Equal Employment Opportunity: Labor Market Discrimination and Public Policy (see IRPS No. 80/95c02140)
In: Regional studies, Band 30, Heft 1
ISSN: 0034-3404
14 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Regional studies, Band 30, Heft 1
ISSN: 0034-3404
In: Policy and Society, Band 7, Heft 1, S. 57-63
ISSN: 1839-3373
In: Regional studies, Band 28, Heft 5
ISSN: 0034-3404
In: Regional studies, Band 27, Heft 6
ISSN: 0034-3404
In: The army quarterly and defence journal, Band 116, Heft 1, S. 9-15
ISSN: 0004-2552
In: Regional studies, Band 27, Heft 5, S. 490-495
ISSN: 0034-3404
There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake-protecting researchers' freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy-raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments.
BASE
There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake— protecting researchers' freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy—raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments.
BASE
Background: In many countries, committees make priority-setting decisions in order to control healthcare costs. These decisions take into account relevant criteria, including clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and need, and are supported by evidence usually drawn from clinical and economic studies. These sources of evidence do not include the specific perspective and information that patients can provide about the condition and treatment. Methods: Drawing on arguments from political philosophy and ethics that are the ethical basis for many priority-setting bodies, the authors argue that criteria like need and its effects on patients and caregivers are best supported by evidence generated from patients' experiences. Social sciences and mixed-methods research support the generation and collection of robust evidence. Results: Patient experience is required for a decision-making process that considers all relevant evidence. For fair priority-setting, decision-makers should consider relevant evidence and reasons, so patient experience evidence should not be ignored. Patient experience must be gathered in a way that generates high quality and methodologically rigorous evidence. Established quantitative and qualitative methods can assure that evidence is systematic, adherent to quality standards, and valid. Patient, like clinical, evidence should be subject to a transparent review process. Discussion: Considering all relevant evidence gives each person an equal opportunity at having their treatment funded. Patient experience gives context to the clinical evidence and also directly informs our understanding of the nature of the condition and its effects, including patients' needs, how to meet them, and the burden of illness. Such evidence also serves to contextualise reported effects of the treatment. The requirement to include patient experience as evidence has important policy implications for bodies that make priority-setting decisions since it proposes that new types of evidence reviews are commissioned and ...
BASE
In: Australian journal of social issues: AJSI, Band 14, Heft 2, S. 126-133
ISSN: 1839-4655
Recent studies have shown that a significant proportion of the Australian population attend chiropractors. In so far as some patients believe that chiropractic manipulation is effective, it is important to determine whether this belief is a consequence of a psychosomatic remission in symptoms or whether manipulative therapy, per se, is actually effective. A comparison of two groups of 50 patients, matched for condition and some demographic characteristics, treated (with manipulation) by doctors or chiropractors, indicates equivalent and widespread improvement in the presenting symptoms. The psychosomatic explanation is unlikely to be adequate and it may be that manipulation of the spine is effective therapy for some conditions.
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 27, Heft 5, S. 467-495
ISSN: 1360-0591
In: Human factors: the journal of the Human Factors Society, Band 43, Heft 1, S. 1-11
ISSN: 1547-8181
In the crash involvement literature, it is generally assumed that archival and other "objective" criterion data are superior to self-reports of crash involvement. Using 394 participants (mean age = 36.23 years), the present study assessed the convergence of archival and self-report measures of motor vehicle crash involvement and moving violations. We also sought to determine whether predictor/criterion relationships would vary as a function of criterion type (i.e., archival vs. self-report), and if a combination of both criteria would result in better prediction than would either by itself. The degree of agreement between the two criterion sources was low, with participants self-reporting more crashes and tickets than were found in their state records. Different predictor/criterion relationships were also found for the two criterion types; stronger effects were obtained for self-report data. Combining the two criteria did not result in relationships stronger than those obtained for self-reports alone. Our findings suggest that self-report data are not inherently inferior to archival data and, furthermore, that the two sources of data cannot be used interchangeably. Actual or potential applications include choosing the appropriate criterion to use, which, as the finding of this study reveals, may depend on the purpose of the investigation.
In: Regional studies: official journal of the Regional Studies Association, Band 30, Heft 1, S. 93-99
ISSN: 1360-0591
Background: Promoting Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) is a major strategy of the "Science with and for Society" work program of the European Union's Horizon 2020 Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. RRI aims to achieve a better alignment of research and innovation with the values, needs, and expectations of society. The RRI strategy includes the "keys" of public engagement, open access, gender, ethics, and science education. The Structural Transformation to Attain Responsible BIOSciences (STARBIOS2) project promotes RRI in 6 European research institutions and universities from Bulgaria, Germany, Italy, Slovenia, Poland, and the United Kingdom, in partnership with a further 6 institutions from Brazil, Denmark, Italy, South Africa, Sweden, and the United States.Objective: The project aims to attain RRI structural change in 6 European institutions by implementing action plans (APs) and developing APs for 3 non-European institutions active in the field of biosciences; use the implementation of APs as a learning process with a view to developing a set of guidelines on the implementation of RRI; and develop a sustainable model for RRI in biosciences.Methods: The project comprises interrelated research and implementation designed to achieve the aforementioned specific objectives. The project is organized into 6 core work packages and 5 supporting work packages. The core work packages deal with the implementation of institutional APs in 6 European institutions based on the structural change activation model. The supporting work packages include technical assistance, learning process on RRI-oriented structural change, monitoring and assessment, communication and dissemination, and project management.Results: The project is funded by Horizon 2020 and will run for 4 years (May 2016-April 2020). As of June 2018, the initial phase has been completed. The participating institutions have developed and approved APs and commenced their implementation. An observation tool has been launched by the Technical ...
BASE