ( https://strokefoundation.org.au/ ) and international level ( https://www.world-stroke.org/news-and-blog/news/world-stroke-organization-tackle-gaps-in-access-to-quality-stroke-care ), as well as reduce duplication amongst stakeholders. This activity is built on a foundation and culture of research and innovation embedded within the stroke ‘community of practice’. Consumers, as people with lived experience of stroke are important members of the Australian Stroke Coalition, as well as representatives from different clinical colleges. Consumers also provide critical input to a range of LHS activities via the Stroke Foundation Consumer Council, Stroke Living Guidelines committees, and the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry (AuSCR) Steering Committee (described below).

Evidence from research (LHS quadrant 2, Fig.  1 )

Advancement of the evidence for stroke interventions and synthesis into clinical guidelines.

To implement best practice, it is crucial to distil the large volume of scientific and trial literature into actionable recommendations for clinicians to use in practice [ 24 ]. The first Australian clinical guidelines for acute stroke were produced in 2003 following the increasing evidence emerging for prevention interventions (e.g. carotid endarterectomy, blood pressure lowering), acute medical treatments (intravenous thrombolysis, aspirin within 48 h of ischemic stroke), and optimised hospital management (care in dedicated stroke units by a specialised and coordinated multidisciplinary team) [ 25 ]. Importantly, a number of the innovations were developed, researched and proven effective by key opinion leaders embedded in the Australian stroke care community. In 2005, the clinical guidelines for Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery [ 26 ] were produced, with subsequent merged guidelines periodically updated. However, the traditional process of periodic guideline updates is challenging for end users when new research can render recommendations redundant and this lack of currency erodes stakeholder trust [ 27 ]. In response to this challenge the Stroke Foundation and Cochrane Australia entered a pioneering project to produce the first electronic ‘living’ guidelines globally [ 20 ]. Major shifts in the evidence for reperfusion therapies (e.g. extended time-window intravenous thrombolysis and endovascular clot retrieval), among other advances, were able to be converted into new recommendations, approved by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council within a few months of publication. Feedback on this process confirmed the increased use and trust in the guidelines by clinicians. The process informed other living guidelines programs, including the successful COVID-19 clinical guidelines [ 28 ].

However, best practice clinical guideline recommendations are necessary but insufficient for healthcare improvement and nesting these within an LHS with stakeholder partnership, enables implementation via a range of proven methods, including audit and feedback strategies [ 29 ].

Evidence from data and practice (LHS quadrant 3, Fig.  1 )

Data systems and benchmarking : revealing the disparities in care between health services. A national system for standardized stroke data collection was established as the National Stroke Audit program in 2007 by the Stroke Foundation [ 30 ] following various state-level programs (e.g. New South Wales Audit) [ 31 ] to identify evidence-practice gaps and prioritise improvement efforts to increase access to stroke units and other acute treatments [ 32 ]. The Audit program alternates each year between acute (commencing in 2007) and rehabilitation in-patient services (commencing in 2008). The Audit program provides a ‘deep dive’ on the majority of recommendations in the clinical guidelines whereby participating hospitals provide audits of up to 40 consecutive patient medical records and respond to a survey about organizational resources to manage stroke. In 2009, the AuSCR was established to provide information on patients managed in acute hospitals based on a small subset of quality processes of care linked to benchmarked reports of performance (Fig.  2 ) [ 33 ]. In this way, the continuous collection of high-priority processes of stroke care could be regularly collected and reviewed to guide improvement to care [ 34 ]. Plus clinical quality registry programs within Australia have shown a meaningful return on investment attributed to enhanced survival, improvements in quality of life and avoided costs of treatment or hospital stay [ 35 ].

Example performance report from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry: average door-to-needle time in providing intravenous thrombolysis by different hospitals in 2021 [ 36 ]. Each bar in the figure represents a single hospital

The Australian Stroke Coalition endorsed the creation of an integrated technological solution for collecting data through a single portal for multiple programs in 2013. In 2015, the Stroke Foundation, AuSCR consortium, and other relevant groups cooperated to design an integrated data management platform (the Australian Stroke Data Tool) to reduce duplication of effort for hospital staff in the collection of overlapping variables in the same patients [ 19 ]. Importantly, a national data dictionary then provided the common data definitions to facilitate standardized data capture. Another important feature of AuSCR is the collection of patient-reported outcome surveys between 90 and 180 days after stroke, and annual linkage with national death records to ascertain survival status [ 33 ]. To support a LHS approach, hospitals that participate in AuSCR have access to a range of real-time performance reports. In efforts to minimize the burden of data collection in the AuSCR, interoperability approaches to import data directly from hospital or state-level managed stroke databases have been established (Fig.  3 ); however, the application has been variable and 41% of hospitals still manually enter all their data.

Current status of automated data importing solutions in the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry, 2022, with ‘ n ’ representing the number of hospitals. AuSCR, Australian Stroke Clinical Registry; AuSDaT, Australian Stroke Data Tool; API, Application Programming Interface; ICD, International Classification of Diseases; RedCAP, Research Electronic Data Capture; eMR, electronic medical records

For acute stroke care, the Australian Commission on Quality and Safety in Health Care facilitated the co-design (clinicians, academics, consumers) and publication of the national Acute Stroke Clinical Care Standard in 2015 [ 17 ], and subsequent review [ 18 ]. The indicator set for the Acute Stroke Standard then informed the expansion of the minimum dataset for AuSCR so that hospitals could routinely track their performance. The national Audit program enabled hospitals not involved in the AuSCR to assess their performance every two years against the Acute Stroke Standard. Complementing these efforts, the Stroke Foundation, working with the sector, developed the Acute and Rehabilitation Stroke Services Frameworks to outline the principles, essential elements, models of care and staffing recommendations for stroke services ( https://informme.org.au/guidelines/national-stroke-services-frameworks ). The Frameworks are intended to guide where stroke services should be developed, and monitor their uptake with the organizational survey component of the Audit program.

Evidence from implementation and healthcare improvement (LHS quadrant 4, Fig.  1 )

Research to better utilize and augment data from registries through linkage [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 ] and to ensure presentation of hospital or service level data are understood by clinicians has ensured advancement in the field for the Australian Stroke LHS [ 41 ]. Importantly, greater insights into whole patient journeys, before and after a stroke, can now enable exploration of value-based care. The LHS and stroke data platform have enabled focused and time-limited projects to create a better understanding of the quality of care in acute or rehabilitation settings [ 22 , 42 , 43 ]. Within stroke, all the elements of an LHS culminate into the ready availability of benchmarked performance data and support for implementation of strategies to address gaps in care.

Implementation research to grow the evidence base for effective improvement interventions has also been a key pillar in the Australian context. These include multi-component implementation interventions to achieve behaviour change for particular aspects of stroke care, [ 22 , 23 , 44 , 45 ] and real-world approaches to augmenting access to hyperacute interventions in stroke through the use of technology and telehealth [ 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. The evidence from these studies feeds into the living guidelines program and the data collection systems, such as the Audit program or AuSCR, which are then amended to ensure data aligns to recommended care. For example, the use of ‘hyperacute aspirin within the first 48 h of ischemic stroke’ was modified to be ‘hyperacute antiplatelet…’ to incorporate new evidence that other medications or combinations are appropriate to use. Additionally, new datasets have been developed to align with evidence such as the Fever, Sugar, and Swallow variables [ 42 ]. Evidence on improvements in access to best practice care from the acute Audit program [ 50 ] and AuSCR is emerging [ 36 ]. For example, between 2007 and 2017, the odds of receiving intravenous thrombolysis after ischemic stroke increased by 16% 9OR 1.06 95% CI 1.13–1.18) and being managed in a stroke unit by 18% (OR 1.18 95% CI 1.17–1.20). Over this period, the median length of hospital stay for all patients decreased from 6.3 days in 2007 to 5.0 days in 2017 [ 51 ]. When considering the number of additional patients who would receive treatment in 2017 in comparison to 2007 it was estimated that without this additional treatment, over 17,000 healthy years of life would be lost in 2017 (17,786 disability-adjusted life years) [ 51 ]. There is evidence on the cost-effectiveness of different system-focussed strategies to augment treatment access for acute ischemic stroke (e.g. Victorian Stroke Telemedicine program [ 52 ] and Melbourne Mobile Stroke Unit ambulance [ 53 ]). Reciprocally, evidence from the national Rehabilitation Audit, where the LHS approach has been less complete or embedded, has shown fewer areas of healthcare improvement over time [ 51 , 54 ].

Within the field of stroke in Australia, there is indirect evidence that the collective efforts that align to establishing the components of a LHS have had an impact. Overall, the age-standardised rate of stroke events has reduced by 27% between 2001 and 2020, from 169 to 124 events per 100,000 population. Substantial declines in mortality rates have been reported since 1980. Commensurate with national clinical guidelines being updated in 2007 and the first National Stroke Audit being undertaken in 2007, the mortality rates for men (37.4 deaths per 100,000) and women (36.1 deaths per 100,0000 has declined to 23.8 and 23.9 per 100,000, respectively in 2021 [ 55 ].

Underpinning the LHS with the integration of the four quadrants of evidence from stakeholders, research and guidelines, practice and implementation, and core LHS principles have been addressed. Leadership and governance have been important, and programs have been established to augment workforce training and capacity building in best practice professional development. Medical practitioners are able to undertake courses and mentoring through the Australasian Stroke Academy ( http://www.strokeacademy.com.au/ ) while nurses (and other health professionals) can access teaching modules in stroke care from the Acute Stroke Nurses Education Network ( https://asnen.org/ ). The Association of Neurovascular Clinicians offers distance-accessible education and certification to develop stroke expertise for interdisciplinary professionals, including advanced stroke co-ordinator certification ( www.anvc.org ). Consumer initiative interventions are also used in the design of the AuSCR Public Summary Annual reports (available at https://auscr.com.au/about/annual-reports/ ) and consumer-related resources related to the Living Guidelines ( https://enableme.org.au/resources ).

The important success factors and lessons from stroke as a national exemplar LHS in Australia include leadership, culture, workforce and resources integrated with (1) established and broad partnerships across the academic-clinical sector divide and stakeholder engagement; (2) the living guidelines program; (3) national data infrastructure, including a national data dictionary that provides the common data framework to support standardized data capture; (4) various implementation strategies including benchmarking and feedback as well as engagement strategies targeting different levels of the health system; and (5) implementation and improvement research to advance stroke systems of care and reduce unwarranted variation in practice (Fig.  1 ). Priority opportunities now include the advancement of interoperability with electronic medical records as an area all clinical quality registry’s programs needs to be addressed, as well as providing more dynamic and interactive data dashboards tailored to the need of clinicians and health service executives.

There is a clear mandate to optimise healthcare improvement with big data offering major opportunities for change. However, we have lacked the approaches to capture evidence from the community and stakeholders, to integrate evidence from research, to capture and leverage data or evidence from practice and to generate and build on evidence from implementation using iterative system-level improvement. The LHS provides this opportunity and is shown to deliver impact. Here, we have outlined the process applied to generate an evidence-based LHS and provide a leading exemplar in stroke care. This highlights the value of moving from single-focus isolated approaches/initiatives to healthcare improvement and the benefit of integration to deliver demonstrable outcomes for our funders and key stakeholders — our community. This work provides insight into strategies that can both apply evidence-based processes to healthcare improvement as well as implementing evidence-based practices into care, moving beyond research as an endpoint, to research as an enabler, underpinning delivery of better healthcare.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable

Abbreviations

Australian Stroke Clinical Registry

Confidence interval

• Learning Health System

World Health Organization. Delivering quality health services . OECD Publishing; 2018.

Enticott J, Braaf S, Johnson A, Jones A, Teede HJ. Leaders’ perspectives on learning health systems: A qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:1087.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Melder A, Robinson T, McLoughlin I, Iedema R, Teede H. An overview of healthcare improvement: Unpacking the complexity for clinicians and managers in a learning health system. Intern Med J. 2020;50:1174–84.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Alberto IRI, Alberto NRI, Ghosh AK, Jain B, Jayakumar S, Martinez-Martin N, et al. The impact of commercial health datasets on medical research and health-care algorithms. Lancet Digit Health. 2023;5:e288–94.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Dixon-Woods M. How to improve healthcare improvement—an essay by Mary Dixon-Woods. BMJ. 2019;367: l5514.

Enticott J, Johnson A, Teede H. Learning health systems using data to drive healthcare improvement and impact: A systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:200.

Enticott JC, Melder A, Johnson A, Jones A, Shaw T, Keech W, et al. A learning health system framework to operationalize health data to improve quality care: An Australian perspective. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:730021.

Dammery G, Ellis LA, Churruca K, Mahadeva J, Lopez F, Carrigan A, et al. The journey to a learning health system in primary care: A qualitative case study utilising an embedded research approach. BMC Prim Care. 2023;24:22.

Foley T, Horwitz L, Zahran R. The learning healthcare project: Realising the potential of learning health systems. 2021. Available from https://learninghealthcareproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LHS2021report.pdf . Accessed Jan 2024.

Institute of Medicine. Best care at lower cost: The path to continuously learning health care in America. Washington: The National Academies Press; 2013.

Google Scholar  

Zurynski Y, Smith CL, Vedovi A, Ellis LA, Knaggs G, Meulenbroeks I, et al. Mapping the learning health system: A scoping review of current evidence - a white paper. 2020:63

Cadilhac DA, Bravata DM, Bettger J, Mikulik R, Norrving B, Uvere E, et al. Stroke learning health systems: A topical narrative review with case examples. Stroke. 2023;54:1148–59.

Braithwaite J, Glasziou P, Westbrook J. The three numbers you need to know about healthcare: The 60–30-10 challenge. BMC Med. 2020;18:1–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

King D, Wittenberg R, Patel A, Quayyum Z, Berdunov V, Knapp M. The future incidence, prevalence and costs of stroke in the UK. Age Ageing. 2020;49:277–82.

Ganesh A, Lindsay P, Fang J, Kapral MK, Cote R, Joiner I, et al. Integrated systems of stroke care and reduction in 30-day mortality: A retrospective analysis. Neurology. 2016;86:898–904.

Lowther HJ, Harrison J, Hill JE, Gaskins NJ, Lazo KC, Clegg AJ, et al. The effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives in improving stroke care and the facilitators and barriers to their implementation: A systematic review. Implement Sci. 2021;16:16.

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Acute stroke clinical care standard. 2015. Available from https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/our-work/clinical-care-standards/acute-stroke-clinical-care-standard . Accessed Jan 2024.

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Acute stroke clinical care standard. Sydney: ACSQHC; 2019. Available from https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/publications-and-resources/resource-library/acute-stroke-clinical-care-standard-evidence-sources . Accessed Jan 2024.

Ryan O, Ghuliani J, Grabsch B, Hill K, G CC, Breen S, et al. Development, implementation, and evaluation of the Australian Stroke Data Tool (AuSDaT): Comprehensive data capturing for multiple uses. Health Inf Manag. 2022:18333583221117184.

English C, Bayley M, Hill K, Langhorne P, Molag M, Ranta A, et al. Bringing stroke clinical guidelines to life. Int J Stroke. 2019;14:337–9.

English C, Hill K, Cadilhac DA, Hackett ML, Lannin NA, Middleton S, et al. Living clinical guidelines for stroke: Updates, challenges and opportunities. Med J Aust. 2022;216:510–4.

Cadilhac DA, Grimley R, Kilkenny MF, Andrew NE, Lannin NA, Hill K, et al. Multicenter, prospective, controlled, before-and-after, quality improvement study (Stroke123) of acute stroke care. Stroke. 2019;50:1525–30.

Cadilhac DA, Marion V, Andrew NE, Breen SJ, Grabsch B, Purvis T, et al. A stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial to improve adherence to evidence-based practices for acute stroke management. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2022.

Elliott J, Lawrence R, Minx JC, Oladapo OT, Ravaud P, Jeppesen BT, et al. Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis. Nature. 2021;600:383–5.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

National Stroke Foundation. National guidelines for acute stroke management. Melbourne: National Stroke Foundation; 2003.

National Stroke Foundation. Clinical guidelines for stroke rehabilitation and recovery. Melbourne: National Stroke Foundation; 2005.

Phan TG, Thrift A, Cadilhac D, Srikanth V. A plea for the use of systematic review methodology when writing guidelines and timely publication of guidelines. Intern Med J . 2012;42:1369–1371; author reply 1371–1362

Tendal B, Vogel JP, McDonald S, Norris S, Cumpston M, White H, et al. Weekly updates of national living evidence-based guidelines: Methods for the Australian living guidelines for care of people with COVID-19. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;131:11–21.

Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50.

Harris D, Cadilhac D, Hankey GJ, Hillier S, Kilkenny M, Lalor E. National stroke audit: The Australian experience. Clin Audit. 2010;2:25–31.

Cadilhac DA, Purvis T, Kilkenny MF, Longworth M, Mohr K, Pollack M, et al. Evaluation of rural stroke services: Does implementation of coordinators and pathways improve care in rural hospitals? Stroke. 2013;44:2848–53.

Cadilhac DA, Moss KM, Price CJ, Lannin NA, Lim JY, Anderson CS. Pathways to enhancing the quality of stroke care through national data monitoring systems for hospitals. Med J Aust. 2013;199:650–1.

Cadilhac DA, Lannin NA, Anderson CS, Levi CR, Faux S, Price C, et al. Protocol and pilot data for establishing the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry. Int J Stroke. 2010;5:217–26.

Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young J, Odgaard-Jensen J, French S, et al. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev . 2012

Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Economic evaluation of clinical quality registries. Final report. . 2016:79

Cadilhac DA, Dalli LL, Morrison J, Lester M, Paice K, Moss K, et al. The Australian Stroke Clinical Registry annual report 2021. Melbourne; 2022. Available from https://auscr.com.au/about/annual-reports/ . Accessed 6 May 2024.

Kilkenny MF, Kim J, Andrew NE, Sundararajan V, Thrift AG, Katzenellenbogen JM, et al. Maximising data value and avoiding data waste: A validation study in stroke research. Med J Aust. 2019;210:27–31.

Eliakundu AL, Smith K, Kilkenny MF, Kim J, Bagot KL, Andrew E, et al. Linking data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry with ambulance and emergency administrative data in Victoria. Inquiry. 2022;59:469580221102200.

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Andrew NE, Kim J, Cadilhac DA, Sundararajan V, Thrift AG, Churilov L, et al. Protocol for evaluation of enhanced models of primary care in the management of stroke and other chronic disease (PRECISE): A data linkage healthcare evaluation study. Int J Popul Data Sci. 2019;4:1097.

CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Mosalski S, Shiner CT, Lannin NA, Cadilhac DA, Faux SG, Kim J, et al. Increased relative functional gain and improved stroke outcomes: A linked registry study of the impact of rehabilitation. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2021;30: 106015.

Ryan OF, Hancock SL, Marion V, Kelly P, Kilkenny MF, Clissold B, et al. Feedback of aggregate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data to clinicians and hospital end users: Findings from an Australian codesign workshop process. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e055999.

Grimley RS, Rosbergen IC, Gustafsson L, Horton E, Green T, Cadigan G, et al. Dose and setting of rehabilitation received after stroke in Queensland, Australia: A prospective cohort study. Clin Rehabil. 2020;34:812–23.

Purvis T, Middleton S, Craig LE, Kilkenny MF, Dale S, Hill K, et al. Inclusion of a care bundle for fever, hyperglycaemia and swallow management in a national audit for acute stroke: Evidence of upscale and spread. Implement Sci. 2019;14:87.

Middleton S, McElduff P, Ward J, Grimshaw JM, Dale S, D’Este C, et al. Implementation of evidence-based treatment protocols to manage fever, hyperglycaemia, and swallowing dysfunction in acute stroke (QASC): A cluster randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2011;378:1699–706.

Middleton S, Dale S, Cheung NW, Cadilhac DA, Grimshaw JM, Levi C, et al. Nurse-initiated acute stroke care in emergency departments. Stroke. 2019:STROKEAHA118020701.

Hood RJ, Maltby S, Keynes A, Kluge MG, Nalivaiko E, Ryan A, et al. Development and pilot implementation of TACTICS VR: A virtual reality-based stroke management workflow training application and training framework. Front Neurol. 2021;12:665808.

Bladin CF, Kim J, Bagot KL, Vu M, Moloczij N, Denisenko S, et al. Improving acute stroke care in regional hospitals: Clinical evaluation of the Victorian Stroke Telemedicine program. Med J Aust. 2020;212:371–7.

Bladin CF, Bagot KL, Vu M, Kim J, Bernard S, Smith K, et al. Real-world, feasibility study to investigate the use of a multidisciplinary app (Pulsara) to improve prehospital communication and timelines for acute stroke/STEMI care. BMJ Open. 2022;12:e052332.

Zhao H, Coote S, Easton D, Langenberg F, Stephenson M, Smith K, et al. Melbourne mobile stroke unit and reperfusion therapy: Greater clinical impact of thrombectomy than thrombolysis. Stroke. 2020;51:922–30.

Purvis T, Cadilhac DA, Hill K, Reyneke M, Olaiya MT, Dalli LL, et al. Twenty years of monitoring acute stroke care in Australia from the national stroke audit program (1999–2019): Achievements and areas of future focus. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2023.

Cadilhac DA, Purvis T, Reyneke M, Dalli LL, Kim J, Kilkenny MF. Evaluation of the national stroke audit program: 20-year report. Melbourne; 2019.

Kim J, Tan E, Gao L, Moodie M, Dewey HM, Bagot KL, et al. Cost-effectiveness of the Victorian Stroke Telemedicine program. Aust Health Rev. 2022;46:294–301.

Kim J, Easton D, Zhao H, Coote S, Sookram G, Smith K, et al. Economic evaluation of the Melbourne mobile stroke unit. Int J Stroke. 2021;16:466–75.

Stroke Foundation. National stroke audit – rehabilitation services report 2020. Melbourne; 2020.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Heart, stroke and vascular disease: Australian facts. 2023. Webpage https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/heart-stroke-vascular-diseases/hsvd-facts/contents/about (accessed Jan 2024).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The following authors hold National Health and Medical Research Council Research Fellowships: HT (#2009326), DAC (#1154273), SM (#1196352), MFK Future Leader Research Fellowship (National Heart Foundation #105737). The Funders of this work did not have any direct role in the design of the study, its execution, analyses, interpretation of the data, or decision to submit results for publication.

Author information

Helena Teede and Dominique A. Cadilhac contributed equally.

Authors and Affiliations

Monash Centre for Health Research and Implementation, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Helena Teede, Emily Callander & Joanne Enticott

Monash Partners Academic Health Science Centre, 43-51 Kanooka Grove, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Helena Teede & Alison Johnson

Stroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Level 2 Monash University Research, Victorian Heart Hospital, 631 Blackburn Rd, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Dominique A. Cadilhac, Tara Purvis & Monique F. Kilkenny

Stroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia

Dominique A. Cadilhac, Monique F. Kilkenny & Bruce C.V. Campbell

Department of Neurology, Melbourne Brain Centre, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, VIC, Australia

Bruce C.V. Campbell

Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

School of Health Sciences, Heart and Stroke Program, University of Newcastle, Hunter Medical Research Institute, University Drive, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Coralie English

School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Birtinya, QLD, Australia

Rohan S. Grimley

Clinical Excellence Division, Queensland Health, Brisbane, Australia

John Hunter Hospital, Hunter New England Local Health District and University of Newcastle, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Christopher Levi

School of Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedicine, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Sandy Middleton

Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent’s Health Network Sydney and and Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Stroke Foundation, Level 7, 461 Bourke St, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Kelvin Hill

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

HT: conception, design and initial draft, developed the theoretical formalism for learning health system framework, approved the submitted version. DAC: conception, design and initial draft, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. TP: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approved the submitted version. MFK: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. BC: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. CE: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. AJ: conception, design and initial draft, developed the theoretical formalism for learning health system framework, approved the submitted version. EC: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, approved the submitted version. RSG: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. CL: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. SM: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. KH: revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, provided essential literature and case study examples, approved the submitted version. JE: conception, design and initial draft, developed the theoretical formalism for learning health system framework, approved the submitted version. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ Twitter handles

@HelenaTeede

@DominiqueCad

@Coralie_English

@EmilyCallander

@EnticottJo

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Helena Teede or Dominique A. Cadilhac .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests, additional information, publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Teede, H., Cadilhac, D.A., Purvis, T. et al. Learning together for better health using an evidence-based Learning Health System framework: a case study in stroke. BMC Med 22 , 198 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03416-w

Download citation

Received : 23 July 2023

Accepted : 30 April 2024

Published : 15 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-024-03416-w

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Evidence-based medicine
• Person-centred care
• Models of care
• Healthcare improvement

BMC Medicine

ISSN: 1741-7015

• Submission enquiries: [email protected]
• General enquiries: [email protected]

/pubs/2019handbooks/aos/writing/index.html

Faculty of Arts

• Skip to content
• Skip to navigation
• Current students
• Giving to Monash

Writing - 2019

Undergraduate.

Commencement year

This area of study entry applies to students commencing this course in 2019 and should be read in conjunction with the relevant course entry in the Handbook.

Any units listed for this area of study relate only to the 'Requirements' outlined in the component of any bachelors double degrees.

Unit codes that are not linked to their entry in the Handbook are not available for study in the current year.

Managing faculty

Coordinator(s)

Associate Professor Andrew Ng

Contact details

Social sciences Social sciences ( http://www.monash.edu.my/study/undergraduate/arts-social-sciences/bachelor-arts-social-sciences )

The Writing minor will introduce you to a range of writing practices in the context of communication and media studies, cultural theory, and literary studies. You will become familiar with conventions and experimentation in contemporary writing, especially prose forms, and gain appreciation for the various techniques associated with them in their contemporary production. Upper-level units offer the opportunity to reflect critically on, and consolidate, your own writing practices as you apply the skills and techniques you have learned in individual and collaborative projects. The emphasis throughout the minor is on writing not only as a means of self-expression and communication, but as a craft that clarifies our individuality and creativity through exploring possibilities and innovations afforded by writing.

Availability

Writing is listed in the Bachelor of Arts and Social Sciences at Malaysia as a minor.

In addition to achieving the broad outcomes of their course broadly, students successfully completing this minor will:

• analyse the symbiotic relationship between the content and the formal features of writing during the act of interpretation
• evaluate the way in which writers negotiate with, represent and address, social, political, cultural and ideological issues through various overt and covert writing styles
• produce writing in a range of styles for a variety audiences. Among theories of authorship that students will learn include Authorial Criticism, New Criticism, Structuralism, Poststructuralism and Psychoanalytical Criticism.

Minor requirements (24 points)

No more than 12 points at level 1 may be credited to the minor minor ( http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/2019handbooks/undergrad/arts-07.html ) .

Students complete:

• AMU1314 Writing techniques: Forms and literary devices
• AMU1312 Introduction to creative writing
• AMU2315 Not offered in 2019 Strategies in writing experiments
• AMU3859 Not offered in 2019 Writing Portfolio

Relevant courses

Successful completion of the minor or major can be counted towards meeting the requirements for the following single degree:*

• A2006 Bachelor of Arts and Social Sciences

Students in other single bachelor's degrees may be eligible to complete the minor or major by using 24 or 48 points of their free electives.

* Students cannot complete both the minor and major in the same area of study.

School of Art & Design

• The Gallery
• Current students

What's on

Study with us.

• Our Research
• Art History & Theory

• Upcoming events
• Past events
• Conferences
• Visiting Artist Program
• Stephen Procter Fellowship
• Sharing Stories Arts Exchange
• Living City: people, plants and place
• Centre for Continuing Education
• H.C. Coombs Creative Arts Fellowship
• Our degrees
• Our Facilities
• Indigenous students
• International students
• Accommodation
• Scholarships
• Bachelor of Design and Bachelor of Visual Arts
• Graduate Programs
• Master of Art History and Curatorial Studies
• 2019 VC's Creative Research Fellows
• 2017 VC's Creative Research Fellows
• 2016 VC's College Visiting Artist Fellows Scheme
• 2015 VC's College Visiting Artist Fellows Scheme
• 2014 VC's College Visiting Artist Fellows Scheme
• 2013 VC's College Visiting Artist Fellows Scheme
• Favourite Slide
• Archive in the Spotlight
• Linked Institutions
• Ephemera and Notes
• Video Collection
• Visual Database
• Explore Collection
• Research projects
• Research Hubs
• Higher Degrees by Research
• Sir William Dobell Art Foundation
• Our History
• Visitor and Accessibility Information
• Exhibition program
• Exhibit with us
• Changes to course delivery - Semester 1, 2020
• Art History and Art Theory Courses
• Visual Art and Design Courses
• Higher degree by research
• Workshops & Materials Payments
• Emerging Arts Support Scheme (EASS)
• Transition arrangements for pre-2019 Bachelor of Visual Arts Majors
• Programs and courses
• Search ANU web, staff & maps
• Search current site content
• How to apply
• VC's Creative Research Fellows Scheme
• Heritage in the Limelight

Centre for Art History & Art Theory

You are here.

Sir William Dobell Chair and Fellows for 2024 announced

In 2023 the Centre for Art History and Art Theory in the ANU School of Art & Design established a new fellowship scheme to increase the impact of the Dobell endowment to support the research of art historians and curators at all stages of their careers. Each year one position known as the Sir William Dobell Visiting Chair and up to four positions known as the Sir William Dobell Visiting Fellow are awarded.

We are excited to announce that the inaugural sir william dobell chair and fellows, and their projects are:.

Professor Kate Fullagar FAHA Australian Catholic University

As the Visiting Sir William Dobell Chair, Kate Fullagar will be working on two inter-related research projects. The first highlights the neglected eleven portraits of non-Europeans painted in the eighteenth century by Sir Joshua Reynolds – an artist more commonly associated with the heroes of imperial plunder. The second project delves into the ongoing furore around the now most famous Reynolds work of all – his portrait of the Pacific Islander Mai (1775). Recently acquired by both the British government and the Getty, this piece demands continued research into the spectre of empire in eighteenth-century art but also into the politics of contemporary art markets. It will involve a workshop at ANU in October 2024 entitled, ‘British art, Pacific subjects, Contemporary values: The Modern Saga and Forgotten History of Reynolds’ Mai Portrait,’ featuring keynote Samoan art historian Peter Brunt.

Ginevra Addis, Ph.D. Postdoctoral fellow, UNIMIB, Milan, Italy

Ginevra Addis seeks to investigate the relationship between biodiversity and contemporary art within the context of art museums in and around Canberra. By focusing on these institutions, which play a crucial role in shaping cultural narratives, the study aims to unravel how artists contribute to the discourse on biodiversity. This project’s objectives are: To analyze the representation of biodiversity in contemporary art within the collections of art museums in Canberra; To investigate the role of these institutions in promoting environmental awareness through contemporary art exhibitions; To explore the potential for collaboration between museums, and artists, in fostering a deeper understanding of biodiversity. This project’s methodology will be the following: 1. Literature review. 2. In-depth interviews with museum curators and art historians on the convergence of the role of contemporary art and biodiversity. 3. Surveys to museum visitors/gallery visitors to gauge the impact of art on their environmental awareness.

Dr Gloria Bell Assistant Professor, McGill, Montreal

My research will explore Indigenous activism in the 1920s centering around the life of Anthony Fernando, an Aboriginal activist. This research departs from my book project Eternal Sovereigns that explores the Anima Mundi collection of stolen Indigenous art at the Vatican Ethnology Museum and the history of the 1925 Vatican Missionary Exposition (VME). Fernando protested the genocide of First Peoples and leafleted visitors who attended the 1925 VME. I want to pursue what his experiences at the exhibition might have been like. I am interested in thinking about Indigenous art and activism in Australia and globally for Indigenous communities. I also plan to create a series of short stories and images about Indigenous experiences at the Venice Biennale drawing on my own experiences in Venice as a member of the Canadian Indigenous Curatorial Delegation. I will reflect on the presence of Indigenous Curatorial Delegations at the Venice Biennale, and the longer history and visibility of Indigenous artists at global exhibitions.

Dr Helen Hughes Senior Lecturer, Monash University

Helen Hughes is currently researching and writing a book about art and the history of convict transportation from Great Britain and Ireland to Australia between 1797 and 1868. Convict artists were one of the largest groups of artists working in the early decades of the penal colonies in Australia. Convicts often produced art as part of their sentence, whether that meant working for the government or indentured as a servant to a free settler. Yet art-historical accounts of the early colonial period tend to lump convict artists in with professional, scientific, and amateur naval artists, failing to theorise the highly specific conditions in which convicts produced their work. While convicts were, in many respects, victims of British penal colonialism, emancipated convicts often received or bought land grants and otherwise participated in the colonisation of Australia and the dispossession of its sovereign Indigenous custodians. As this book shows, convict artists both documented and facilitated the colonisation of this land. While Helen is a Sir William Dobell Visiting Fellow at ANU, she will undertake research at the National Library of Australia, the National Museum of Australia, the National Gallery of Australia, the National Portrait Gallery, and the Royal Australian Mint.

Dr Penelope Jackson Adjunct Research Associate, Charles Sturt University

As of March 2024, Sir William Dobell’s painting The White Horse Inn, Dorking is listed on the FBI’s National Stolen Art File and his work, The (Not Quite) Landlord, is on Interpol’s list of missing art. These are just two of several missing Dobell works which does not bode well for one of Australia’s most revered artists, and yet showcases the gravity to which Dobell’s work has been the victim of art crime. Additionally, Dobell’s work has been copied for legitimate reasons and some illicitly. In fact, there is a catalogue of his work that has been stolen, forged, sold fraudulently and vandalised. In short, Dobell is a textbook case for art crime and Penelope Jackson’s findings will be presented in a chapter of my book that I’m currently writing about aspects of Australian art that are normally excluded from its art history, ostensibly crime and copying.

Dr Tobias Teutenberg Research Assistant, Bibliotheca Hertziana, Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rome

The aim of Tobias Teutenberg’s project is to reconstruct the epistemic and institutional milestones in the history of the tactile art gallery analytically, critically, and in a global perspective. Tactile art galleries are heterotopias within the functional unit of the museum. They suspend the founding paradigm of these institutions by breaking away from ocularcentrism and liberating their objects for haptic experience. They first emerged in the United States in the early 1960s against the backdrop of the disability rights movement and soon spread around the world. All tactile art galleries were designed for blind and visually disabled people, but were also accessible to nonblind visitors. The history of the tactile gallery is linked to contemporary art historical phenomena such as the participatory approach of environmental art, but also to the methodology of art history. By examining these historical approaches to museum pedagogy for the blind, the project will also critically engage with contemporary tactile programs in art institutions.

Dr Andrew Yip Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales

Working in partnership with ANU Centre for Art History and Art Theory’s A/Prof Robert Wellington, Andrew Yip’s project focuses on applying high-fidelity, physics-based rendering techniques to the virtual reality reconstruction of Louis XIV’s lost Cabinet des Médailles , one of the most spectacular rooms at Versailles, which housed more than 27,000 coins and medals of great material and political significance. Using recent advances in physics-based rendering and materials simulation, this Project will restore the lost architecture of the Cabinet through the production of a 1:1 scale digital replica with interactive tools designed to not only facilitate an auratic exploration of the room itself, but an understanding of its collected medals and the physical ways in which they were handled and viewed in situ.

Andrew’s project aims to explore methods for designing embodied interaction and user-led frameworks that respect historically contextual behaviours and investigate best-practice methods for designing a virtual heritage toolkit to expand the capabilities of the disciplines of virtual heritage and art history.

The Sir William Dobell Art Foundation was formed in 1971 in memory of the Archibald prize-winning Australian artist Sir William Dobell (1899-1970), who was known for his landscapes and portrait paintings. The Foundation established the Sir William Dobell Chair of Art History at ANU, which it has continued to support for 30 years. This position has helped the College of Arts and Social Sciences support a teacher and researcher and strengthened the university's position as a leader in art history and curatorial studies.

Applications for 2025 are now open and will close 31 July 2024.  Learn more.

Connect with us

Updated:   20 May 2024 / Responsible Officer:   Head of School / Page Contact:   CASS Marketing & Communications

• Contact ANU
• Freedom of Information

+61 2 6125 5111 The Australian National University, Canberra TEQSA Provider ID: PRV12002 (Australian University) CRICOS Provider : 00120C ABN : 52 234 063 906

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Research: Negotiating Is Unlikely to Jeopardize Your Job Offer

• Einav Hart,
• Julia Bear,
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren

A series of seven studies found that candidates have more power than they assume.

Job seekers worry about negotiating an offer for many reasons, including the worst-case scenario that the offer will be rescinded. Across a series of seven studies, researchers found that these fears are consistently exaggerated: Candidates think they are much more likely to jeopardize a deal than managers report they are. This fear can lead candidates to avoid negotiating altogether. The authors explore two reasons driving this fear and offer research-backed advice on how anxious candidates can approach job negotiations.

Imagine that you just received a job offer for a position you are excited about. Now what? You might consider negotiating for a higher salary, job flexibility, or other benefits , but you’re apprehensive. You can’t help thinking: What if I don’t get what I ask for? Or, in the worst-case scenario, what if the hiring manager decides to withdraw the offer?

• Einav Hart is an assistant professor of management at George Mason University’s Costello College of Business, and a visiting scholar at the Wharton School. Her research interests include conflict management, negotiations, and organizational behavior.
• Julia Bear is a professor of organizational behavior at the College of Business at Stony Brook University (SUNY). Her research interests include the influence of gender on negotiation, as well as understanding gender gaps in organizations more broadly.
• Zhiying (Bella) Ren is a doctoral student at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Her research focuses on conversational dynamics in organizations and negotiations.

Partner Center