Podcasts about mcnaughton

On April 26th, 2026, Sebastian Sawe did what many thought was impossible.  Running the marathon in under two hours. Today on Nudge, I explain the psychological tricks Sawe may have used to break the record.  --- Become an FSB member: https://get.fsb.org.uk/nudge/ Unlock the Nudge Vaults: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/vaults Join 12,199 readers of the Nudge Newsletter: https://www.nudgepodcast.com/mailing-list Connect on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/phill-agnew/  Buy Alex's book Endure: https://amzn.to/3TdJv7P  ---  Today's sources:  Blanchfield, A. W., Hardy, J., & Marcora, S. M. (2014). Non-conscious visual cues related to affect and action alter perception of effort and endurance performance. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, Article 967. Carter, J. M., Jeukendrup, A. E., & Jones, D. A. (2004). The effect of carbohydrate mouth rinse on 1-h cycle time trial performance. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 36(12), 2107–2111. Damisch, L., Stoberock, B., & Mussweiler, T. (2010). Keep your fingers crossed! How superstition improves performance. Psychological Science, 21(7), 1014–1020. de Morree, H. M., & Marcora, S. M. (2010). The face of effort: Frowning muscle activity reflects effort during a physical task. Biological Psychology, 85(3), 377–382. Gray, K. (2010). Moral transformation: Good and evil turn the weak into the mighty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(3), 253–258. Huang, D.-H., Chou, S.-W., Chen, Y.-L., & Chiou, W.-K. (2014). Frowning and jaw clenching muscle activity reflects the perception of effort during incremental workload cycling. Journal of Sports Science & Medicine, 13(4), 921–928. McCormick, A., Meijen, C., & Marcora, S. (2018). Effects of a motivational self-talk intervention for endurance athletes completing an ultramarathon. The Sport Psychologist, 32(1), 42–50. Stoate, I., Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2012). Enhanced expectancies improve movement efficiency in runners. Journal of Sports Sciences, 30(8), 815–823. Strack, F., Martin, L. L., & Stepper, S. (1988). Inhibiting and facilitating conditions of the human smile: A nonobtrusive test of the facial feedback hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(5), 768–777. Williams, E. L., Jones, H. S., Sparks, S., Marchant, D. C., Midgley, A. W., & McNaughton, L. R. (2014). Deception studies manipulating centrally acting performance modifiers: A review. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 46(7), 1441–1451.

Terence McNaughton joined Off The Ball Breakfast back in February to give a brutally honest assessment of where Antrim hurling is at under Davy Fitzgerald, after a worrying run of league form and that loss to Kildare.He breaks down why the current system isn't suiting the players, the confidence issue in the group, and how key losses like Neil McManus and Conor McCann have changed what Antrim need to be.And it goes beyond the senior team: McNaughton lays out what he sees as the real problem in Belfast and Ulster hurling, from schools links to structures, funding, and why “throwing good money after bad” won't fix foundations.Become a member and sign up at offtheball.com/join

  Episode: 140 Taking Charge After Stroke: Self-Determination and Recovery with Vivian Fu   In this episode you will discover: ● The Conversation Is the Intervention — A structured, facilitated conversation that centers a person's identity, hopes, and vision for their best day produces measurable improvements in quality of life and independence a year after stroke. Connection isn't soft — it's evidence-based. ● Reframe the Expert in the Room — Take Charge asks clinicians to resist offering advice, validation, or direction — and to trust that the person with stroke already holds the wisdom they need. The hardest part of the facilitator role is staying out of the way. ● Self-Determination Is Not a Luxury — When people with stroke are supported to set their own direction, outcomes improve, costs decrease, and the effects last for years. Building systems that protect that autonomy isn't idealistic — it's what the data demands.   Welcome to the Aphasia Access Aphasia Conversations Podcast. I'm Katie Strong from Central Michigan University and a member of the Aphasia Access Podcast Working Group, a community dedicated to supporting better aphasia care.   Today I'm speaking with Dr. Vivian Fu, a stroke neurologist living and working in Kelowna, British Columbia, the unceded territories of the Syilx / Okanagan people. Vivian trained in Aotearoa New Zealand, where she completed her PhD running the Taking Charge After Stroke trial. Take Charge showed that people with stroke who were supported to follow their own self-determination had much better quality of life and independence a year after their stroke. The second Take Charge RCT showed that two sessions about six weeks apart produce better outcomes than one session. Vivian strives to embed the Take Charge philosophy in her daily practice, and is focused on improving access to high quality stroke care for rural, regional, and underrepresented populations.   I have been looking forward to this conversation. What drew me to Take Charge was how it reframes the question entirely — from what does the clinician do for this person to what does this person want for their own life. That shift is deceptively simple, and as you'll hear, the evidence behind it is anything but.   Let's get into it.   Katie Strong:  Welcome, Vivian. Vivian Fu: Thank you so much for having me, Katie. I'd like to start off with my Pepeha. This is an introduction in Te Reo Māori, which is the indigenous language of the people of Aotearoa New Zealand, and I'll just translate each line. Nō Hong Kong ōku tīpuna. My ancestors come from Hong Kong. I tipu ake au ki Aotearoa. I grew up in Aotearoa, New Zealand. E noho ana au ki Ki-Low-Na. I live in Kelowna, British Columbia. Ko tēnei taku mihi ki ngā tāngata whenua o te rohe nei. I like to pay my deepest respects to the first peoples of this land. I live on the unceded territories of the Syilx and Okanagan peoples. Ko tēnei taku mihi ki ngā maunga, ki ngā awa, ki ngā roto, ki ngā Papatuānuku, o te rohe nei. I'd like to pay my deepest respects to the mountains, rivers, and the lakes, and to Mother Earth. All these important landmarks that have been here for millennia. Nō reira, tēna koutou, tēna koutou, tēna koutou katoa. Therefore, hello, hello, hello, Ko Vivian Fu tōku ingoa. Lovely to be here. Katie Strong:  Well, I'm so glad you're here. And I wanted to start off today asking about the Take Charge program that you've been working with, and talk to me about how that began. What was the origin of that? Vivian Fu:  Sure, so really this work began in probably the late 90s early 2000s when clinicians in Aotearoa New Zealand realized that there were different outcomes for people who were Māori compared with non-Māori, and I guess an important point to illustrate is that in Aotearoa society we view things in a very bicultural lens, and by that I mean Tangata Whenua, who are the people of the land, so indigenous people of the Māori and Tangata Tiriti, so everyone else are people of the treaty. It doesn't really matter where you come from, but you are a person of the treaty if you live in Aotearoa, and so it's a bicultural lens, and so we always look at things in that way, and that's how our kind of entire society is grounded upon that. And so when we look at health outcomes, what we could see back then, and unfortunately what we, in a way, still see now is that Māori were experiencing a stroke at about 20 years younger than non-Māori, and they were more likely to die from their stroke, and also more likely to be severely disabled. And so there was a difference in life expectancy, a difference in overall rehabilitation access, difference in overall outcomes, and so it started off with Professor Matire Harwood's work. She is Tangata Whenua, and in her PhD, she was looking at why there were these differences in outcomes and wanting to address them. And so that started off with the Māori and Pacific Stroke Study, which was essentially conducted in just Māori and Pacific people in Aotearoa, New Zealand, out of many different centers around the country. It was a four arm study.. It was a randomized control trial, and it looked at a conversation, which was labeled as the "Take Charge" session, but it was, it was really a connection and a conversation versus a professionally made DVD from the New Zealand Stroke Foundation about people's experiences and stories after stroke. And then the fourth arm of the trial was getting both of those interventions, and there was a control group. So there were three active groups in one control group. And what the researchers basically found was that anybody who had received this session of discussion and connection did much better a year after stroke in terms of quality of life, independence, and caregiver strain. And so that was the first sort of indication that there was something in that conversation that was really important. Unfortunately, it didn't really take off in terms of being able to be implemented, and so then Dr. Harry McNaughton, who was Dr. Harwood's supervisor wrote multiple grants and tried to get this session into much more of a bigger trial with some some type of implementation, and that's where I came along and we essentially did two things. We operationalized the intervention into something that had a bit of a framework, so with a bit of a booklet and a bit of a structure to follow. Really looking into what was it about that conversation that was so powerful and made such a difference to people, and tried to put those things into practice. Then, secondly, to conduct a second trial in New Zealand out of seven centers for people with stroke who were non-Māori and non-Pacific, because the struggle that we came across was that it was only shown to be effective in a small group of people, but not in everybody, and so we had to do things backwards. And so that was really where it all began, from these principles of self-determination, so Tino Rangatiratanga, which is a really important principle in Te Ao Māori, and in the world of Māori, but also knowing that Māori and a lot of indigenous peoples, we think of health as this concept called Te Whare Tapa Whā, for example, which is the house with four walls. So a person is never just their body and their physical health, there are other walls that keep the house upright. So mental health, spiritual health, and family health, whānau is so important, and feeling as though you have strong foundations in where you belong is also really important. So it's that really holistic look at health of an individual and how we can address all of those things in an intervention is really where it all came from. Katie Strong:  Thank you for sharing. I appreciate the backstory, and also just the idea of what you're thinking about from a holistic health standpoint. I know our listeners are probably curious, some of them might not have heard about Take Charge before, so this is the first time of them hearing about this, and so I was hoping, Vivian, you could give us an overview of what the intervention is, and then maybe walk us through what a session actually looks like in practice. Vivian Fu: Yeah, absolutely. So I'll talk you through the session in the way that it was done in the larger Take Charge trial. So this was done in 400 non-Māori, non-Pacific people with stroke, and our trial there had three arms. So there was a control group, there was a group that received just one session, and then there was a group that received two sessions six weeks apart roughly. The sessions were provided by a trained facilitator, and they were timed roughly somewhere between three to 18 weeks after stroke. So quite a large window, really, depending on when the person with stroke was ready to receive it. So the short version of what it looks like is it's based off the booklet and it's done face to face. It's a conversation and the facilitator is trained at the beginning to really try and establish a relationship…to build a relationship. There's a concept in Te Ao Māori called Whakawhanaungatanga, which is really sort of seeking another person's identity, recognizing who they are as a person, and trying to build connections. And so I guess in English, we think of that as building rapport, building trust. And so it in our trial was done face to face. We have also looked at ways of doing this via telehealth as well, which is, you can imagine, is a little bit different. But that step is really important, and we knew that it was important also in the initial Māori and Pacific trial, because the facilitators who were trained were actually ethnicity matched. So that's something where I think it came quite naturally in that trial, but in the second trial we really wanted to ensure that a relationship was built, and then there are three pages, initial pages in the booklet that look at different things. So the first page is looking at how the person has been affected by the stroke, and then asking them to think about actually who they really are as a person. It's a very simple concept, and a very sort of simple question, but for many people that's the first time they've really been asked that and have had to think about that. So anything that comes to mind that they can relate to, you know, who they are. An individual, and what it is that they love, so for example, for me, I would say, "I'm a mum, and I'm, I'm a stroke neurologist, I am a painter, I'm a poet, I'm someone who loves going for walks in hikes," and, you know, so those kinds of things, and it, and it kind of really builds on on that person's identity and who they are in the world. And so that's that sort of page one. It's really about establishing identity and sense of self. And then the second page is talking then about my hopes and fears. And that might be a tricky one, really, for a lot of people to start talking about and thinking about. They may not want to express that, they may not have been asked that. Sometimes it brings out a lot of emotion, and that's why that initial beginning part of establishing trust and in a kind of a psychological safety space is really important. And then the third page is imagining or envisioning what my best day looks like. And you can be as wild and fantastical about that as you like. When we train our facilitators, we asked them to do these exercises as well themselves, so they can get a really good sense of what that's like, and I had a lovely training session with community health workers from Tanaha First Nation in Cranbrook, BC, and one of one of the attendees in the group said she'd love to have breakfast with a Sasquatch, and so that was absolutely, you know, it was so culturally relevant, so important. Katie Strong:  That makes my Pacific Northwest roots just smile there! Vivian Fu: Exactly! Just so unique to that individual and to where they are in the world. And it's not something you can, you can pluck out of a textbook or pluck out of anything, right. It's where they are. I love that activity. It's quite magical what comes out. And then after those three pages are done, then there are some pages that are specifically related to goal setting, which may or may not be relevant to the person in front of you, things like a physical page, emotional, social, financial, health management type pages. And that really is a way to think about or encourage the person to think about, or we know what are the things that do matter to you, and and what are the things you would like to achieve in the long run, and what are some ways you might be able to break that down into achievable steps that you would personally want to do. But the session in practice can look like anything out of that. It can look from a person at session one being completely clammed up about not wanting to dig deep or not not being ready to engage in that. Or just kind of being, you know, keeping it all to themselves, and thinking about it, and ruminating about it, and then session two, looking very different after they've had that six weeks to think about it themselves. It can look like blank pages, or it could look like a person coming up with all sorts of brilliant ideas. Hopefully, you know, we always encourage if they can write the person with stroke as the one who is writing in the notebook. They keep it. They stick it on their fridge. They do whatever they like with it. They write in it in their own time, but it's completely fine to have blank pages. It's completely fine to have nothing come out of that conversation, nothing verbal, but it's just a space to an invitation to dig deep, and if there's something to say to feel heard. And I guess there was another question. I think that's quite important with regards to what the facilitator is doing, what are they not doing, and the facilitator is trained specifically to listen and ask questions and reflect the ideas that are being expressed by the person with stroke, but what they're not doing is they're not offering any advice or suggestions or pathways forward or how abouts or what abouts. They are not, and this is probably the hardest part. They're not passing any judgment, and that includes good judgment. So, by saying something like, "oh, that sounds like a really good idea", which seems like a really normal response from most people, it kind of implies that there are other ideas that are less good. Or the person with stroke might feel as though they are needing to have that kind of external validation, that external approval, and, and what we don't want is to for them to feel like they're doing this or saying this or thinking these things for the facilitator. We want them to think about it for themselves. And so all we encourage people to respond, is "oh, so you'd like to ride your bike, that's really interesting. How, how do you think you'll, you'll go about doing that?" You know, it's, it's much more neutral, but reflective way of speaking and listening, I guess. Katie Strong:  I am curious, how long is the training, or you know, what kinds of.. what we didn't talk about this, but I know people are going to want to know. So, what does it take to be trained? Vivian Fu: This is quite funny. This is a thing that sort of been on my mind ever since we've started implementation around the world, and I have this ultimate goal of operate like actually making the training have some type of qualification and fidelity, and some structure. There is structure, but it's essentially myself or Harry doing a Zoom with people, and it takes maybe say four hours. But ideally, what we'd love to do is to have sort of recorded videos, and then we'd have live sessions, and then we'd have assessments, and then you get a certificate at the end. I have neither the budget or the… Katie Strong: There's always the next step, for sure. Vivian Fu: I'd love to be for people to be able to say, "Oh, I'm Take Charge trained" and for them to be able to like "Look, I've got this qualification, I'm Take Charge trained, I know how to do this," and especially for if we were thinking about doing it in more clinical trial settings, I think that's really important, but also, you know, for people, you know, to have on their CV, if they're moving between jobs and things, I think it's so useful. But yeah, basically people get in touch with myself or Harry and say, "Hi, we'd like to be trained, can you fit us in?" And we just do it for free. Katie Strong:  Lovely, I love it. And the other question I had as you were talking was how long is a typical session or or is there is there length? Vivian Fu: So in the trial what our facilitators did was they because it was face to face and they had to drive between people's houses, they booked in the session, usually at 10:30 in the morning, and then another session, I think, if I remember correctly, either maybe it was 1:30 in the afternoon. And so you can probably surmise that for people with stroke, usually the 10:30 slot is the most popular. And you know, some people would would prefer to wake up earlier and be ready earlier, so they might ask for something like 9 o'clock and then they might usually go for about an hour and a half to two hours if it's a good going session, and they're really digging deep, and there's a lot to say. And often you know that first half an hour is, "Here's a cup of tea and a biscuit. Let's get to know each other. Tell me all about what happened with your stroke." That kind of stuff, so that listening and connecting stuff actually takes takes a while to establish, and I think people just allowed for that time. Then they'd do a second session in the afternoon again. There are lots of things, you know, cognitive problems, fatigue is a big one. So, if people felt like they couldn't keep going, the facilitator would say , "That's totally fine, we'll book in for, you know, do the rest of this another time, is that okay?" It was fine to really just, you can truncate it and break it up as much as the person really wants. Katie Strong:  Thank you. I appreciate the extra information. You had a recent publication in 2025 with some colleagues that looked at this work from a qualitative lens.  You came up with some themes about doing things my way, coming to my own wisdom, and they're just so deeply related to identity, and what struck me was the contrast participants drew between Take Charge care and standard care, where they described being put in a box receiving scripted advice that had really nothing to do with who they were as a person. And when someone gets to tell the story of who they are to a genuinely good listener, something shifts. I was just curious, if you could think about what you think is happening there, or what you found in your study. Vivian Fu: Well, I think for the most part, as a, you know, as a clinician, if we think about from the moment the person has a stroke, they disempowered from that very moment.  Something happens where they just aren't themselves, and they are brought into a merge. A bunch of things happen to them that they can't really even speak up about. You know, they're popped in a scanner. They might get thrombolised, you know, all these things are happening. And the person doesn't really know what's going on. There are a lot of important qualitative studies that have been done, looking at that element of feeling disempowered, and what somebody in New Zealand study described as feeling gut-wrenchingly emotional. You know, experiences that that aren't heard and aren't ever expressed to to anyone in the healthcare side and aren't dealt with, and so, if you think about that, just that trauma of having a stroke and then going through all of that stuff, and you know, ending up in a bed somewhere on a ward with strangers on the other side of a curtain, and it's really pretty traumatic. And so I think what was powerful with Take Charge was it's an it's an opportunity for someone to finally tell their story and feel heard and for all that stuff to just come out. And a lot of the time you know people might say, "Oh, well, you could talk to your family, you can talk to your kids, or, you know, whatever. Once you get home" but actually, a lot of people don't feel like talking to those who are closest to them about how much it affected them, and there is still an element of stigma. There's still an element of, "Oh, you know, you look great physically, you to someone we know having had a big health scare, and then kind of coming back into that. But there's there's a real dissonance between what is going on inside a person and and how other people are reacting to them coming back into "normal spaces". And so I think the ability to tell your story from the very get go. You know, all of the messiness of it. All the things that went wrong, and then to have somebody listen to that really gives meaning to it and makes it real, but it also helps that person really reestablish their sense of power to regain some power from that that they had lost. And there's a lot of power in story, and I think the kind of, you know, lovely thing about it is that sort of all indigenous cultures sort of be like, you know, First Nations, Māori, Gaelic, a lot of cultures really put a lot of value in the power of storytelling. And that is how historically things were really passed down, and so I think it's through that ability to be able to feel heard and to tell your story that then the person who is speaking can actually hear themselves say things out loud for the first time. And then understand the power and the value and the worth in their words and their experience, and that is that process of coming to my own wisdom, is "Oh, actually, you know, I do know about my body. I am, I am the expert, not these people in their white coats, or you know, with their expertise, I am the expert. I know what I need. I can plan my rehabilitation. I can go back to the things that I want to do, and this is how I'm going to do it." And it's that, that kind of reestablishment of confidence and strength and hope that is so powerful. I think. Katie Strong: I agree. I agree, Vivian. As you know, our listeners are primarily speech language pathologists working with people with aphasia. We also have people with aphasia that are listening, and researchers as well. But you know, the capacity for language being disrupted by aphasia. I was just curious, with Take Charge, as you've studied it, is you know, really a talking therapy with writing, and, and those sorts of things, and so I was just curious, you know, what would it take to extend this kind of intervention to people with aphasia, and what principles would you want to most preserve in the adaptation. Vivian Fu: Yeah, thank you. That's such an important question. We certainly, in the Take Charge trial, included people with aphasia in the trial, and the way that we sort of just included them was if they could understand or the consent form and could mark an "x" on the form, we'd be happy to to have them included, and so we had people with mild to moderate and moderate to severe aphasia in the trial. And we hadn't made any specific changes or tweaks to the intervention, the facilitator just did what they could with what we had. But I think what has come out of reviews of the implementation of Take Charge now in New Zealand is that it is really important for us to look at how we can adapt the intervention for people with aphasia. I think for the facilitators in the trial, what they did was they allowed a lot more time, so the usual two and a half hours became three and a half hours, and that was fine if the person could continue. But also I think from the report we need to look at alternative ways of how we can complete some of these activities, whether it's providing images where people can point, whether it's a lot more inclusion of their family, their whānau important people to them who can help with, you know, subtle guidance, and, and, and having sort of lived with the person now, can read their non-verbal expressions a lot better than a stranger, a facilitator can and can help with the guidance of participating. And really, while Take Charge has been translated, I think, now into seven or eight different languages, we really need to adapt Take Charge to other communication needs and other languages, but what I.. so my role.. sorry, I didn't.. I'd actually say this, but my role in the in the large trial was as the blinded outcomes assessor, so I went around at one year after stroke. I traveled around to the 400 or so different other people, participants' homes around the country, and I sat in their living rooms, and I listened to their stories again. And then I did all of their outcome instruments and got all of their outcomes done, but I did not know which group they were allocated to. And then I locked all the data, and then I'd say, "Hey, so which group did you get Take Charge or not?" And it was really, it was good. I think out of the 400 there were only two people who, when I turned up, actually had the booklet on the table, and so you know, I just ignored it, and then, but yeah, it was, it was really good in terms of sort of blinding and masking, and then sort of having a guess as I was going through and checking where things were at. It was such a privilege for me to, as a stroke doctor, I think you know people don't usually get to do this as a physician, but to, to meet so many different people with so many different stories, and a number of people who still had moderate to severe aphasia, and and were telling me about the impacts of that on their life. But we were still able to communicate a year after stroke, and so I think it is so important that we don't exclude people with cognitive and communication difficulties. We have to adapt the things that we have to make it work for them. What I'd love is to be able to have some kind of focus group with people with aphasia, and, and show them Take Charge, and realize, oh, what can we do? How would this work better for you? Katie Strong:  I love that, and well. Well, and we haven't talked about the materials yet, but I do have to say they're so accessible, or they're very accessible from a visual standpoint as well. Vivian Fu: Thank you. Yes, we are actually modifying them and making the font bigger and having better graphics. We started off with stick figures that Harry drew, and then I think we're actually making them a lot nicer in terms of the graphics, but what we do have at the moment is actually available online for free, and you can just download them as a package. It's if you Google it, it's the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, or www.mrinz.ac.nz  and then under programs, and we spell that as p r o g r a m m e s, and then under programs slash forward slash stroke, I think is where it lives, and at the bottom of the page you should be able to download, a training package and the booklet itself. Katie Strong: Yes, lovely, and we'll have the links on our show notes as well, so you can check those out, listeners, if you're interested. So, thank you. You have two randomized controlled trials that you've talked a little bit about, and a cost effectiveness analysis and qualitative work, all pointing in the same direction that the cost data suggests that Take Charge actually might save money, and that is remarkable, and lots of evidence showing that, but still, it's a challenge in implementing into standard practice, and I was curious if you could talk with us about what you think stands between what the evidence shows and what actually gets implemented. Vivian Fu: Sure, gosh, I love this question. It's it applies for so many interventions, I think, specifically for Take Charge, it's a number of things. So definitely the stuff that affects other interventions being implemented, but for Take Charge itself, it started off with a huge amount of disbelief bias, so people, you know, even after I presented the main results of the second trial at the European Stroke Conference in gosh, when was that? 2019 pre-COVID in Milan. So this is a huge international stroke conference, and this was a plenary session. People stood up and took photos of the results and went, you know, there was this collective gasp throughout the audience of 6000 odd people, but there's just this disbelief that something as simple as a conversation can make a difference to people's objective quality quantitative outcomes, like the, you know, Bartel or the FIM, what they, you know, what their physical outcomes are like at a year. And what their quality of life is like. I think for people who are stroke researchers, a lot of the focus is on that initial 24 to 48 hours after stroke. And you know, that that's kind of where that's kind of where all the funding goes, isn't it? So it's the pre-hospital stuff, and then the interventional things you can stick catheters into and thrombolysis, and you know that's, and that's all great. You know, I, as a stroke physician, I love that part of stroke as well, but to think that you could possibly do something at three to 18 weeks after stroke that could change a person's outcome by a year, and actually we've got a long-term follow-up study now that says that those those same magnitude of changes are still present at five years between the groups is, you know, kind of gobsmacking. And people just go, surely you've fudged this, or surely this can't be true. And so there's this huge disbelief bias that stopped us from being able to publish initially, and it was only after I presented the results in Milan that that we got accepted into a journal. And we'd been trying for about a year beforehand, and, and so there's, there's that disbelief. But also in the way that it has to be provided, you know, it's probably considered quite labor intensive. You know, one on one home visits, and that's why people of other researchers who do believe in Take Charge are now looking at providing take charge in different ways. Like I did a telehealth trial in Canada, in southern Alberta, when I was there as a fellow in Calgary, and there's potential other work that's being. Done in Australia with Take Charge, looking at providing it by computer avatars, by even maybe even AI, and maybe in a larger sort of telehealth format. And so you know other ways of doing it, but I think ultimately it's kind of cultural inertia, because you know, "We've never done this, this is not part of who we are. Why would we need to start something new?" There's probably kind of an established way of thinking about clinician and, and patient, rather than person with stroke, in still in how we practice, and this idea that the therapist and doctor are experts. And so I think it really challenges that dogma and challenges clinician's role, and therefore there's a resistance to accept that this is something that is useful and helpful, and actually doesn't, you know, you don't need to take it personally. You're still doing great work. Take Charge is just a tool that helps supplement everything else that's going on, and so there's a lack of time, and I think we also get quite, as practicing clinicians, we get quite tunnel visioned into this, you know, hamster wheel of go to work, treat all these people, go home. We just keep doing it. Hoping that things will get better for them, but, you know, we, it's only when we start looking at alternative interventions and alternative things that work and start trialing them and being open to that, that I think things will really start to change. We've certainly had interest from random little parts around the world. I think it's been translated into Latvian. I've got people from Sweden who are interested. A little hospital in Germany, and then parts of it's been trialed in pilot studies in the UK. And Harry and I last year trained a whole bunch of occupational therapists in Hong Kong, so you know it is, it is kind of picking up, slowly but surely. Katie Strong: Well to me, you know, most stroke survivors, or people with stroke, as you're referring to them, have chronic challenges, and so all of the early intervention, while important, doesn't necessarily help somebody navigate that longer term change. And so I love that this is just such an empowering way of putting that power back into the person's life, which it seems like it is showing up n in the results that you're sharing. Vivian Fu: Oh, absolutely. I mean, if we think about it, if we just think about thrombectomy and thrombolysis, somewhere between five to 15% of all people with stroke are eligible, and then receive the treatment. That leaves what?, 85 to 95% of people who don't get to receive that. And even after they receive the treatment, there are consequences of stroke that are beyond the physical that don't you know don't have any other thing to address them apart from our routine care, so I completely agree with you. Katie Strong: Well, thinking about what clinicians might be able to do tomorrow or you know, in the near future, for our speech-language pathologists or other practitioners who are listening today and are feeling the pull of this work, and you know, really encouraged by it, but are you know working in an embedded productivity driven impairment focused system, what's one thing that they could do differently in the very next clinical encounter that they have? Vivian Fu:  We have a paper, I think it's written. Oh gosh, where did it.. where did it get published? I think it was published in Practical Neurology. It's titled something, something intrinsic motivation. I should know better. Katie Strong: I'm going find out, and I don't think I read that one, so I'm gonna find it, and I'll put the link in the show notes for everybody. Vivian Fu: Sorry,Harry about the promo, but yeah, I'll send it to you, but essentially it's written to give some guidance on how you can embed Take Charge into your daily clinical practice. And it's written for neurologists, but honestly it applies to everybody.  One of the key things is when you have that next encounter, obviously you know therapists do this a lot better than doctors do, but they ask a lot about, you know, what's outside of the person's life and what's important to them, but maybe move away just, you know, from the very practical questions like "How many steps do you have going in and out of your house?, and How do you hang up your washing?", or whatever, but it's, you know, really much less functional, but more, "Who are you? Tell me a bit more about yourself. What do you love doing? What gets you out of bed?" You know, if I might, the one that I like to use a lot on my ward rounds is, "If you weren't in this hospital bed right now, where would you rather be? What would you rather be doing?", and I do that on my rounds, and it's incredible, because you know, I'll hear all sorts of things, "I'll, you know, be on my boat fishing out on the lake", or I think this lady was like 84 or something. "I'll be with my girlfriends, we'll be having coffee at Tim Hortons", you know, and it's just, I don't know, it's something so unique to that person that I could never, you know, they're in their hospital pajamas with a whole bunch of stuff stuck to them, and I can't envisage them doing that, and yet I'm like, I want you to imagine yourself there. Where would you rather be? Okay, so everybody, that's our goal. It's not to get her home or to get her walking again. Our goal is to get her back in Tim Hortons with her eight friends, having coffee, like that is what this person loves to do. And I think that you know that inquiry, that it shows you care, it shows you see them as an individual, and I think it completely shifts your rehab focus, and then you can ask more questions about that, and they, you know, then you have this whole conversation about about what their life is like. And I think that part of being seen, even if it's only within 60 seconds, makes such a difference to that person. So that's one thing. The second thing I'd be, you know, doing is I'm trying to involve family as much as possible, as much as the person wants, and basically, just seeing them as an individual makes a huge difference already to the way you practice, that would be what I'd focus on. Katie Strong: Agreed, agreed. Well, Vivian, is there something you wish people asked you about this work that they rarely do, something about Take Charge or stroke recovery more broadly that you think the field hasn't quite caught up to yet. Vivian Fu:  Oh gosh, this is a tricky one. I think one thing we ought to recognize is that everybody is doing the best that they can with what they have. And you know, we're not as clinicians on the ground on the front line, we're not involved with funding decisions, and what projects get funded and which ones don't. And there will be the ambitious amongst your listeners, who I really hope will be like, "Oh my gosh, I can apply for this little grant, and I'm going to pilot this, and I think we should give this a go with our people." and I think that is absolutely a great idea to have. And, and I would, myself and Harry will do everything that we possibly can to help support such projects from where we are. I think the important thing to think about is that every little bit that you do makes a difference, and to not feel as though, because you know your funding runs out, or you don't get it, or the world is such a bleak place that you know it's not worth continuing to try. Because people with stroke who see you do this work, they will be grateful for it. And also the patient partners I've met that I've spoken with, and all of the people whom I've interviewed with the qualitative work, they're also happy to be part of something like this. And so even if it's a pilot project. Even if it's, you know, something that may not last, you'd be so surprised at how much momentum you can build with a movement of people who see the value in this and then take it further and further, And that's what I've been really impressed by, and kind of stunned by in all these different locations around the world who have contacted me. I've just been like, "Wow, can't believe [this]." There's this wonderful group in Hunter Medical Research Institute down in Australia, who basically took Take Charge back to their own unique Aboriginal community, the Gamilaroi peoples of that particular area of Australia. They have, like Canada and like the States, they have 1000s of tribes and lots of different groups that all speak completely different languages, but they took it to their local group, and they broke down, take charge into little bits, and then rebuilt it into an intervention that just works for them, and it's called "Yarning Up after Stroke", because what they do is they have a yarn. They yarn, and that's the way they tell their stories. It's yarning, and so you know, I just think it's incredible. Like, they got funding for it, they did it, and now it's an ongoing project that just keeps on in the community being provided to their people, and it's fantastic. So, I think it'll evolve. I love to see how it evolves, and I certainly don't think of, you know, this isn't the kind of intervention that we go around patenting and making a ton of money out of. It's the kind of intervention that everybody makes their own, and hopefully with a lot of input by people with stroke, Katie Strong: I love it. Thank you. Thank you so much for being our guest today, and sharing about Take Charge, and your generosity in sharing about the intervention, and if people are interested in reaching out to contact you, so thank you so much, Vivian. Vivian Fu:  Thank you so much for having me. I hope I haven't spoken too long. Katie Strong: Oh no, it's perfect. Vivian Fu: I'm always happy to be contacted, and yeah, very happy to support anyone who'd like to explore this further. Katie Strong: Thanks so much. On behalf of Aphasia Access, thank you for listening. For references and resources mentioned in today's show, please see our show notes, available on our website at www.aphasiaaccess.org. There you can also become a member of our organization, browse our growing library of materials, and find out about the Aphasia Access Academy. If you have an idea for a future podcast episode, email us at info@aphasiaaccess.org. For Aphasia Access Conversations, here at Central Michigan University in the Strong Story Lab, I'm Katie Strong. Dr. Fu's Email  dr.vivianfu@gmail.com  Resources and Readings Fu, V. (2019). Taking Charge After Stroke: A novel, community-based intervention to improve the lives of people with stroke. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Taking-Charge-After-Stroke:-A-novel,-intervention-Fu/3bc1dbb271f425c72e146510088856e3aad8683e  Fu, V., Fernando, K. M., Bright, F., Riley, J., McPherson, K., & McNaughton, H. (2025). Coming to my own wisdom: A qualitative study exploring the role of the Take Charge intervention in stroke recovery. Clinical Rehabilitation, 39(3), 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155241310770 Fu, V., Weatherall, M., McPherson, K., Taylor, W., McRae, A., Thomson, T., Gommans, J., Green, G., Harwood, M., Ranta, A., Hanger, C., Riley, J., & McNaughton, H. (2020). Taking Charge after stroke: A randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention. International Journal of Stroke, 15(9), 954–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493020915144 Fu, V., Thompson, S., Kayes, N., & Bright, F. (2025). Supporting long-term meaningful outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 25, 17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11910-025-01403-z Harwood, M., Weatherall, M., Talemaitoga, A., Barber, P. A., Gommans, J., Taylor, W., McPherson, K., & McNaughton, H. (2011). Taking charge after stroke: Promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life - a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(6), 493-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215511426017  Te Ao, B., Harwood, M., Fu, V., Weatherall, M., McPherson, K., Taylor, W. J., McRae, A., Thomson, T., Gommans, J., Green, G., Ranta, A., Hanger, C., Riley, J., & McNaughton, H. (2022). Economic analysis of the 'Take Charge' intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial. Clinical Rehabilitation, 36(2), 240–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155211040727 McNaughton, H., & Fu, V. (2023). Intrinsic motivation. Practical Neurology, 23(6), 489-492.  https://pn.bmj.com/content/23/6/489  McNaughton, H., Gommans, J., McPherson, K., Harwood, M., & Fu, V. (2023). A cohesive, person-centric evidence-based model for successful rehabilitation after stroke and other disabling conditions. Clinical Rehabilitation, 37(7), 975-985. https://doi.org/10.1177/02692155221145433   Medical Research Institute of New Zealand. (n.d.). Take Charge rehabilitation resources. https://www.mrinz.ac.nz/take-charge-rehabilitation-resources World Stroke Organization. (n.d.). Taking Charge after stroke: A person-centred approach to life after stroke [Webinar]. https://www.world-stroke.org/what-we-do/education-and-research/education/webinars/taking-charge-after-stroke-a-person-centred-approach-to-life-after-stroke  

The same students who say college costs too much are overwhelmingly saying it was worth it, and that contradiction is the key to the entire public confidence debate. In Gallup-Lumina polling cited in this episode, 93 percent of bachelor's students called their degree a worthwhile investment. The doubt is about price, not the education, and generative AI has raised the stakes for confusing the two. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Christa Acampora, philosopher and Dean of the College and Graduate School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Virginia, where she is leading the integration of AI into the curriculum, about the purpose of liberal arts education in the age of AI. Acampora argues that the purpose of higher education is human formation, making people capable of authoring their own lives and helping to govern a free society, with preparation for good work as part of that purpose rather than a substitute for it. She and McNaughton separate the public's doubts about cost from the question of value, and discuss how UVA is making student formation visible through its first-year learning experience, the Commonplace Book, and an AI Literacy and Action Lab. Topics Covered Why the public's doubts about a degree center on price and debt, a different question from whether the education was worth doing What AI's capacity to produce competent outputs reveals about what higher education has rewarded World Economic Forum survey findings discussed in the episode on redesigning work and finding people with judgment who can adapt Whether institutions that teach students how to think are helping students recognize that learning in themselves UVA's first-year course sequence built around big human questions, the Commonplace Book, and the AI Literacy and Action Lab How students describe their own use of AI and their concerns about evaluating its outputs Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leaders Reframe the case for higher education around formation, for the individual and for society, rather than transferable skills that machines can now perform. Keep cost and value separate: address cost and price transparency directly, and make the value case with confidence, not apology. Make formation visible early and often through pedagogy and instruments that let students see their own growth. This episode offers perspective for presidents, provosts, and board members on articulating and demonstrating the value of a liberal education as AI capabilities continue to change. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/purpose-of-liberal-arts-education-in-the-age-of-ai/] #HigherEducation #LiberalArts #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Are you new to the fitness world or looking to level up your personal training expertise? In this episode of the “Master Instructor Roundtable,” hosted by award-winning NASM Master Instructors Wendy Batts and Marty Miller—we dive deep into the top 10 mistakes beginners make at the gym and in training programs. Whether you're just starting out or you're a seasoned trainer helping clients break through plateaus, this episode is packed with actionable tips and science-backed strategies you don't want to miss!

With explorer and diver Chris McNaughton. The post Community Character Hour: Chris McNaughton, Diving for Wrecks Under Lake Pend Oreille appeared first on KRFY Radio.

Anthony McNaughton and his coach John Song join KOTL and go deep on Worlds redemption, hype surrounding 1000 kgs total, Sheffield goals, getting a win back over Keenan Lee.Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

There's nothing wrong with a bib on an eighteen-month-old. The problem is wearing it at twelve. This week we take an honest look at what it means to move from spiritual consumer to someone who actually owns their growth, using one of the most convicting phrases in Scripture: "by this time." Growth was always the expectation. Becoming starts now.

Anybody can eat. Love starts showing up when somebody decides to cook for someone else. We are here because somebody wore an apron for us. Now it's our turn. What does love require of me?

Pulitzer Prize-winning Irish photojournalist Cathal McNaughton joins Seán to discuss his new work and return to photojournalism, the Ireland Project, as well as more broadly about his life as a photojournalist.

Pulitzer Prize-winning Irish photojournalist Cathal McNaughton joins Seán to discuss his new work and return to photojournalism, the Ireland Project, as well as more broadly about his life as a photojournalist.

Most retention systems flag struggling students through grades and attendance. By the time those indicators fire, many students are already halfway out the door. Elvee's survey of 1,050 U.S. college students shows why: 86% start college highly motivated, 42% come close to dropping out at some point, and only 17% of those who struggle ever request help. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Raz Dar, CEO of Elvee, whose work with U.S. colleges centers on reading behavioral data for early signals of student disengagement. Drawing on his background in commercial technology, Dar explains how patterns in study time, login frequency, and forum participation reveal disengagement before exam period and before failure reaches the gradebook. He and McNaughton examine why motivated students still leave, why institutions that wait for students to ask for help miss most of the students who need it, and why intervention without follow-up monitoring routinely fails. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, student success executives, enrollment executives, and board members looking to move retention from reactive support to proactive, early intervention. Topics Covered Why grades and attendance are lagging indicators that flag students too late What disengagement looks like in behavioral data, and why a single dip can be benign The help-seeking gap: 17% ask for help, 52% try to solve it alone first, 30% never reach out The top dropout drivers: balancing work and school (72%) and mental health or stress (71%) How the most successful institutions build a personalized bond from day one Scaling a dozen advisors across thousands of students through prioritization and automation Real-World Examples Discussed A freshman who skipped two exams under acute stress and recovered because the institution initiated contact Institutions that call students at term start to confirm they have books, Wi-Fi, and a computer Cambridge's bridge week for first-generation students and Yale's required freshman life-skills course The corporate benchmark: turnover above 10% triggers alarm in business, while higher ed absorbs far worse Three Key Takeaways for Leadership Build trust with students before they struggle; outreach in crisis only lands if a relationship already exists. Move from reactive to proactive; only 17% of struggling students will ask for help, so use behavioral signals to know when to reach out and monitor afterward to confirm the intervention worked. Make retention a strategic, measurable KPI from the top, and resource it with a real team. This episode offers a practical look at what becomes possible when institutions stop waiting for students to raise their hands and start reading the signals students are already sending. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/using-ai-behavioral-signals-student-retention/ #StudentSuccess #StudentRetention #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #AIforStudentRetention

Harry McNaughton first appeared on Kiwi TV screens as an 18-year-old, playing receptionist Gerald Tippet on Shorty St. Since then, he's built up a presence on the other side of the camera, having worked on other New Zealand TV shows like The Pact, Madam, Under the Vines, and The Sounds. His new show is set to arrive on Three soon - it's called Head Girl and McNaughton is the co-creator and writer. "If I'm working as a showrunner, particularly if I'm a writer-creator who's on set and who's filling more of a producer role, then the benefit of that is that you can have people at any stage go - this doesn't feel like it's working, or you can see that it's not working...being able to change that is hugely helpful." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

At sixteen, with straight A's in math and science, Dr. Karen Panetta's school career assessment told her to sell makeup or be a cook. A male friend with lower scores got engineer or politician. No AI was involved. Just a rules-based system applying gender and biographical filters to two teenagers. That same logic now sits inside AI tools landing in admissions offices and HR systems across higher ed, with one critical difference: AI does not eliminate human bias, it removes the human accountability that used to make bias correctable. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Karen Panetta, Dean of Graduate Education for the School of Engineering at Tufts University and an IEEE Fellow. Panetta lays out a procurement framework presidents and boards can use to evaluate AI tools before signing a contract. She and McNaughton work through the four questions most vendors cannot answer, why IRB principles already give higher ed a working framework for AI, and what happens to graduate research when students ask AI for a unique contribution and accept whatever comes back. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders making decisions about AI procurement, classroom adoption, and data governance who want a clear set of questions to ask before they buy and a clear standard for keeping humans accountable for the decisions AI tools are increasingly being asked to make. Topics Covered: The four procurement questions every higher ed leader should ask before signing an AI contract Why expert disagreement on ground truth limits what any AI tool trained on that judgment can do How IRB principles apply to AI deployments, and why every kind use of technology has a misuse case sitting next to it The risk of AI's interpretation of truth aging with the consensus Why faculty in English, history, and the arts are essential to AI policy What IEEE's 500,000 technical professionals are doing on AI standards that no single corporate vendor will do Real-World Examples Discussed: The career assessments that pointed a top math student toward cooking and a Navy veteran toward forest ranger work A cancer detection project where six doctors agreed on whether something was cancer but disagreed on every grade beyond that A conservation project where the same tracking data that helps park rangers could help poachers if security is weak Graduate admissions committees where different faculty weight credentials, projects, and volunteer work differently, and what gets lost when only one set of weights is encoded into an AI screen Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: AI does not create bias. It scales whatever bias is already in the institution's decision systems, at the speed and volume the institution chose to deploy. Every consequential decision needs a human in the loop who can explain the call out loud. Without that, the institution cannot defend the decisions it is making. The sticker price on the AI tool is not the story. The data behind it is, and most vendors cannot tell you what it is. This episode gives presidents, provosts, and boards a practical framework for AI procurement and governance, along with a clear answer to the trustee asking why the institution has not bought what everyone else is buying. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/ai-bias-procurement-framework-higher-education/ #HigherEducation #AIinHigherEd #HigherEducationPodcast #AIGovernance #AIBias #HigherEducationLeadership

April 29, 2026 - Clay Gerhard and Micky McNaughton of the Decatur Park District joined Byers & Co to talk about the groundbreaking for the senior center and their efforts to provide activities and programming for people 55 years an older. Listen to the podcast now!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Understanding the Shields of Justice: When Law Balances Morality and RealityThis episode delves into the foundational distinctions in criminal law—justification vs. excuse—and how they affect real-world justice. Whether you're prepping for law school or seeking a clearer view of how society handles moral dilemmas, this discussion unpacks complex doctrines with clarity and practical insights.Most legal defenses hinge on challenging the act or the intent—that is, until you understand the profound difference between justification and excuse. In this episode, we take you behind the scenes of criminal law's most powerful shields—those built on morality, context, and human complexity. Whether you're caught in a life-or-death self-defense scenario or grappling with the gray areas of mental illness, understanding when and how the law forgives or absolves you can change everything.Imagine walking down a dark street and facing an attacker; your instinct to strike may be justified if your life is at immediate risk. But what if your response is based on a skewed perception brought on by paranoia? Or consider helping someone in a life-threatening situation—when do acts of aid become protected defenses, and when do they turn into reckless crimes? We break down key legal mechanisms—justification defenses like self-defense, necessity, and defense of others—and see how the law evaluates these scenarios through objective standards, psychological realities, and societal priorities.You'll discover how the law's sharp focus on objective facts can clash with the complex internal realities of human psychology—especially when mental illness or external coercion are involved. We explore groundbreaking shifts, such as the evolving standards for insanity—from the rigid McNaughton rule to the nuanced Model Penal Code—highlighting how neuroscience and brain imaging threaten to rewrite these ancient lines of responsibility. We also dissect the controversial boundary where necessity stops and murder begins, illustrated by the infamous lifeboat case where moral and legal claims collide.This episode is perfect for students, legal professionals, or anyone invested in the moral heartbeat of justice. It reveals how society's laws are not just rules but reflections of shared moral choices—balancing the chaos of human instinct with the need for order and responsibility. As neuroscience pushes into uncharted territory, ask yourself: when the hardware of the brain is broken, how responsible can we really be? Think about the future of culpability, and prepare to see justice—and yourself—through a sharper lens.In this episode:The core difference between justification and excuse defenses, and why it matters both in court and in moral philosophyHow objective circumstances can turn a criminal act into a socially endorsed act through justification defenses like self-defense and necessityThe internal, psychological focus of excuse defenses including insanity, duress, and intoxication, and their legal standardsDetailed exploration of the four major insanity tests—McNaughton, irresistible impulse, Durham, and MPC—and their evolutionThe procedural mechanics of shifting burdens of proof in affirmative defenses and expert psychiatric testimony's roleCritical assessments of legal thresholds, from imminent threats in self-defense to the line dividing culpability and lack of control via neuroscience prospectsWhy law emphasizes that some behaviors—like killing innocents—are unacceptable regardless of circumstances, illustrated through famous cases like Dudley and Stevens' lifeboat dilemma

Higher education's track record with technology change is uneven for a reason, and the reason is rarely the technology. It is whether leadership treats change management as a discipline that runs from planning through sustainment, or as a rollout activity bolted on at the end. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Mike Toguchi, Chief Strategy Officer at Tectonic, about why technology projects in higher education succeed or fail on the strength of leadership behavior rather than tooling. Drawing on 23 years working with universities, nonprofits, and foundations, including Stanford and UC Davis, Toguchi explains how the institutions producing durable digital transformation engineer trust, governance, and adoption into the project from day one. He shares why faculty resistance is empirically calibrated rather than culturally driven, why pilots should be sized for honest failure rather than confirmation of decisions already made, and why boards need to fund and govern transformation as an operating model rather than a discrete project. Throughout the conversation, McNaughton draws on his own consulting experience to surface common failure patterns, including the double-process trap that destroys trust by leaving legacy systems running alongside new ones. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, board members, CIOs, and senior leaders responsible for digital initiatives that span multiple departments and require sustained adoption across faculty, staff, and student-facing operations. Topics Covered: •       Why change management belongs in the planning phase, not at rollout •       The "trust as infrastructure" framework and how to design for it •       Scalability versus departmental fiefdoms in institutional technology systems •       Pilot design that allows departments to surface real problems and report honestly •       The double-process trap and the discipline of hard end-of-life dates for legacy systems •       How board governance choices shape every downstream failure pattern •       Reframing technology ROI as reclaimed staff capacity in a non-expansionary funding environment Real-World Examples Discussed: •       UC Davis disability center work that clarified workflow, saved staff time, increased compliance confidence, and produced documentation that gave leadership actionable data •       A multi-campus STEM admissions program that preserved each campus's unique workflow while keeping the underlying data consistent for funders and program leadership •       Two connected Stanford departments with shared faculty and joint ventures that consolidated systems and reduced the tool burden faculty were carrying •       Faculty teaching across multiple sections who routinely navigate 10 to 15 different tools as a baseline workload Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: 1.     Move change management to the front of the project lifecycle. The decisions that determine adoption are made during planning, not during launch communications. 2.     Treat digital transformation as an operating model, not a project. Fund phase two before phase one ships and build governance reviews into the board's normal cadence. 3.     Make trust the explicit design input. Faculty resistance is calibrated to past experience, and the way to change it is to give faculty a structural role in shaping the project, deliver visible reductions in their daily burden, and retire the legacy systems on a date everyone knows. This episode offers a practical framework for institutional leaders who want their next digital initiative to deliver durable adoption rather than another fragmented rollout that quietly settles into legacy mode. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/higher-ed-change-management-tech-projects-digital-transformation/ #ChangeManagement #DigitalTransformation #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #ChangingHigherEdPodcast

Starting out as a new broker is often synonymous with a steep learning curve of credit policies and lender accreditations. But what if your path into the industry didn't involve writing loans at all? In this episode of New Broker, we speak with Andrea (Ange) McNaughton, managing director of Loan Market Razor. After a decade as a high-level executive at LMG, McNaughton made the pivot from corporate leadership to business ownership. While she initially set out to be a traditional broker, McNaughton quickly realised that her strengths lay in building the business, not the bank files. She joins host Annie Kane to share why she decided to "back herself" as a non-writing director and how she is redefining what success looks like for a new entrant in the 2026 market. Tune in to find out: What being a non-loan-writing member of the broking industry entails. How she's using her corporate background to implement AI and streamline the "back office" engine room. Why she believes new brokers should never start completely alone. And much more!

Londra, 20 gennaio 1843. L'aria è fredda e tagliente, si infila tra le pieghe dei cappotti come una lama sottile. A Whitehall le carrozze avanzano lente, le ruote bagnate dal fango invernale. Ad un tratto un uomo allunga il passo, si avvicina a qualcuno e fa fuoco. A chi ha sparato e perché?Questa è la strana storia di Daniel McNaughton, un uomo che mise in discussione la giustizia inglese ottocentesca.Buon ascolto!

In this episode of The Joyful Frugalista, Serina sits down with someone who has inspired her especially when it comes to startups and angel investing. Nick McNaughton describes himself as “retired,” though anyone who knows him would say he's simply entered a new, more self‑directed chapter of creativity and exploration. After decades as one of Canberra's most influential innovation leaders (investor, mentor, venture fund CEO, and ecosystem builder), Nick has stepped back from formal roles to explore life on his own terms. Part of that new chapter is his YouTube channel, Max.Trax.Relax, where he documents adventures, experiments, and reflections, including a thoughtful series on retirement. Key Topics Nick McNaughton's journey from tech to investment The evolution of the technology industry over 50 years The Canberra innovation ecosystem and its success factors How to identify promising startups for investment The impact of AI on jobs, entrepreneurship, and society Strategies for a purposeful and balanced retirement

Higher education has spent years hearing that affordability, student debt, and public skepticism are putting pressure on colleges and universities. What is different now is that those pressures are shaping federal action in ways that will directly affect Title IV funding, graduate program financing, accreditation reform, and institutional decision-making before July 1, 2026. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Andy Vaughn, President and CEO of Alliant University and one of three higher education representatives on the 2025 Negotiated Rulemaking RISE Committee, about what the latest Neg Reg signals for colleges and universities and why institutions that have not started preparing are already behind. Drawing on Vaughn's firsthand experience in federal rulemaking and Dr. McNaughton's strategic perspective on higher education leadership, this conversation examines why this round of Neg Reg is different from prior cycles, why the One Big Beautiful Bill changed the operating landscape, and why the next major pressure point is likely to be accreditation reform tied to cost and value. The discussion also explores what these changes mean for graduate programs, why institutions need to involve faculty early in redesign decisions, and how leaders should be thinking now about financing, delivery costs, and institutional relevance in a rapidly changing environment. This conversation is especially relevant for presidents, provosts, CFOs, trustees, graduate enrollment leaders, and others responsible for institutional planning, financial sustainability, and academic strategy in a time of federal change. Topics Covered: Why this Neg Reg is different from prior negotiated rulemaking cycles How the One Big Beautiful Bill changed the Title IV and regulatory landscape Why student debt is the political driver, but cost of delivery is the deeper issue Why the accreditation Neg Reg is likely to focus on cost, value, and specialty accreditors How graduate and professional programs may be affected by financing gaps Why institutions should be modeling risk and redesigning programs before July 2026 Why faculty and program leaders need to be involved early in institutional response How AI is shifting from a compliance concern to a program quality and workforce issue Real-World Examples Discussed How Alliant began tracking Title IV changes before the bill passed and started preparing early Why some graduate programs may face private lending gaps with no strong historical baseline Examples of specialty accreditor requirements that can lock in delivery costs, including supervision expectations, program length, and student-to-faculty ratios The institutional challenge of lowering tuition when accreditation structures still drive high-cost delivery Why some institutions are still treating AI primarily as a containment issue instead of a graduate-readiness issue Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership Institutions should treat these federal changes as structural, not temporary, and plan accordingly. The real issue is not just tuition pricing. It is the cost of delivering programs under current academic and accreditation structures. Colleges and universities that start redesigning early, especially with faculty involved, will have more options than those that wait for the pressure to become financial damage. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/2026-neg-reg-and-title-iv-changes-in-higher-education/ #HigherEducation #HigherEducationPodcast #NegReg

The road to Easter didn't begin with a cross, it began with a parade. Crowds cheered, palms waved, and hopes were high. But they were celebrating a very different King than the one who had come. This Palm Sunday, discover what it means to follow Jesus for who He truly is.

105 & 120 kg US National Champions, Ashton Rouska & Anthony McNaughton, join KOTL to discuss their title wins, behind the scenes backstories, and upcoming Worlds. Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

Mark and Tommy Radio talk about the Penguins return to action. Ava McNaughton of the US Woman's Hockey Team joins the show.

Ava McNaughton of the United States Woman's Hockey Team joins Mark Madden.

Mark and Tommy Radio talk about the Penguins return to action. Ava McNaughton of the US Woman's Hockey Team joins the show. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ava McNaughton of the United States Woman's Hockey Team joins Mark Madden. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this week's episode, we speak with Philippa Edwards, head of special education, and Haley Moran-Green, speech pathologist, who have been collaborating on how to improve classroom engagement for students with complex communication needs (CCN), in a central Queensland school. Haley and Philippa discuss how they supported teachers to understand how to create an aided language display (ADL) specific to the lesson plan and the positive impact this has had on teachers and students alike. Resources: Kent-Walsh, J., & Mcnaughton, D. (2005). Communication Partner Instruction in AAC: Present Practices and Future Directions. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 21(3), 195–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434610400006646 Senner, J., & Baud, M. (2016). The Use of an Eight-Step Instructional Model to Train School Staff in Partner-Augmented Input. Communication Disorders Quarterly. 38. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740116651251 SPA resources: If you are looking for more AAC learning opportunities SPA members can access these at members prices: AAC skills lab series: https://learninghub.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/topclass/topclass.do?expand-OfferingDetails-Offeringid=1644067 Speech Pathology Australia acknowledges the Traditional Custodians of lands, seas and waters throughout Australia, and offers our respect to Elders, across all times and places. The Speak Up podcast recognises the central role of yarning and oral storytelling in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture, how this translates to knowledge translation, and that colonisation has interrupted these practices of Language and knowledge sharing. The Speak Up podcast acknowledges the need for truth-telling and deep listening, the central role that Language plays in connecting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander People with Culture, Country, and Community, and the interwoven nature of health, and social and emotional wellbeing. We recognise that the Traditional Owners of the Lands across Australia have been here since time immemorial, and that their sovereignty over this land, was never ceded. Free access to transcripts for podcast episodes are available via the SPA Learning Hub (https://learninghub.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au/), you will need to sign in or create an account. For more information, please see our Bio or for further enquiries, email speakuppodcast@speechpathologyaustralia.org.au Disclaimer: © (2026) The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited. All rights reserved. Important Notice, Please read: The views expressed in this presentation and reproduced in these materials are not necessarily the views of, or endorsed by, The Speech Pathology Association of Australia Limited (“the Association”). The Association makes no warranty or representation in relation to the content, currency or accuracy of any of the materials comprised in this recording. The Association expressly disclaims any and all liability (including liability for negligence) in respect of use of these materials and the information contained within them. The Association recommends you seek independent professional advice prior to making any decision involving matters outlined in this recording including in any of the materials referred to or otherwise incorporated into this recording. Except as otherwise stated, copyright and all other intellectual property rights comprised in the presentation and these materials, remain the exclusive property of the Association. Except with the Association's prior written approval you must not, in whole or part, reproduce, modify, adapt, distribute, publish or electronically communicate (including by online means) this recording or any of these materials.

Antrim hurling legend, Terence McNaughton, joins Ger Gilroy & Colm Boohig on the show to talk about the state of hurling in the county, following their shock league defeat to Kildare last weekend.Catch The Off The Ball Breakfast show LIVE weekday mornings from 7:30am or just search for Off The Ball Breakfast and get the podcast on the Off The Ball app.SUBSCRIBE at OffTheBall.com/joinOff The Ball Breakfast is live weekday mornings from 7:30am across Off The Ball

Higher education is under mounting pressure to prove its value. But the data institutions need to respond already exists — most are just not using it strategically. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Melba Amissi, Chief Customer and Operations Officer at the National Student Clearinghouse, about how the Clearinghouse's cross-institutional data can help college presidents and boards navigate the accountability, affordability, and workforce alignment challenges reshaping higher education. Drawing on a career in financial services, fraud analytics, cybersecurity, and operational transformation, Amissi brings an outsider's perspective to higher ed — one grounded in measurable outcomes and data-driven decision-making. She and Dr. McNaughton explore why institutions must embrace non-linear student pathways, improve credit mobility, strengthen employer partnerships, and lead with transparency to maintain public trust and institutional viability. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders grappling with how to demonstrate return on investment, serve the growing stop-out population, and align programs with workforce needs in a rapidly shifting political and economic landscape. Topics Covered: The National Student Clearinghouse's role beyond compliance reporting — as a strategic benchmarking and analytics resource Why 42 million adults with some college and no credential represent both a challenge and an opportunity How credit mobility and articulation agreements affect enrollment competitiveness The Workforce Pell negotiated rulemaking process and its implications for program design Why workforce alignment should be an "and," not an "or" alongside liberal education How the FAFSA will now warn students about institutions with poor earnings-to-cost outcomes The rising Higher Education Price Index and its compounding effect on institutional costs Real-World Examples Discussed: Franklin University's articulation agreements with over 1,400 institutions, enabling five-minute credit evaluations for transfer students Paul Quinn College's work-integrated model partnering students with Southwest Airlines and other employers Tennessee's statewide talent pipeline that maps graduate competencies directly to employer needs Microsoft's partnership with Miami-Dade College community colleges to build cybersecurity workforce programs Oregon's systemwide credit transfer framework as a model for state-level interoperability Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Transparency is a survival strategy — proactively share graduation rates, employment outcomes, and student debt data to build trust and stay ahead of regulatory mandates. Align programs with workforce needs through employer partnerships, stackable credentials, and continuous program assessment to demonstrate measurable ROI. Demonstrate real impact — show students, families, and stakeholders the tangible outcomes of your institutional strategies. Bonus Takeaway from Dr. McNaughton: Embrace diverse and non-linear student pathways. The traditional four-year linear journey is no longer the norm — institutions must design systems that serve students from all walks of life and keep the focus on student outcomes. This episode offers a data-grounded look at why higher education's most urgent challenges — cost, accountability, and public trust — require leaders who are willing to use the information already at their disposal to drive strategic change. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/racking-stop-outs-transfers-and-roi-across-the-full-student-journey/ #HigherEducation #HigherEdROI #HigherEducationPodcast #StudentSuccess #WorkforceAlignment 

Agile change management in higher education is no longer optional. Institutions are navigating continuous disruption from AI, shifting student expectations, workforce pressures, and internal cultural resistance. The challenge leaders face is not how to implement change once, but how to build the institutional ability to adapt continuously. In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Dr. Christine Janssen Founder and CEO of Edstutia, an immersive learning company focused on adult learning, about why higher education must move from traditional change models to an agile, iterative approach to leadership, teaching, and institutional strategy. Drawing on her experience in both higher education and entrepreneurial environments, Janssen explains why institutions struggle when they treat change as a project rather than an operating condition. McNaughton and Janssen outline how agile thinking, faculty adaptation, and a willingness to experiment have become essential leadership capabilities for presidents, boards, and faculty alike. Some of the Topics Covered: ·      Why traditional change management models no longer match today's environment ·      How agile, iterative approaches help institutions adapt faster than governance cycles ·      Why AI is exposing weaknesses in traditional teaching and assessment methods ·      The role of faculty culture as both a barrier and a solution to meaningful change ·      Why preparing students for uncertainty requires faculty to be comfortable with it ·      How institutions risk becoming the "yellow cab" in a world expecting "Uber-level" responsiveness Real-World Examples Discussed: ·      How AI forces faculty to redesign assignments and assessment methods ·      Why student evaluations often measure the wrong outcomes ·      How other industries were disrupted by ignoring customer expectations ·      Examples of leaders who prioritize faculty development and innovation Three Key Takeaways for Higher Education Leadership 1.     Institutions must change how they think about change before they can change behaviors. 2.     Faculty partnership and professional development are essential to institutional adaptability. 3.     The greatest risk to higher education is waiting to see what others will do. This episode offers higher education leaders a practical framework for understanding why many institutional struggles stem not from isolated issues, but from an outdated approach to change itself. Read the transcript:  https://changinghighered.com/agile-change-management-for-higher-education-leaders/   #HigherEducation #ChangeManagement #HigherEducationPodcast    

In this episode of the Changing Higher Ed® podcast, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with Jeff Meade, Founding Director of the Every Quinnite is an Entrepreneur program at Paul Quinn College, about how the institution has embedded entrepreneurship into the operating model of the college itself. Rather than treating entrepreneurship as an elective or a business school track, Paul Quinn uses it as a structural solution to some of higher education's biggest challenges: workforce readiness, student engagement, institutional costs, and student debt. As one of only eight federally recognized work colleges in the United States, Paul Quinn requires all resident freshmen and sophomores to work on campus in meaningful operational roles. By junior and senior year, students transition into paid positions with corporate partners such as Southwest Airlines and Goldman Sachs. At the same time, every freshman completes a required entrepreneurship course during summer bridge, and students begin building and pitching real venture ideas that can receive seed funding from the college. Jeff explains how this model allows the college to lower tuition by redesigning its business structure, how corporate partnerships create a true workforce pipeline rather than traditional internships, and how entrepreneurship is used to teach students to become entrepreneurs of their own lives. This conversation is especially relevant for institutional leaders looking for practical ways to improve workforce readiness, reduce student debt, strengthen retention, and break down academic silos without adding new programs or increasing costs. Topics Covered: How the federal work college model changes both student engagement and institutional costs Why Paul Quinn lowered tuition by changing its operating model rather than increasing discounting How campus work transitions into paid corporate roles for juniors and seniors The required summer bridge entrepreneurship course for every freshman How student ventures are integrated into multiple academic disciplines The role of faculty leadership development through supervising student workers Why partnerships, both external and internal, are central to the model How a seed fund is designed to be self-sustaining through student venture revenue Real-World Examples Discussed: A student learning grant research and development by working directly in the entrepreneurship department Students working in enrollment management and representing the college at recruitment events Corporate partners sponsoring pitch competitions and hiring students into paid roles Students earning income that both offsets tuition and builds professional experience Freshmen pitching business ideas based on problems they see in their own communities Three Key Takeaways for Leadership: Partner with other institutions, corporations, and entrepreneurs rather than trying to build everything internally Design entrepreneurship and experiential learning models to be self-sustaining, not cost centers Make entrepreneurship universal across the student body so it becomes part of the institutional DNA Dr. McNaughton's Bonus Takeaway: Partnerships must exist internally across departments as well as externally to prevent silos and fully integrate the model This episode provides a clear example of how entrepreneurship can function as an institutional design strategy, not just a curricular offering. Read the transcript: https://changinghighered.com/entrepreneurship-to-redesign-college-operating-model/    #HigherEducation #StudentSuccess #WorkforceReadiness #Entrepreneurship

105 kg World Champion Anthony McNaughton joins KOTL to discuss Worlds, Sheffield, battle Bobb Matthews at a catchweight, and his back story (for the very first time). Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

Get ready to strategically prepare for the February 2026 Uniform Bar Exam with Episode 032 of the Bar Exam Drills Podcast. This detailed wild card predictions video breaks down the four MEE subjects most likely to surprise you on exam day: Criminal Procedure, Torts, Partnerships, and Criminal Law. I analyze historical testing patterns going back years to identify exactly which essays you should prioritize studying. In this episode, I walk through Criminal Procedure patterns from July 2025's school search question back to 2019, highlighting specific topics like Terry frisks, Miranda invocation, vehicle stops, and plainview doctrine that are ripe for testing. For Torts, we examine the shift from recent negligence questions to potential child tortfeasor scenarios and abnormally dangerous activities that haven't appeared in nearly a decade. The Partnerships analysis reveals withdrawal issues, winding down procedures, and partnership agreements as critical topics based on testing gaps since 2018. Criminal Law gets special attention as our final wild card subject, where I predict crimes against persons over property crimes, with insanity defenses like the McNaughton test standing out as high-probability topics given their historical frequency. I reference specific past exam administrations you should study including July 2021, February 2023, July 2019, and others with detailed breakdowns of what made those essays important. This isn't surface-level guessing—this is pattern recognition from someone who has been grading these essays for students and knows exactly how the NCBE cycles through subjects and sub-topics. Download the Bar Exam Drills iOS app to access all the historical essays I reference in this video, organized by jurisdiction and testing date so you can practice the exact topics most likely to appear. Whether you're a first-time taker or repeating the bar exam, these wild card predictions help you avoid wasting precious study time on low-probability subjects and instead focus your energy where it counts. I hope this is your last exam. Leave a comment if you want to discuss any of these predictions further, and I'll be sure to reply. Screenshot the final summary at the end of the video to keep these predictions handy during your final weeks of preparation. Subscribe to Bar Exam Drills for more strategic bar exam content, and good luck crushing the February 2026 UBE.

Two-Time Junior World Champion in the 105 kg class, Regin Stergakis returns to KOTL to discuss his thoughts on his 2025 campaign, the other 105s in the World, Bobb Matthews recent performance, growing the sport in his native land, Powerlifting's stagnant growth, and much more!Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

Lionel dissects the tragic, unconfirmed report of the alleged murder of "liberal icon" Rob Reiner and his wife, using the horrific event to expose the "psychopathological callousness" and political glee displayed by those celebrating the deaths on social media. This episode confronts the dangerous lack of nuance and loss of basic humanity gripping America. Lionel force-fully argues that politics should never destroy the ability to recognize basic humanity, before pivoting to shatter the "reflexive chorus" narrative that guns create violence using global statistics. Finally, dive into high-order constructs like compassion, the McNaughton insanity rule, the complexities of Islamism as a global threat, and the legacy of Archie Bunker. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Lionel discusses a combination of critical issues, starting with the tragic and senseless murder of "liberal icon" Rob Reiner and his wife. Lionel and his callers dissect the politics surrounding the tragedy, questioning why some take delight in Reiner's demise and whether mourning his death is possible given his political ideology. Discussions pivot to the specifics of the crime, including the knife used, the concept of a "person of interest," and the application (or lack thereof) of the McNaughton insanity rule. Plus, dive into the legacy of All in the Family character Archie Bunker—was he an idiot, a patriot, or simply a man of his time? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Memphis guitarist and Stax Recrds co-founder Steve Cropper died this week. Such a big influence on music - especially my favourite roots music of the sixties. Also paid tribute to reggae pioneer Jimmy Cliff, and Scottish songwriter / educator Adam McNaughton with a couple of songs towards the end of the show (including the condensed "Hamlet". The whole play in 4 minutes to the tune of The Mason's Apron!). Also a Get Well Soon to English troubadour Rory McLeaod, who is recovering from a heart attack. I included lots of new, mostly Canadian, music as well, and local concert previews, of course.

HiBobb Matthews, The Swolefessor Marcellus Williams, and Ashton Rouska join KOTL to discuss Bobb and Ashton's return, key questions about their future (Rondel and McNaughton), whom they have as 2025 lifter of the year, and much more. Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

Improving how teaching happens in the classroom is one of the most effective ways to increase student retention, stabilize tuition revenue, and strengthen institutional reputation—yet most universities don't manage it strategically. In this episode of Changing Higher Ed, Dr. Drumm McNaughton speaks with David Gooblar, Associate Professor at the University of Iowa and author of The Missing Course, about how teaching quality has fallen outside institutional oversight and what presidents and boards can do to make it a core part of strategic leadership. They explore how governance structures, incentive systems, and faculty preparation create a blind spot that limits progress on student success. Gooblar and McNaughton outline what leadership can do to realign teaching, strategy, and accountability to improve learning and institutional performance. Topics Covered: Why first-year GPA, driven by classroom experience, predicts retention and completion. How tenure and incentive systems discourage teaching innovation. The leadership role in integrating pedagogy into strategic and financial planning. Practical ways to invest in teaching infrastructure and faculty capacity. How governing boards can hold institutions accountable for the conditions that enable great teaching. Why It Matters: When institutions manage teaching with the same rigor as finance and enrollment, they see measurable gains in persistence, lower cost per graduate, and stronger mission credibility. Teaching quality is not just a faculty concern—it's a leadership lever for institutional performance. Three Takeaways for University Presidents and Boards: Make teaching measurable and managed. Track instructional quality alongside financial and enrollment metrics. Align incentives with institutional goals. Reward teaching innovation in evaluation and promotion. Invest in the conditions for learning. Fund the infrastructure and faculty capacity that make engagement and feedback possible. Read the full episode summary and transcript: https://changinghighered.com/real-cost-of-overlooking-teaching-quality-in-higher-ed/ #HigherEdLeadership #StudentSuccess #HigherEducationPodcast

"Send us a message! (questions, feedback, etc.)"Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.RE-RELEASE. This episode originally released June 3, 2024.What is a recovery intensive? How is it different from weekly therapy or extended inpatient treatment? How could it help my recovery process? To address these important questions, Greg enlists the help of three friends, therapists who consistently staff the Roots Retreat Men's Recovery Intensive from Awaken.Adam Calvert, James Horne, and Jason McNaughton are all counselors who are specifically and extensively trained to work with clients around areas of trauma and addiction. They all have been part of staffing and developing the Roots Retreat since its inception in 2016.Adam, James, Jason and Greg talk about why recovery intensives are valuable, how their impact is different than (and complimentary of) ongoing individual therapy, and why men recovering from unwanted behaviors might want to consider attending.If you think the Roots Retreat might be right for you, please reach out to us with any questions. We'd love to help you find the right resources to support your recovery! Our next Roots Retreat Men's Intensive is November 6-9, 2025. Click the link below to fine out more and register.#AdamCalvert #JamesBuddyHorne #JamesHorne #JasonMcNaughton #therapy #counseling #gospel #recovery #sexaddiction #pornaddiction #sexualaddiction #awaken #awakenrecovery #awakenpodcast #whatwereallywant #wwrw #grace #connection #conversation Support the showAwaken websiteRoots Retreat Men's IntensiveRoots Retreat Women's WorkshopAwaken Men & Women's support meeting info (including virtual)

On this bonus episode of CASCADE OF HISTORY, Feliks Banel speaks with Chris McNaughton about a cool industrial artifact he recovered from a small lake in Eastern Washington on August 7, 2025. We've shared an image of McNaughton's discovery at the CASCADE OF HISTORY Facebook page. Chris has appeared on two previous CASCADE OF HISTORY episodes: Recovering a Rudder from a Sternwheeler https://soundcloud.com/cascadeofhistory/bonus-episode-rudder Idaho Sunken Boat Mystery https://soundcloud.com/cascadeofhistory/bonus-episode-mystery-boat CASCADE OF HISTORY is broadcast LIVE most Sunday nights at 8pm Pacific Time via SPACE 101.1 FM in Seattle and gallantly streams everywhere via www.space101fm.org. The radio station is located at historic Magnuson Park - formerly Sand Point Naval Air Station - on the shores of Lake Washington in Seattle. Subscribe to the CASCADE OF HISTORY podcast via most podcast platforms.

On Monday this week it was announced by the government that they are planning to drop NCEA from the national curriculum by 2030, as a part of a new education overhaul. Although the full details of the new program haven't been released, the government is planning to replace the NCEA qualification, which has been in place for more than 20 years, with a new national system weighted heavily towards exams. Associate Education Minister David Seymour described the change as more “challenging” for students, which from his perspective can “only be a positive thing”. Following on from our previous conversation with the Green Party's Ricardo Menendez-March, Producer Max spoke to Stuart McNaughton, a professor in the faculty of arts and education at the University of Auckland, to talk about the new education reforms.

Anthony McNaughton wins the 105 kg World title and out totals the 120 kg class in the process. Anthony joins 6 Pack Lapadat in studio to share his story of overcoming adversity to finding his self belief and ultimately Championship mentality.

Many graduate students in psychology, counseling, and social work struggle to find their theoretical and clinical footing. As graduate students get closer to graduation, many feel under-prepared and ill-equipped to provide effective therapy to clients. Despite the differences between training in a depth-oriented model like NARM and studying traditional coursework required for a clinical degree, one student celebrates bridging these two different modes of learning to become a more confident and effective beginning therapist. On this episode of Transforming Trauma, host Emily Ruth welcomes Caleb McNaughton, a graduate student currently seeking licensure in Tennessee. The pair discuss Caleb's path that led him to enroll in the NARM Therapist Training as a graduate student. They also explore the friction that developed as Caleb began bringing back into his graduate program what he was learning in the NeuroAffective Relational Model, leading him to question, and at times push back on, his graduate school education and training. About Caleb McNaughton: Caleb McNaughton, a graduate student, is currently seeking licensure in Chattanooga, Tennessee, alongside training in complex developmental trauma. Caleb received his undergrad in Sports Management from Covenant College. After graduation, Caleb spent a year as a missionary in Mexico. It was during this time that he felt led to pursue a degree in counseling. Caleb was introduced to the Neuro Affective Relational Model (NARM) through his father Jason McNaughton and his colleague Heather Parker, both NARM Master Therapists in Birmingham, AL. To read the full show notes and discover more resources, visit https://complextraumatrainingcenter.com/transformingtrauma SPACE: SPACE is an Inner Development Program of Support and Self-Discovery for Therapists on the Personal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Levels offered by the Complex Trauma Training Center. This experiential learning program offers an immersive group experience designed to cultivate space for self-care, community support, and deepening vitality in our professional role as therapists. Learn more about how to join. *** The Complex Trauma Training Center: https://complextraumatrainingcenter.com View upcoming trainings: https://complextraumatrainingcenter.com/schedule/ The Complex Trauma Training Center (CTTC) is a professional organization providing clinical training, education, consultation, and mentorship for psychotherapists and mental health professionals working with individuals and communities impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and Complex Trauma (C-PTSD). CTTC provides NARM® Therapist and NARM® Master Therapist Training programs, as well as ongoing monthly groups in support of those learning NARM. CTTC offers a depth-oriented professional community for those seeking a supportive network of therapists focused on three levels of shared human experience: personal, interpersonal & transpersonal.  The Transforming Trauma podcast embodies the spirit of CTTC – best described by its three keywords: depth, connection, and heart - and offers guidance to those interested in effective, transformational trauma-informed care. We want to connect with you! Facebook @complextraumatrainingcenter Instagram @complextraumatrainingcenter LinkedIn YouTube  

This episode, recorded live at the Becker's 3rd Annual Spring Payer Issues Roundtable, features Jarrod McNaughton, CEO of Inland Empire Health Plan. Jarrod shares how IEHP is aligning mission, culture, and bold innovation to drive health equity, improve quality through performance-based partnerships, and enhance member satisfaction with community-centered programs.

Newly crown US 105 kg National Champion Anthony McNaughton joins KOTL to discuss his title win, thoughts on Keenan Lee, out totalling the 120s from last year's Worlds at 103 kg bodyweight, and much more!Hosted by 6 Pack Lapadat

In episode 191 of the Thyroid Answers Podcast, I discuss weight loss and GLP1 medications with Orshi Mc Naughton. Topics covered in the podcast include: The role of thyroid hormone in homeostasis vs allostasis. GLP1, what it is, and what it does. Gut health and GLP1. Thyroid hormone and GLP1. Factors that impact GLP1 production. Pros and cons of GLP1 medications Critical strategies for those using GLP1 medications And more ...  Host of The Optimized Women Podcast, Orshi McNaughton, is a Board Certified Holistic Health Practitioner and Functional Diagnostic Nutrition Practitioner specializing in women's metabolic health, hormone balance, and longevity. As the founder of Precision Cellular Nutrition and the Women's Biohacking Conference and with years of clinical experience working with clients on the root causes of chronic symptoms, Orshi empowers women to achieve high-performance health and thrive at every stage of life. Podcast: https://www.optimizedwomen.com/ IG: @optimizedwomen https://www.instagram.com/optimizedwomen/

Kevin McNaughton is with us for the 2nd episode of the season. Talking Dave Jones' stag do's, Parky's darts tekkers, taking out a lineswoman, and struggling to cope with retirement.   Bespoke kits for your club with O'Neills Sportswear UK