‘User Involvement’ has become the new mantra in Public Services with professionals constantly being reminded that ‘user knows best’. The pur pose of this paper is to ask where the preoccupation with ‘the User’ comes from and to pose some questions about what ‘User Involvement’ actually means. Within our paper we see three issues as central within this. The first is a consideration of the historical antecedents of the discourse of ‘User Involvement’, focusing in on the struggles over British welfare that took place around the late 1970s–early 1980s. This forms the context from which we seek to understand and critique the New Labour project in relation to the massive expansion of regulatory frame works. We argue that, far from enabling the delivery of high quality integrated services that truly reflect the interests of current and future users, these policies represent the further commodification of basic human needs and welfare. Finally, it has become apparent the current ‘User’ discourse has assumed contradictory manifestations, in particular the emergence of groupings of ‘professional users’ who participate in the formation of state policy as ‘expert consultants’. We conclude by arguing for an approach in which user perspectives are neither privileged nor subjugated, but are situated in a process of creative critical dialogue with professionals, which is linked to the development of a concept of welfare driven by emancipatory rather than regulatory imperatives.

Executive SummaryThis paper is a consideration of the issues associated with the infrastructural aspects, pedagogic considerations and the need to associate the usefulness of technology to enhance the learning experience. This technological path will potentially enhance the learning process, not replace the lecturer or tutor. For lecturers and students, the implications of eLearning are extensive. Increasingly universities must provide quality and flexibility to meet the diverse needs of students -this will inevitably involve tailoring courses to suit differing educational needs and aspirations. Lecturers will be forced to fundamentally change their approach to teaching to accommodate the shift in student learning styles. The associated implication of increased workload requires proactive and effective management. Alongside this, eLearning threatens the fundamental structure of the university itself, as research forecasts that institutions cannot retain their traditional structure, in facilities and delivery via formal lectures and class based activity. It is clear that universities must change to accommodate demand and in response to new competition from global, giant corporate and virtual universities, however the problems associated with the change must be fully understood and taken into account prior to the transition taking place. Whilst the benefits of eLearning are highly prophesised, the many implications of implementing an eLearning programme require careful consideration. Getting it 'right' the first time will ensure long term success in a highly competitive market. Most, if not all the UK university sector are utilising technology to develop what they consider to be eLearning. Many of these implementations are costly and yet superficial, in terms of learner engagement and activity. They provide a content repository and in many cases limited active learner participation. For many students this results in endless reading of screen based text. When staff are 'forced' down the eLearning route as a consequence of management directives and mission statements the creation of sound pedagogic practice is often flawed or missing completely and activities constructed service the technology rather than student or learner progression or association.

It has sometimes been assumed that religiously based explanations for and attitudes to having a disabled child have led to the low uptake of health and social services by ethnic minority families in the UK. A series of semi-structured interviews were held between 1999 and 2001 with 19 Pakistani and Bangladeshi families with a disabled child as part of an evaluation of an advocacy service. The families' understandings of the causes of their child's impairment, whether they felt shame and experienced stigma, and whether these factors influenced service uptake and their expectations of their child's future are reported. While religious beliefs did inform the ways in which some families conceptualised their experience, the families' attitudes were complex and varied. There was little evidence that religious beliefs and associated attitudes rather than institutional racism had resulted in the low levels of service provision which the families experienced prior to the advocacy service. There was also no evidence that the families' attitudes had been informed by the disability movement. The implications for service providers and the movement are considered.

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to identify and examine the antecedents that enable or constrain the adoption and diffusion of eLearning in higher education (HE). The key focus of the study is on the examination of how the organisation's diffusion structures, systems or processes influence the individual adoption of eLearning. The findings from this literature review contribute to practice through providing a better understanding of the issues associated with institutional diffusion mechanisms that aid the adoption of learning technologies. Design/methodology/approach -An extensive search of the literature was conducted. The selected references were analysed into a number of categories; macro-level studies examining HE context of eLearning, micro-level studies focusing on individual and social factors and articles focusing on management issues of adoption and diffusion of technological innovations. Finally, over 300 articles were used to compile the findings of this paper. Findings -The paper argues that future research studies should not model the adoption and diffusion of eLearning based primarily on either an individualist (Micro) or structuralist (Macro) perspective, but by using a more interactive approach to examine the complexity and multiple levels and dimensions of social reality. Research limitations/implications -A significant exclusion and one which clearly calls for further research, is the aspect of institutional structures such as library systems, virtual learning environments, administrative support systems and other technical systems such as enrolment, registration, assessment and students, with respect to the adoption of eLearning. Future studies may want to explore the interplay between these structures and agency. Practical implications -The study findings contribute to practice through providing a better understanding of the issues associated with institutional diffusion mechanisms that aid the adoption of learning technologies. Considering the slow and often disappointing adoption of eLearning within higher education institutions (HEIs), the study reveals the nature of adoption that may inform the development of institutional eLearning diffusion structures. Social implications -The paper identifies that the importance of individual factors influencing the adoption of eLearning has been acknowledged by the above studies, and the underlying message has emerged that levels of eLearning adoption would be higher if strategic managers recognised the social dimensions of eLearning innovation and diffusion, such as: academic and professional goals, interests and needs; technology interests; patterns of work; sources of support; and social networks. The argument is that currently eLearning is geared towards technically "literate" and innovative staff, and this strategy reduces the likelihood of mainstream faculty actually adopting instructional technology for their own teaching. Originality/value -A review of the eLearning literature shows that there only a few substantive theoretical accounts ...

No abstract