Exploring operational issues

In this post I want to think through some of the:

  1. Constraints
  2. Benefits
  3. Technical knowledges
  4. And various ways I deploy learning technologies in my practice as a learner and academic

Firstly, to restate the broad philosophy of my teaching and learning practice, I think of myself as someone heavily influenced by postmodern and post-structural philosophies.  This means that my practice is underpinned by:

  1. Interest in opening space for new thought, creativity and perhaps even a deliberate carelessness ;
  2. A skepticism towards meta-narratives, or hegemonic discourses, even discourses of resistance;
  3. The plurality of knowledges and truths;
  4. And a resistance to singular authorities who might claim to know what is right and wrong, good or bad.

I have been at AUT for 19 years and, in that time, I have found it an incredibly free and open space for creativity.  I know this hasn’t always been the case for some of my colleagues, but I struggle to think of a time when I wasn’t able to exercise my imagination.

There are structural constraints in the institution of course.  Approving committees, disapproving colleagues, time pressures, dogmatic and intransigent attitudes perhaps, but I have found that I have mostly been able to work around these things.

Some of this comes from the fact that I think as a designer of educational experiences and spaces, I tend to work quite autonomously.  My approach has increasingly become one of instigating change in my own personal and professional practice and then sharing that with colleagues as and when they feel comfortable to try it.  To give some examples:

  1. I set up a Wednesday lunchtime tech talk session for staff in the School of Public Health and Psychosocial Studies, partly to learn about a range of different learning apps (we ran each week for 24 weeks during 2017), and partly to share ideas for incorporating readily accessible technologies into our teaching
  2. I have taught staff and students on the use of Evernote, which is one of my most invaluable software tools
  3. I regularly use different presentation tools in my teaching, especially Keynote, but also Evernote, Twitter and polling software like Xorro.
  4. I use Feedly, Pocket and, again Evernote, to collate material captured from various social media, including journals, magazines, videos.
  5. I use Zoom extensively to maintain connections with colleagues throughout the world.
  6. I have been blogging using WordPress sites for five years now and have published more than 650 blog posts on criticalphysio.net – a site I established back in 2014.

In using these tools, I have found AUT to be an incredibly supportive work environment. That being said, the university suffers from a legacy of poor decisions when it comes to supporting large-scale IT projects.  Systems like Arion, Ideate, Blackboard, and the resources available to staff in teaching spaces are patchy and haphazardly installed and integrated.  They are not reliably available, and there doesn’t seem to be a coherent strategy to organise the purchasing and roll-out of these tools.  I heard no so recently that the IT team don’t consult CfLaT when they decide on an upgrade to the LMS, which is indicative of a poorly thought-out strategy for ICT development in the future.

Perversely perhaps, I think we benefit quite a lot from this haphazard approach because, as a postmodernist, I think it allows us a lot of space to develop our own solutions.  We aren’t constrained by a one-size-fits-all model imposed centrally.  The Akoranga campus is a great example of that.  Often, the slightly tired facilities mean that we’re looking for creative solutions for things that others in the City maybe take for granted.   I like this freedom, just as I like the fact that we don’t have the heritage at AUT of universities like UofA, Victoria, and Otago, where traditional systems and structures can also be a brake on creativity.

If this slightly chaotic, slightly loose, slightly disorderly approach continues, and the university doesn’t look to centralise, dominate or control our way of doing things, there are some directions I would like to develop in.  I would like to:

  1. Work more asynchronously.  I no longer have an office on campus and this has increased my use of technology to enable connections.  I said last year that there were colleagues overseas who I was closer to than some of the people I shared a landing within AR block.  Zoom, Skype and the fibre broadband I now have at home have made a huge difference to my working patterns, and I’d like to encourage more staff to do what I’ve done and give up their offices.
  2. Engage in more teaching overseas.  Again, using remote connections and video streaming, I would like to diversify my work and develop more connections with universities and colleagues in different countries.  I have strong connections with people in the UK and Scandinavia and would like to develop more remote teaching contracts in the future.
  3. Incorporate open badging into some of the courses I teach online.  I haven’t done this yet but feel it could be a good way to break away from the old idea that higher education institutions were the only legitimate places that could accredit formal and informal learning.
  4. Develop better screencasts for lectures I have developed in my office.  I have seen some people use green-screens and interesting video overlays.  I don’t know if I want to go this far, but making presentations more visually engaging would be something I would be interested in developing.

I hope this has provided some context for some of the operational issues I encounter at AUT.  As I say, I find it a very flexible place to work and quite enjoy the feeling that you’re sometimes working in quite a disorderly place.  I think it helps us to be more creative.

I’m back!

Back in 2014, this WordPress site helped us start the Critical Physiotherapy Network.  When that site needed to migrate to a more stable paid WordPress site, I gradually wound this site down.

But now I find I need a WordPress site as a basis for the cMALT cMOOK  community I’ve become part of.

And what better site to use than one I already have in place!

So like a phoenix from the ashes, the criticalphysio.wordpress site is back.

Visitor or resident?

I’ve been grappling for some time with ways to improve my technology workflows.

At the first cMOOC meeting of the year I quizzed Thom Cochrane and Todd Stretton about their use of IfTTT and was impressed with some of the tool’s utility, but, as has happened before, when it comes to me finding workflows that relate to my work, little seems to relate.

So I watched Dave White’s video on VandR mapping with some interest. Here was a way to represent the various tools I used in interesting ways and categorise them on the basis of how much of a digital footprint I left.

But as with IfTTT, my experience of VandR did not endear me to the aoppraoch. Firstly, I was struck by how unintuitive the notion of visitor and resident were. I hadn’t come across these terms before, and felt quite confused by their subtlety. If the metric being applied was how much of an enduring social relationship is involved in the tool being used, then I found it hard to see how it might be enduringly useful.

If our purpose in using VandR is to ask ourselves and our students how they engage in social spaces, then everything towards the ‘visitor’ end of the spectrum might as well be labelled as ‘of little interest’ or ‘of only personal value’, because those tools that are significant are those that favour people’s involvement in enduring social networks.

This seems to me to be a particularly constructivist notion of digital technology, that certainly has some value in mapping relational technology, but I wonder why it didn’t include things like mobile phones or television? Or is the VandR mapping process really about promoting the virtues of relational technologies that offer us an enduring footprint, like blogging?

What was missing for me was not so much the static placement of technologies on a map, but the dynamic interplay between tools – the way one tool supports another for a third, fourth of fifth purpose. I’ve been left wondering if there are tools out there that map such things?

I know there are very expensive and complex workflow solutions in business, manufacturing, and project management, but are there examples of workflows in educational technology that people know about and use?

An example

Here, for example, are the tools I use routinely in my work:

For material capture and input:

  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Various news sites (i.e. The Guardian)
  • Feedly
  • Search tools

For reading and reviewing

  • Safari
  • Pocket
  • Feedly

For composition

  • WordPress blog
  • Evernote
  • Twitter

It’s the flow between these various elements that I want to improve on and, perhaps even, streamline.

I use Feedly as my RSS reader and open articles I want to read in more depth into Safari. If I want to do something with the article I will save portions of it or the whole article into Evernote, save it to Pocket to read and blog about later, or delete it.

From here I will often pull the material back out of Evernote to inform a blogpost I’m writing, but I then might also share the material on Twitter, or occassionally, Facebook. This is my main workflow.

My fantasy is that I might one day develop a set of workflows that really streamline this process and don’t require me to take so many separate steps to achieve the same, often repeated, result.

I wonder if this is a common experience for people using a variety of workflows to get things done?

Follow up to A New Vision for Physio post

vision horizon

Some of the discussion following the release of the CSP’s recent video A new vision for physiotherapy prompted some interesting thoughts about the constant tension we face if we are to anticipate the future for our profession (link).  A couple of issues surfaced from the blogpost and the comments that followed that prompted me to think about the link between physiotherapy, politics and evidence-based practice:

  • Firstly, in defence of the CSP, it cannot be easy being a professional body these days.  Social media has opened up great opportunities for communication and sharing of ideas, but it has also made a critic of everyone.  This is perhaps one of the most important and challenging aspects of a social media landscape where n0-one has to obey anyone else’s code of conduct and can say pretty much whatever they want.  As someone deeply invested in the idea of critical thinking, my hope is that groups like the Critical Physiotherapy Network help stimulate critical debate about the profession and function as ‘a positive force for an otherwise physiotherapy.’  More than anything, I hope we can engage in debate that is serious, constructive, respectful and a never-ending act of opening.
  • In the discussion following the blog about the video, @HelenOwen3 made the very valid argument that ‘we need to stick true to our goal of improving patient care,’ and I think everyone can agree that that is vital.  But it only represents one half of the primary function of a professional group – the other half being that it must always remain ‘relevant’: relevant to the government that provides the bulk of its funding and legislative protection; relevant to other health care professionals; and relevant to the public at large.  Health care professions are ‘political’ not only because they influence politicians to spend money in different ways, but because being a professional is inherently a political act.  Imagine if physiotherapy decided that it did not want to be ‘political,’ and decided to ignore the government’s concerns about the future cost of healthcare, the ageing population and the prevalence of long-term illnesses and lifestyle disorders.  It wouldn’t be long before we were replaced by another profession that were happy to tow the party line, leaving us with the luxury of practicing our long-established model of care in unsubsidised clinics treating short term conditions that don’t cost too much to resolve, in competition with people with a weekend’s training in massage and underwater basket-weaving.
  • A lot of physiotherapists believe that strategies like evidence-based practice will protect us from this fate, but I suspect that’s because they are wedded to a biomedical/biomechanical philosophy of practice and don’t see that all practice is inherently political.  Thus they believe that it is enough for EBP to inform their clinical decision-making but fail to see that it will not help the profession decide whether it should be evidence-based in the first place.  There is now an enormous body of literature suggesting that EBP may constrain as much as it enables (link), but to locate this literature, one has to step out from underneath the cloud of EBP that now saturates physiotherapy practice, and this is not easy to do if treating the body-as-machine is the beginning, middle and end of your practice philosophy.
  • Evidence from the profession’s history points to the fact that the greatest successes have been achieved without any recourse to EBP.  Physiotherapists did not establish their legitimacy with EBP – they did it by imposing rules that convinced the government, the medical profession and the public that they could be trusted (link).  We did not establish our role as the providers of orthodox health care with the weight of evidence for the efficacy of our sling suspensions and effluerage.  No, we did it by demonstrating that we could be trusted professionals allied to medicine.  History teaches us that the future vitality of physiotherapy is unlikely to be achieved by the weight of evidence for the efficacy of our practice, but rather our ability to anticipate the prevailing political climate and adapt accordingly.
  • That is not to say that evidence-based practice is not important in the current tug-of-war over healthcare resources.  Clearly it is.  But some people seem to be quite selective about the kinds of evidence they want to support (which is quite ironic given that EBP is supposed to transcend such subjective judgements.)  There is almost overwhelming evidence now, for example, that social determinants of health (poverty, poor housing, access to services, substandard education, etc.) are the most important contributors to people’s health – far more significant to behavioural interventions (link).

‘One of the problems with contemporary health care is that it focuses on ‘soft target’ risk factors ‘such as physical activity, nutrition and weight control that target individuals rather than environments and structural conditions that in turn, are causal pathways for heart disease, diabetes and cancer’ (Keleher & MacDougall, 2009, p. 28).

  • But social determinants demand political action, sometimes against the directions taken by the governments that ‘sponsor’ us.  They require coordinated, sometimes centralised action to transfer power away from the hands of professionals and put it in the hands of clients/patients, families and communities.  And they demand that we do this while at the same time advocating for people who otherwise would be voiceless.  This is not the approach we are ‘sold’ today though.  What we are told to believe in is the power of individual responsibility, behaviour change strategies and the importance of making people independent.  Clearly EBP is not as ‘neutral’ as some suggest.


Keleher, H., & MacDougall, C. (2009). Understanding health : A determinants approach. Australia: Oxford University Press.

A new Constitution for the Critical Physiotherapy Network

group photoOver the last 12 months we have been working on a Constitution that will help define the work of the Critical Physiotherapy Network in the coming years.

Because we aspire to be ‘a positive force for an otherwise physiotherapy,’ there is a degree to which we have tried to think outside conventional ways of thinking and doing.  Some of the language in our Constitution reflects that.

Words like ‘alterity’ and ‘otherness’ are used, and there are phrases that talk about ‘thinking against the grain.’  Some of these words and phrases are provocative and are used deliberately to prompt us to think and practice differently.  In each case, though, they are used to open a space to think differently, and so are meant as positive statements of disruption rather than negative statements of cynicism.

Early drafts of the text were worked on by Exec members in November last year and were debated by the wider network in February.  The extensive feedback we received was discussion at an Exec meeting in March. An overarching ‘purpose’ statement was then added, and a final version was signed off by the Exec in June.

This is what it says:

The CPN is an international collaborative network of critically-informed academics, clinicians and researchers who draw on the health sciences, social sciences and the humanities to explore, challenge and develop physiotherapy theory and practice

The ‘objects’ of the Network are as follows:

The Critical Physiotherapy Network will strive to challenge contemporary physiotherapy theory and practice by:

  1. Actively exploring the world beyond the current boundaries of physiotherapy practice and thought
  2. Challenging physiotherapy to critically examine its position on alterity and otherness, abnormality, deviance, difference and disability
  3. Recognising and problematising power asymmetries inherent in physiotherapy practice, particularly where they marginalize some groups at the expense of others
  4. Developing a culture and appreciation for the exploration of all views that deviate from conventional thought and practice in physiotherapy
  5. Actively embracing ideas that promote thinking against the grain/challenging in physiotherapy
  6. Being open to a plurality of ideas, practices, objects, systems and structures that challenge contemporary physiotherapy practice and thought
  7. Promoting critically-informed thinking, encouraging ideas from diverse disciplines uncommon in mainstream physiotherapy, including anthropology, the arts, cultural studies, critical theory, education, geography, historiography, humanities, linguistics, philosophy, politics, sociology and others
  8. Providing a space for ideas that promote a more positive, diverse and inclusive future for the profession

studyThe Critical Physiotherapy Network was formed from a desire to challenge and reform physiotherapy practice and thinking. The Network is founded on the belief that the physical therapies can make a much more valuable and significant contribution to the lives of people today than the historically and socially self-imposed limits on the profession currently allow. The Network has been made possible by a growing sense that a critical mass of physiotherapists are eager to challenge contemporary physiotherapy theory and practice and work towards a more positive, inclusive, critical future for the profession.
The group will appeal to people with an interest in the practice of physiotherapy, including people who are not practising physiotherapists.  We seek to encourage contributions from academics, clinicians, educators, researchers and students, and anyone who can help us achieve the objects set out above.


  • The Critical Physiotherapy Network (the Network) is a membership-based organisation created to develop and promote a positive critique of physiotherapy practice.
  • The Network is for physiotherapists and others who have an interest in the reform of the profession.
  • The constitution seeks to acknowledge the profession’s heritage but attempts to define a space in which it is possible for members to develop, critically examine, and share new opportunities for the profession in the future.
  • We believe that the future of the profession lies in a diversity of approaches and with a variety of different communities of need.
  • Rather than being afraid of change, difference, or ‘otherness,’ we look to these things for inspiration and ways to respond to the many challenges of contemporary healthcare.
  • Our critical approach embraces a wide variety of philosophies, methodologies and theoretical approaches.
  • We embrace constructivist, interpretivist, critical and postmodern philosophies and have members with interests in anthropology, the arts, cultural studies, economics, education, history, politics and sociology.
  • Our starting point is a critical approach to physiotherapy’s longstanding affinity with biomechanical, biomedical and positivist thinking.
  • We believe that creativity involves thinking against the conventional wisdom – deliberately asking why do we think this way, practice these things in these ways.
  • We believe in creating a safe, supportive community where people can develop, explore and share ideas that may be controversial or unsettling to mainstream and orthodox practice.

Because we are an organisation of members from 28 countries, we did not want to have our constitution written only for English speakers, and so, with the help of a host of Network members, we translated the Constitution into 10 other languages (Afrikaans, Danish, Finnish, French, German, Māori, Portuguese, Spanish, Xhosa and Zulu), with more hopefully to follow.

A huge thank you goes out to Ricky Bell, Carmen Caeiro, Simon Kirkegaard, Petro van der Merwe, Veronika Mezzanotte, Jens Olesen, Anna Rajala, Michael Rowe and Jenny Setchell for their hard work translating these for us.

Full pdf versions of the Constitution in all 11 languages will be available from the new website in the next few days.

Is this really a vision for physiotherapy?

The CSP has just released a new video titled The vision for UK physiotherapy, which is in a similar vein, and follows closely on from the Physiotherapy Associate of British Colombia’s recent Choose to move video, which I wrote about recently (link), and the APTA’s call for a ‘transformative year in physical therapy (link).

Each of these calls carry a similar message about the transformative possibilities of physiotherapy and the importance of physiotherapists reaching beyond the narrow confines of the body-as-machine.  It’s hugely significant that physiotherapists are now recognising this and seeing that unless they can connect people to the bigger, more emotive aspects of their health, they risk being sidelined as (albeit very skilled), expensive body technicians and, in all likelihood, replaced by people who do not need a four year undergraduate training, a masters degree or a doctorate.

What is a little less reassuring though, is the broadly political and social message that is carried by these calls – messages that may appear to be obvious and taken-for-granted on the surface, but are, all the same, no less problematic.

It seems to me that there are three broad criticisms one can make of these calls: that they focus too much on the individual, on independence and on population health. Taking each of these in turn:

The focus on individual

Health care today is dominated by messages about personal responsibility.  Who could argue with the logic that we should all sit less, do more exercise and eat better food.  But while these messages seem obvious, we should remember that they are a relatively recent ‘invention.’  Not so long ago, health services were organised around the things that governments felt responsible for: the casualties of war, poverty, poor housing conditions causing the spread of communicable diseases, etc.  This was the model of the welfare state.  Governments have long since realised that this model of health care is unaffordable, however, and so have looked for ways to shift the burden away from the state.  The preferred method seems to be to shift the responsibility on to us.

Rose Galvin’s paper Disturbing notions of chronic illness makes this point brilliantly.  She argues that at no time in our history have we been so saturated by health information.  We can find advice on what to eat, what to drink, how much exercise to take, when to check for lumps, when to know we’re stressed, etc.  She argues that there are good reasons for this, and it may not be what you think. The real virtue of all of this knowledge, Galvin argues, is that it serves an important political function.  When, in the future, we go to the doctor complaining of hip pain and ask for physio, or a hip replacement, the doctor will be able to say “if you had followed our advice years ago, you wouldn’t have hip problems now.  Clearly you didn’t, so you must be responsible.  If you are responsible, you must pay.”  Galvin calls this ‘culpability in the face of known risk’ and it is a powerful driver of health education and ‘behaviour change’ in the developed world.

So where do we fit in?  Clearly government ministers can’t walk the streets handing out health advice to people (although many of them would like to!)  No.  Governments ’empower’ agencies like doctors, nurses and physiotherapists to do this, and in return they get access to special treatment denied to other professions (legislative protection, access to patients in the public health system, etc.).  Our role is to ensure that we anticipate the government’s political motives and comply.  We are the ones who uncritically push messages about personal responsibility and sell these ideas on the basis that they are common sense and obvious.  Critical thinking is about challenging the taken-for-granted obviousness of these beliefs however and asking if they are quite so benign as they first appear.  Importantly, critical thinking is not about saying these ideas are either simply good or bad, only that they are dangerous.

The focus on independence

The messages about independence might also be seen as problematic in these calls.  Autonomy and independence are central to western ideas about health, but they are also fictions.  Watch the video and you will see anything but independence.  You will see people who are dependent on other people, people dependent on feeding tubes and prosthetic limbs, neighbours and friends, therapists and carers.  Dependence has become a dirty word in health care because it suggests that the person is a burden to the state (and thereby you and me, the taxpayer and voter).  Physiotherapy has long functioned as a social practice designed to alleviate this burden.  Much of its credibility has been gained by returning people to work and reducing the burden of care that falls on the taxpayer, the state, families and communities.  Think, for example, of how much investment went into physiotherapy after WWI as a cog in the new field of re-habilitation.

So it may be logical that physiotherapists champion ‘independence’ but is it a good idea for a profession that claims to also be an advocate for the needs of the ill and injured? Independence stigamtizes.  Those who are ‘dependent’ on others (children, frail elderly, disabled people, etc.) are marginalised because they cannot be independent.  Physiotherapists struggle with these populations in some ways, because our practice is so heavily ‘biomechanical’ that we prefer cure over care; fixing things to supporting things; working on rather than working with.  New messages about the importance of independence do nothing to change this.  Should we not look to the idea of positive dependence, where everyone’s connections with the people and things they need to live a meaningful life are acknowledged instead, and look to challenge the uncritical acceptance of independence as an obvious good?

Focus on population health

Finally, and briefly, the focus on population health.  Simply put, physiotherapy has never had a model of population health and so to claim it now seems more of a political move than a reality.  Unlike doctors, nurses, even dentists, who have always been invested in mass screening programmes, public health drives and global health initiatives, physiotherapy has preferred to focus on the individual body beneath our hands.  In fact our almost obsessive focus on the body beneath us has meant we have allowed ourselves to ignore all of the cultural, economic, political and social explanations for health and illness, and concentrate only on the body-as-machine.  For that reason our work has always been one-to-one.  There are no published models of population health that overlap directly with physiotherapy, in the same way there are not models of primary health care that relate directly to us.  It has never been our focus, so to claim it now seems disingenuous. To summarise this rather lengthy post, critical thinking, for me at least, is not about being able to systematically review research articles, but about asking deeper questions about why things are the way they are, and how might they be otherwise.  Hence the strap line for the Critical Physiotherapy Network states that we are ‘a positive force for an otherwise physiotherapy.’

Karl Popper once argued that the task facing the scientific community was not to support the latest thinking, but to try with all our might to refute it, with the best ideas being the ones that survived the onslaught of criticism. I really do applaud the CSP (and the PABC and APTA) for their efforts to promote physiotherapy – particularly where they identify the transformative possibilities of our practice.

I do think though that some of the messages now appearing sound some alarms about how the profession will develop in the coming months and years and more critical insights are definitely needed.


Galvin, R. (2002). Disturbing notions of chronic illness and individual responsibility: Towards a genealogy of morals. Health, 6(2), 107-137.

365 days of the Critical Physiotherapy Network

muffinsThe CPN is 1 year old today.

To celebrate how far we’ve come in such a short space of time, I thought it might be timely to look back on some of the things we’ve achieved as a Network:

The Network started with an email to six people who had talked informally about forming a group of like-minded critical thinkers in physiotherapy.  This email snowballed until we had 24 people signed up by the the end of the first week and more were added each week as people heard about us.  People were saying that the group was an idea who’s time had come, and it quickly became clear that there were dozens of physiotherapists who thought ‘differently’ about physiotherapy, all looking for a safe place to share their ideas and explore their passion for an ‘otherwise’ physiotherapy.

The group grew so quickly that we needed to form an Executive.  A call went out and the current five members of the Exec generously responded.  We held our first videoconference meeting on 31st October 2014 and have met once a month ever since.

The ’30 days of September’ (30DoS) campaign drew people’s interest and activity in the CriticalPhysio website grew rapidly.  Since its inception there have been 50,000 views of the site and 30,000 visitors.  One one day alone the site was viewed more than 3,000 times.

During the 30DoS campaign, people voted on the things that they would like the Network should do for them.  The most popular options were explaining philosophy to physios; starting a critical physiotherapy journal; running a colloquium in the South of France; collaborating on a critical physiotherapy book; and running a webinar.

This gave the Executive a clear steer and we’ve been working through these over the first six months of 2015.  We began with a bold project to write a journal article on a subject that was both contemporary and philosophically challenging, with invited members – most of whom had never met – setting ourselves the challenge to complete it within six months.  Anyone who felt they could make a substantial contribution to the paper became an author, and as a result we had eight contributors to a paper called Connectivity: An emerging concept in physiotherapy practice which will be ready for publication by the end of this week.  We’re now undertaking the same process with our first edited book provisionally titled Critical Studies in Physiotherapy.

In June, a number of CPN members met up at WCPT in Singapore, and a dozen members congregated at the In Sickness and In Health conference in Mallorca.  At these meeting the depth of critical scholarship now emerging in the profession became clear, as a host of diverse thinkers showed they could hold their own with some of the most advanced scholarship happening anywhere.

So how are we celebrating the CPN’s birthday over the next few days?  Well, we’ll be unveiling some new ideas and developments that coincide with the launch of the site, including an entirely new website with a host of new features including a discussion forum, membership database and archive.  We’ll also be launching our new constitution translated into 11 languages, some new logos, and access to full text articles published by members of the group.

We’ll be posting regularly through our Twitter handle @CriticalPhysio and on our Facebook page CriticalPhysiotherapyNetwork, and keeping members updated through regular emails.

If you’d like to become a member of the Network, it’s free, and all you have to do is click on the ‘Database of Network Members’ link at the top of this webpage.  You can also follow the regular blogposts by scrolling to the bottom of this page and following the instructions there.

We look forward to seeing you soon!

Celebrating the Critical Physiotherapy Network’s 1st birthday

celebrationIn two days time it will officially one year since we formed the Critical Physiotherapy Network (CPN).

When we started the group, we seriously thought that there were about a dozen physiotherapists around the world who would be interested in participating, so the growth of the Network has been nothing short of remarkable.

The CPN now has 250 members in 28 countries spread over four continents.  We have members in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Denmark, Dubai, England, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Malaysia, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Palestine, Portugal, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, USA and Wales.

Within the network there are academics, clinicians, researchers and teachers.  Some are leading players in their country’s professional bodies, others are internationally-recognised researchers.  There are occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and sociologists in the network as well as physiotherapists.

Over the course of the next week, we’ll be celebrating the Network’s birthday with some announcements that we hope will encourage others to become active members of the group.  These will include moving to a new website, launching the Network’s new constitution in 11 languages, revealing our new logo, and new member’s services including access to full pdfs of all the latest critical thinking from CPN members.

If you’d like to become a member of the CPN, click on ‘Database of Network Members’ in the black bar above and follow the instructions.  You can follow this blog by scrolling down to the bottom of the page (the instructions are there), and you can follow us on Twitter and Facebook.

Keep an eye on the blog in the coming days and weeks for more announcements as part of our birthday celebrations.