There are many questions surrounding feminism. Since the Women's Movement of the 1960's, there hasbeen an ongoing debate concerning the inclusion of women in leadership roles as well as the role ofwomen in research. The most frequently asked questions concerning women's roles in research, whichparallel those of women's leadership roles and styles, are: Is feminist research typically distinct fromother more mainstream research within the Social Sciences? And are there specific feminist methods?There has been a long-standing debate addressing such questions. If one believes that feminist research isresearch about women, by women, and for women, then one may conclude that there are distinct methodsthat feminists use to study the oppression of women. Also, if one believes, as does Liz Stanley (1993),that there is a direct relationship between feminist consciousness and feminism, then there is research thatis distinctly feminist. However, one could argue that no matter what the political ideologies of theresearcher, the research methods remain the same.In trying to answer the above posed questions, we need to examine not only political ideologies assuggested by Stanley. We also need to examine the goals of research, the assumptions made by theresearcher, the methods utilized by the researcher, the methodology, and epistemology that lay thefoundation for research. All these criteria will assist us in making clear distinctions between feministresearch and mainstream research. Yet, we must keep in mind that many researchers, including feministresearchers, continue to struggle with the very issues presented in this paper, which remain unresolved.Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to grant the reader with an overview of the debates and unresolvedissues surrounding feminist research.
There are many questions surrounding feminism. Since the Women's Movement of the 1960's, there hasbeen an ongoing debate concerning the inclusion of women in leadership roles as well as the role ofwomen in research. The most frequently asked questions concerning women's roles in research, whichparallel those of women's leadership roles and styles, are: Is feminist research typically distinct fromother more mainstream research within the Social Sciences? And are there specific feminist methods?There has been a long-standing debate addressing such questions. If one believes that feminist research isresearch about women, by women, and for women, then one may conclude that there are distinct methodsthat feminists use to study the oppression of women. Also, if one believes, as does Liz Stanley (1993),that there is a direct relationship between feminist consciousness and feminism, then there is research thatis distinctly feminist. However, one could argue that no matter what the political ideologies of theresearcher, the research methods remain the same.In trying to answer the above posed questions, we need to examine not only political ideologies assuggested by Stanley. We also need to examine the goals of research, the assumptions made by theresearcher, the methods utilized by the researcher, the methodology, and epistemology that lay thefoundation for research. All these criteria will assist us in making clear distinctions between feministresearch and mainstream research. Yet, we must keep in mind that many researchers, including feministresearchers, continue to struggle with the very issues presented in this paper, which remain unresolved.Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to grant the reader with an overview of the debates and unresolvedissues surrounding feminist research.
Hazaras are a newly emerging community in Australia and limited research has explored their mental health. The first aim of this study was to explore levels of psychological distress and subjective well-being reported by Hazaras in Australia, and whether scores on psychosocial variables (self-compassion, self-coldness, acculturation, resilience, spirituality), psychological distress and domains of subjective well-being differed by sociodemographic groups. The second aim had two parts: (a) to examine bivariate relationships between the psychosocial variables, psychological distress and subjective well-being; and (b) to examine whether the psychosocial predictor variables independently contributed to subjective well-being and psychological distress when controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Seventy-two Hazaras (58 men and 14 women), with a mean age of 28.82 years ( SD = 8.84) and average length of time residing in Australia of 10.17 years ( SD = 4.11), completed an online survey. There were sociodemographic differences in relation to key variables of interest; for example, participants who did not have family members in Australia reported lower levels of global life satisfaction. Moderate negative relationships were found between self-compassion and psychological distress and between self-coldness and subjective well-being. Self-coldness, self-compassion, resilience and acculturation contributed uniquely to psychological distress and subjective well-being when controlling for sociodemographic variables. Although migration programmes that provide permanent residency and allow family members to join refugees in Australia are limited, they appear important. Many of the difficulties facing Hazaras are ongoing, external and beyond their control (e.g. visa status); however, there is a possibility that self-compassion can play a role as a protective factor.
Background The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
In: Timmers , M , Van Dijck , J T J M , Van Wijk , R P J , Legrand , V , Van Veen , E , Maas , A I R , Menon , D K , Citerio , G , Stocchetti , N , Kompanje , E J O , Åkerlund , C , Amrein , K , Andelic , N , Andreassen , L , Anke , A , Antoni , A , Audibert , G , Azouvi , P , Azzolini , M L , Bartels , R , Barzó , P , Beauvais , R , Beer , R , Bellander , B M , Belli , A , Benali , H , Berardino , M , Beretta , L , Blaabjerg , M , Bragge , P , Brazinova , A , Brinck , V , Brooker , J , Brorsson , C , Buki , A , Bullinger , M , Cabeleira , M , Caccioppola , A , Calappi , E , Calvi , M R , Cameron , P , Lozano , G C , Carbonara , M , Cavallo , S , Chevallard , G , Chieregato , A , Ceyisakar , I , Coburn , M , Coles , J , Kondziella , D & The CENTER-TBI investigators and participants 2020 , ' How do 66 European institutional review boards approve one protocol for an international prospective observational study on traumatic brain injury? Experiences from the CENTER-TBI study ' , BMC Medical Ethics , vol. 21 , no. 1 , 36 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-020-00480-8
Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75-224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.
Abstract: Background: The European Union (EU) aims to optimize patient protection and efficiency of health-care research by harmonizing procedures across Member States. Nonetheless, further improvements are required to increase multicenter research efficiency. We investigated IRB procedures in a large prospective European multicenter study on traumatic brain injury (TBI), aiming to inform and stimulate initiatives to improve efficiency. Methods: We reviewed relevant documents regarding IRB submission and IRB approval from European neurotrauma centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI). Documents included detailed information on IRB procedures and the duration from IRB submission until approval(s). They were translated and analyzed to determine the level of harmonization of IRB procedures within Europe. Results: From 18 countries, 66 centers provided the requested documents. The primary IRB review was conducted centrally (N = 11, 61%) or locally (N = 7, 39%) and primary IRB approval was obtained after one (N = 8, 44%), two (N = 6, 33%) or three (N = 4, 23%) review rounds with a median duration of respectively 50 and 98 days until primary IRB approval. Additional IRB approval was required in 55% of countries and could increase duration to 535 days. Total duration from submission until required IRB approval was obtained was 114 days (IQR 75–224) and appeared to be shorter after submission to local IRBs compared to central IRBs (50 vs. 138 days, p = 0.0074). Conclusion: We found variation in IRB procedures between and within European countries. There were differences in submission and approval requirements, number of review rounds and total duration. Research collaborations could benefit from the implementation of more uniform legislation and regulation while acknowledging local cultural habits and moral values between countries.