Suchergebnisse

"The authors of Advocates and Persuaders aim to demystify the political practice of lobbying. They believe that lobbying has a significant role to play in a healthy democracy, and they examine it closely in the contexts of federal, state and local government. They also shine a spotlight on the involvement of the media, regulators and pollsters in lobbying and include as case studies analyses of lobbying by a diversity of organisations, ranging widely from large corporations to grass roots activists."--Back cover

School communities are not immune to wider socio-political events when implementing government policies that are controversial, and schools are especially vulnerable when these initiatives become the focus of wider political debates that by their very nature are typically polarised and divisive. This article explores how debates associated with power, colonisation and institutional racism are experienced by school participants (teachers, students and parents/caregivers) by examining the first stage of Te Kauhua: Māori in the Mainstream pilot project in two New Zealand schools. School reform initiatives that attempt to dismantle historically-constructed power relationships can be undone due to wider national debates linked to institutional racism. This article explores the experience of school participants within the context of controversial national debates and a school reform process. We conclude by suggesting that questions about racism and other discriminatory practices in schools and the wider society must be addressed if schools are to make a difference for Māori students.

Crisis Communication in a Digital World provides an introduction to major crisis communication theories and issues management, using practical examples from Australia and New Zealand. The book examines how public relations can influence the nature of a crisis and the impact of its aftermath. It explores the role of PR specialists in different crisis situations - including natural disasters and morphing crises - and examines the challenges they face in a world where social media is a key source of communication. Readers are provided with an in-depth understanding of crisis communication and issues management through practical approaches, strategies and skills, which are supplemented by relevant theories based on evidence and experience. International perspectives have been included throughout to illustrate the impact of multinational companies on the digital world, including global media cycles and social media activism. Each chapter explores a different aspect of communications, including media, natural disasters and celebrity crises.

ABSTRACTIn response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision‐making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision‐maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision‐making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision‐making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision‐making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision‐making processes.

CONTEXT: Both within politics and practice, the field of psychiatry is undergoing a significant transformation, as increasing emphasis is placed on the importance of involving those with lived experience in research. In response to this participatory turn, a push towards measuring the impact of patient involvement is also growing, seeking to identify how participation can improve research. OBJECTIVE: This paper examines the recent push towards measuring impact in relation to justifications underlying the democratization of research in psychiatry, revealing a disconnect between the two, and harms that could result from a singular focus on measuring impact. DISCUSSION: While those promoting and regulating participatory research tend to focus on the epistemic benefits of such research, many have pointed to both epistemic and ethical justifications underlying participatory research. The ethical reasons for involving service users loom especially large in psychiatry, given its unique history of abuse, the ways diagnoses can be utilized as tools for oppression, and the prevalence of coercion. The current focus on measuring the impact of involvement can be harmful, in that it obscures ethical reasons in favour of epistemic ones, potentially exacerbating issues common to participatory research, such as role confusion and ineffective, tokenistic participatory efforts. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that to take the ethical reasons behind involvement in mental health research seriously will involve looking beyond impact and towards sharing power. We suggest three ways this can be done: measuring more than impact, building service user capacities and sharing power in realms outside of research.

Assent guidelines currently fail to include an assessment of a child's decision‐making ability, experience and interest. This paper summarises a two‐stage study, conducted in the United Kingdom, exploring perspectives on children's decision‐making power and ability within their family, as an indicator for overall decision‐making readiness. Children desired to make some decisions but knew their parents held ultimate authority. Parents believed their children could make some decisions and actively trained them through involvement in daily decisions. Researchers should strive to include children in enrolment decisions to some degree, based on a consideration of their expectations for involvement informed by their daily family context.

"In this paper, I engage with the on-going debate about the nature of the task that research ethics committees (RECs) have in coming to assess the ethics of research proposals. Some have argued that the role of RECs is to protect participants from harm in the context of researchers who want to benefit future people. Others have argued that the role of RECs is primarily to ensure that potential participants are provided with full information – enough to make an informed choice. On this later view, RECs protect choice rather than restrict it. I argue that both of these orientations are mistaken and that the role of RECs more akin to a societal overseer who ensures that the research is worthwhile and, most importantly, that it presents a fair offer to potential participants. On this view, the REC's role is to balance potential harms to participants with the potential benefits of the research in the context of presenting the choice about whether to participate to potential participants. "

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 Assistance Team to collect information from the implementation of APs; the Evaluation & Assessment team has started monitoring the advancement of the project. As part of the communication and dissemination strategy, a project website, a Facebook page, and a Twitter account have been launched and are updated periodically. The International Scientific Advisory Committee has been formed to advise on the reporting and dissemination of the project's results. Conclusions: In the short term, we anticipate that the project will have a considerable impact on the organizational processes and structures, improving the RRI uptake in the participating institutions. In the medium term, we expect to make RRI-oriented organizational change scalable across Europe by developing guidelines on RRI implementation and an RRI model in biosciences. In the long term, we expect that the project would help increase the ability of research institutions to make discoveries and innovations in better alignment with societal needs and values.