“Capacity Is Key”: Investigating New Legal Provisions in England and Wales for Adult Safeguarding

This study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of local Safeguarding Adults Coordinators of the newly implemented Mental Capacity Act 2005. This legislation in England and Wales has both protection and empowerment as its dual goals. Fifteen Safeguarding Adults Coordinators (SACs) employed by local authorities in the London area were interviewed in 2008, and again 2 years later. A total of 12 SACs participated in the 2010 follow-up interviews. The findings are reported here, covering experiences and views on the implementation and uses of the Act. There was overwhelming support for the Act as enhancing people's rights to a life free from abuse, of providing a framework for the assessment of decision-making capacity, and of assisting practitioners in reducing risks and responding to abusive situations. Participants urged better publicity about the Act, more detailed guidance on the new offenses, and greater attention to the interactions with other government policy goals.     

How Have Other Journals Compared to “The Top Seven” Journals in Family Social Science with Respect to LGBT-Related Research and Reviews? A Comment on “A Content Analysis of LGBT Research in Top Family Journals 2000–2015”? An Editorial Analysis

Van Eeden-Moorefield, Few-Demo, Benson, Bible, and Lummer (2018) recently reviewed the content of seven family social science journals with respect to theory and methods used in 153 articles featuring LGBT research or reviews of LGBT research. They concluded that less than three percent of 6,832 articles published in those journals between 2000 and 2015 were LGBT-related and that most had not used explicit theory and had used purposive cross-sectional samples consisting mostly of White and middle-class participants. During the tenure of the present editor, between 2010 and 2017, Marriage & Family Review featured 14 research reports, reviews, or commentary on LGBT-related issues out of 250 articles, not counting brief editorials or biographies between 2010 and 2017, an odds ratio of over 2.0 compared to the other “top-tier” journals. Likewise, the Journal of Family Theory & Review published at least 15 articles, mainly reviews or commentaries, on LGBT-related issues between 2009 and 2017. Articles in Marriage & Family Review and Journal of Family Theory & Review were more likely to be reviews of the literature, or feature explicit theory, to be qualitative in methodology, or to involve interviews or surveys, while other characteristics were similar to those in the other seven journals. Thus, even if some mainstream family journals did not publish often on LGBT-related issues, other important family science journals have done so. Furthermore, there are numerous scholarly journals that welcome LGBT-related research and reviews almost exclusively.     

Comment on Abrutyn’s “Time Crunch” Problem in Teaching Classical and Contemporary Sociological Theory: Time for the Dichotomy to become a Trichotomy?

In “Teaching Sociological Theory for a New Century: Contending with the Time Crunch,” Abrutyn argues that it is time to re-think how sociological theory is taught in the university due to time constraints that make it increasingly difficult to cover the expanding canon of sociological theory. In this article I revisit Abrutyn’s position on the state of teaching sociological theory. I analyze sociological theory course syllabi across the discipline to provide further evidence that illustrates the problem of the time crunch. From this investigation I argue that the best strategy to deal with the “time crunch” is to re-think the way theory is taught and add an additional course to current curricula. Only by adding an additional course and trichotomizing the current classical and contemporary dichotomy can the time crunch be corrected.