An agenda for future research regarding the mental health of young people with care experience

Young people who are currently or were previously in state care have consistently been found to have much higher rates of mental health and neurodevelopmental difficulties than the general youth population. While a number of high-quality reviews highlight what research has been undertaken in relation to the mental health of young people with care experience and the gaps in our knowledge and understanding, there is, until now, no consensus, so far as we aware, as to where our collective research efforts should be directed with this important group. Through a series of UK wide workshops, we undertook a consultative process to identify an agreed research agenda between those with lived experience of being in care (n = 15), practitioners, policy makers and researchers (n = 59), for future research regarding the mental health of young people with care experience, including those who are neurodiverse/have a neurodevelopmental difficulty. This consensus statement identified 21 foci within four broad categories: how we conceptualize mental health; under-studied populations; under-studied topics; and underused methodologies. We hope that those who commission, fund and undertake research will engage in this discussion about the future agenda for research regarding the mental health of young people with care experience.     

Mapping responsible conduct in the uncharted field of research-creation: A scoping review

This scoping review addresses the issues of responsible conduct of research (RCR) that can arise in the practice of research-creation (RC), an emergent, interdisciplinary, and heterogeneous field at the interface of academic research and creative activities. Little is yet known about the nature and scope of RCR issues in RC, so our study examined three questions: (1) What are the specific issues in RC in relation to RCR? (2) How does the specificity of RC influence the understanding and practice of RCR? (3) What recommendations could help address the issues highlighted in the literature? To answer these questions, we conducted a scoping review of the academic literature (n = 181 texts) dealing with RCR in RC. We found that researcher-creators faced some very different RCR challenges in comparison with their colleagues in the rest of academia. Addressing these issues is important for both the RCR and RC communities in order to ensure that the rapid development of this field occurs in line with the norms of RCR which, nonetheless, should be adapted to respect the particularities of RC and allow its contributions to the academic world.     

Community-university collaborations: creating hybrid research and collective identities

In this article we explore the politics of community-university collaborative research and activism. We are scholars based in universities as well as members of various ‘communities’—queer, Pasifika and Māori—hence we regularly venture beyond the formal research spaces of the academy and enter into critical collaborative research with others working in ‘the community’. In what follows we first outline collaborative community-based research literature that advocates hybrid research collectivities. Second, we give some context and background to our methodologies that have enabled us to re-think collaborative research. Third, examples from our research are offered to illustrate the ways in which collaborative research constructs new collective identities. Finally, we conclude by arguing that social science scholars working across university-community boundaries may expand and multiply hybrid research collectives, and thereby effect positive social change at many levels.     

Preregistering qualitative research

The threat to reproducibility and awareness of current rates of research misbehavior sparked initiatives to better academic science. One initiative is preregistration of quantitative research. We investigate whether the preregistration format could also be used to boost the credibility of qualitative research. A crucial distinction underlying preregistration is that between prediction and postdiction. In qualitative research, data are used to decide which way interpretation should move forward, using data to generate hypotheses and new research questions. Qualitative research is thus a real-life example of postdiction research. Some may object to the idea of preregistering qualitative studies because qualitative research generally does not test hypotheses, and because qualitative research design is typically flexible and subjective. We rebut these objections, arguing that making hypotheses explicit is just one feature of preregistration, that flexibility can be tracked using preregistration, and that preregistration would provide a check on subjectivity. We then contextualize preregistrations alongside another initiative to enhance credibility in qualitative research: the confirmability audit. Besides, preregistering qualitative studies is practically useful to combating dissemination bias and could incentivize qualitative researchers to report constantly on their study's development. We conclude with suggested modifications to the Open Science Framework preregistration form to tailor it for qualitative studies.     

Critical reflection workshops and knowledge exchange: findings from a Scottish project

In 2013, academics from a Scottish university came together with social work managers and practitioners from two local authorities (LAs) in Scotland to run a knowledge exchange (KE) project co‐sponsored by the Economic and Social Research Council and the LAs. The project's aim was an ambitious one: to contribute to culture change in the children and families' departments in the two partner agencies. The project grew out of an earlier KE venture that had explored ways of engaging better with involuntary service users in social work; it thus both anticipated and reflected wider concerns about services for children that were also demonstrated in Munro's Review of Child Protection. The KE project had three components: training for managers, practitioner research projects and critical reflection workshops. Whether, and to what degree, the KE project changed culture is not the focus of this paper, which is written jointly by academic researchers and practitioners. Instead, one element of the KE project, namely the critical reflection workshops, is discussed. Findings provide strong evidence of the pressures currently experienced by children and families' services in the UK public sector. They also indicate how important good relationships are in building meaningful KE.     

Researchers’ interpretations of research integrity: A qualitative study

Despite increasing interest in integrity issues, relatively few studies have examined researchers’ own interpretations of integrity. As part of the Perspectives on Research Integrity in Science and Medicine (PRISM) project, we sought to explore how researchers themselves define research integrity. We conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with clinical and laboratory-based researchers from across Switzerland. Data were transcribed and coded using thematic analysis and illustrative quotes were selected. Researchers defined integrity in terms of honesty, transparency, and objectivity, and generally stressed the importance of sticking to the research question and avoiding bias in data interpretation. Some saw research integrity as being synonymous with scientific integrity, but others regarded research integrity as being a subset of the wider domain of scientific integrity. A few participants equated research integrity with mere absence of misconduct, but the majority of participants regarded integrity as being more than this. Researchers regarded truth as the key aspect of integrity, though they expressed this in different ways and with various emphases on honesty, transparency, and objectivity. Integrity goes beyond avoiding misconduct, and scientific integrity has a wider domain than research integrity.     

Understanding Children and Adolescents’ Victimizations at Multiple Levels: An Ecological Review of the Literature

ABSTRACT

This article examines children and adolescent exposure to violence in various contexts. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to identify the definitions and types of violence reported in studies on victimization using the ecological systems framework. Sources included research studies and/or reports from scholarly journals (n = 140), books (n = 9), conferences/workshops (n = 5), and Web sources, such as Uniform Crime Reports (n = 23). The findings indicated that research differed in terminologies, conceptual and operational definitions, sample sizes, and age group classification for children and adolescents. Furthermore, studies lacked focus on the co-occurrence and interrelatedness of victimization and how these factors might affect the outcomes. Many studies employed a cross-sectional design, which limits strong conclusions about the temporal order of victimization experiences and outcomes. Future research efforts need more consistency among researchers in conceptual and operational definitions and the use of more rigorous designs. Increased holistic assessments are critical for effective prevention and intervention strategies for at-risk children and adolescents.     

The Jewish-Palestinian Encounter in a Time of Crisis

For over two decades the School for Peace at Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam has been bringing together Jews and Arabs for dialogue workshops. This article examines the unique approach that the School for Peace has developed over the years in the light of existing theory in the field and of existing research in the field of social identity construction and majority-minority relations. The article then shows how processes that take place in our encounter workshops may even shed light on the Jewish-Palestinian conflict from 1948 until today. Understanding these processes is essential to any attempt at building a more humane society based on equality and justice between the two peoples.     

Understanding and Addressing Contemporary Racism: From Aversive Racism to the Common Ingroup Identity Model

This article describes our collaborative research on aversive racism and a strategy we developed to combat it, the Common Ingroup Identity Model. In addition, we reveal some details about our personal and professional relationship in pursuit of our scientific agenda. We begin by discussing evidence for the existence of aversive racism, a subtle, unintentional form bias that can have pernicious effects. Then we review research concerning how a common ingroup identity can combat aversive racism by redirecting the forces of social categorization and social identity, such that "Us" and "Them" are regarded as "We." We conclude with a brief discussion of where we may look next for clues toward helping to achieve a fairer, more just society.     

Success of University Student Volunteers in Obtaining Consent for Reviewing Private Health Information for Emergency Research

This study aimed to determine the success of university student volunteers in obtaining consent from parents to allow review of their child’s personal health information (PHI) for emergency research screening. This study also aimed to examine the variables associated with successful consent. This was a prospective cross-sectional study conducted at a pediatric emergency department (ED). University students, who functioned as delegates of the health information custodian, approached parents for consent. Of 2,506 parents, 1,852 (73.9%) provided consent to allow review of their child’s PHI for research screening. Variables associated with successful consent were high (≥12 months) versus low (<12 months) volunteer experience (OR = 2.0), research related (vs. unrelated) to the child’s chief complaint (OR = 2.0), child treated regularly by specialists at the study institution (OR = 1.7), and ED presentation mid-week vs. weekend (OR = 1.7) and morning vs. evening presentation (OR = 1.4). When approached by a university student volunteer, about 25% of parents declined to have their child’s PHI reviewed for research screening. This model of obtaining consent may put some emergency research at risk for selection bias. Variables that increase the odds of successful consent can be considered in program design to improve the effectiveness of this model.     

Research Misconduct Definitions Adopted by U.S. Research Institutions

In 2000, the U.S. federal government adopted a uniform definition of research misconduct as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism (FFP), which became effective in 2001. Institutions must apply this definition of misconduct to federally-funded research to receive funding. While institutions are free to adopt definitions of misconduct that go beyond the federal standard, it is not known how many do. We analyzed misconduct policies from 183 U.S. research institutions and coded them according to thirteen different types of behavior mentioned in the misconduct definition. We also obtained data on the institution’s total research funding and public vs. private status, and the year it adopted the definition. We found that more than half (59%) of the institutions in our sample had misconduct policies that went beyond the federal standard. Other than FFP, the most common behaviors included in definitions were “other serious deviations” (45.4%), “significant or material violations of regulations” (23.0%), “misuse of confidential information” (15.8%), “misconduct related to misconduct” (14.8%), “unethical authorship other than plagiarism” (14.2%), “other deception involving data manipulation” (13.1%), and “misappropriation of property/theft” (10.4%). Significantly more definitions adopted in 2001 or later went beyond the federal standard than those adopted before 2001 (73.2% vs. 26.8%), and significantly more definitions adopted by institutions in the lower quartile of total research funding went beyond the federal standard than those adopted by institutions in the upper quartiles. Public vs. private status was not significantly associated with going beyond the federal standard.     

Parallel processes in researching and assessing potential carers

This paper proposes a model for assessing potential parents, based on our research and practice in which we examined current methods of assessment in the light of anti-oppressive principles and methods. We participated in and observed the work of two differing fostering and adoption agencies, and have drawn from our experiences and analysis to produce a pattern for assessment which critically draws on best practices. The paper also draws on previously published papers which discuss theories of research and assessment (Clifford 1992–93; Clifford 1994; Clifford 1995; Clifford & Cropper 1994), and draws a parallel between the processes of research and those of assessment. Our view is that research methods provide a foundation for assessment methods in various ways, mutually illuminating oppressive and anti-oppressive processes.     

The toxicology report audit

In a study of volunteers in medical research we found contrasting readings of “being comfortable” by the volunteer research subjects and the researchers. Although the experimental process (testing a new kind of diagnostic technology) involved some physical discomfort—and the researchers focused on this—the volunteers’ concerns centred on feeling socially comfortable and managing feelings of embarrassment or isolation, and they generally made light of the physical aspects. The bias of volunteer concerns, which is understandable in terms of the different situations of researchers and volunteers and the different tensions they create, has potential implications for the engagement of researchers with their research subjects and prevailing standards for the ethical and accountable conduct of research.     

Disclosure of Unknown Harms in Magnetic Resonance Imaging Research

Unknown harms are by their nature difficult to communicate. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has known risks (e.g., metal projectiles, dislodgement of medical implants), this imaging modality also has potential unknown long-term negative health effects associated with its static magnetic fields. We carried out a research ethics board (REB) file review of previously approved MRI research studies and found that unknown risks were either left undisclosed or were inadequately disclosed to research participants and REBs. This article outlines issues raised by our REB file review and suggests steps that should be taken in order to satisfactorily communicate information about potential unknown harms of MRI.     

Reflexive Research Ethics in Fetal Tissue Xenotransplantation Research

For biomedical research in which the only involvement of the human subject is the provision of tissue or organ samples, a blanket consent, i.e., consent to use the tissue for anything researchers wish to do, is considered by many to be adequate for legal and Institutional Review Board (IRB) requirements. Alternatively, a detailed informed consent provides patients or study participants with more thorough information about the research topic. We document here the beliefs and opinions of the research staff on informed consent and the discussion-based reflexive research ethics process that we employed in our fetal tissue xenotransplantion research on the impact of environmental exposures on fetal development. Reflexive research ethics entails the continued adjustment of research practice according to relational and reflexive understandings of what might be beneficent or harmful. Such reflexivity is not solely an individual endeavor, but rather a collective relationship between all actors in the research process.     

Taking Financial Relationships into Account When Assessing Research

Many scientific journals, government agencies, and universities require disclosure of sources of funding and financial interests related to research, such as stock ownership, consulting arrangements with companies, and patents. Although disclosure has become one of the central approaches for responding to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in research, critics contend that information about financial COIs does not serve as a reliable indicator of research credibility, and therefore, studies should be evaluated solely based on their scientific merits. We argue that, while it is indeed important to evaluate studies on their scientific merits, it is often difficult to detect significant influences of financial relationships that affect research credibility. Moreover, at least five factors can be examined to determine whether financial relationships are likely to enhance, undermine, or have no impact on the credibility of research. These include as follows: whether sponsors, institutions, or researchers have a significant financial stake in the outcome of a study; whether the financial interests of the sponsors, institutions, or researchers coincide with the goal of conducting research that is objective and reliable; whether the sponsor, institution, or researchers have a history of biasing research in order to promote their financial goals; how easy it is to manipulate the research in order to achieve financial goals; and whether oversight mechanisms are in place which are designed to minimize bias. Since these factors vary from case to case, evaluating the impact of financial relationships depends on the circumstances. In some situations, one may decide that the financial relationships significantly undermine the study's credibility; in others, one may decide that they have no impact on credibility or even enhance it.     

Supervisor–Student Relations: Examining the Spectrum of Conflicts of Interest in Bioscience Laboratories

Much attention has been given to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in bioscience research. Yet to date, surprisingly little attention has focused on other COIs that arise in supervisor--student relations. We examine a spectrum of related situations, ranging from standard graduate supervision through to dual relationships sometimes found in research with commercial potential. We illustrate some of the less-obvious factors that can bias supervisory judgment, and situate financial COI along a spectrum of forces that are deserving of recognition. We conclude by providing two sets of recommendations: one for individual supervisors, and the other for institutions and policy-makers.     

Practitioner Research: Evidence or Critique?

In this paper, I revisit some of the origins and more recentdirections in practitioner research in social work, seeing itas a phenomenon that—rather than being special or narrowlyassociated with social work—manifests a pervasive clusterof concerns about good professional practice in contemporarysociety. Drawing on some general conclusions of a recent studyof practitioner inquiry, I indicate ways in which the widersystems of which it is a part frequently hamstring the potentialof such research to operate as more than a fringe operation—a‘street market’ version of mainstream research.I outline four ways in which social workers, service users,agency managers, academics, government departments and universitiesshould work to a transformative agenda for practitioner research—transformativefor both practice and research. This will involve refashioningthe interface between the methodology and methods of practiceand research; generating practitioner research capacity; recognizingthe subtlety and critical potential of a genuinely ‘practical’agenda in practitioner research; and rescuing practitioner researchfrom a simply technical information-providing function, thatby-passes the challenge to promoting critical practice.     

How to conduct a Narrative Policy Framework study

The Narrative Policy Framework has a growing number of researchers seeking to apply the framework in policy process scholarship. This article is intended to assist those interested in conducting an NPF study that is ‘clear enough to be wrong’ (Sabatier, 2000). While graduate programs offer critical methodological training, this article focuses on the specific application of the NPF to research inquiries about the role of policy narratives in the policy process. We approach our discussion by examining various decisions in the research process and include a detailed discussion of specifying the model and obtaining narrative data. We also point out areas for further investigation.     

Working Between Worlds: Qualitative Methods and Social Psychology

We invite social psychologists in the United States to join with psychologists in other countries and with researchers in other disciplines to include qualitative approaches in their research repertory. Several classic studies in social psychology used field-based qualitative approaches, yet in recent decades, these ways of working have been on the margins of American social psychology. We explore what a qualitative stance offers and entails, giving examples from our own and others' research. The relentless attention that qualitative workers have given to issues of bias, subjectivity, and research ethics prompts us to consider how such issues are always present in research, regardless of its methods.