What (a) Difference a Degree Makes: The Evaluation of the New Social Work Degree in England

After many years of debate in the UK about the need for a degree-levelqualification in social work, the arguments for a minimum degree-levelqualification were accepted. The requirements for the degreein England were developed drawing on work from a number of sources,including a benchmark statement for undergraduate degrees insocial work and focus groups with stakeholders. The new degreein England, launched in 2003, involves one extra year’sstudy; improvements in the qualifying standard for social work;and specific curriculum and entrance requirements. At the timeof launching the degree, the government department responsiblefor funding (Department of Health) commissioned a three-yearevaluation of the implementation of the new degree to establishwhether the new qualifying level leads to improvements in thequalified workforce. The aim of the evaluation is to describethe experiences of those undertaking the degree, collect theviews of the various stakeholders about the effectiveness ofthe degree and measure the impact of a degree-level qualificationon those entering the workforce. This article, written by theteam undertaking the evaluation of the England degree, exploresthe reasons for the methodological approach adopted and theissues that have arisen in setting up the research.     

Teaching and learning responsible research conduct: influences of prior experiences on acceptance of new ideas

Despite requirements for Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR) training, little is known about how much this training actually influences the thinking and behaviors of participants. Interview-based qualitative research methods were used to study the reactions of Ph.D. students and postdoctoral fellows to what was taught in an RCR course. For trainees with limited prior RCR experience, or who agreed with what was taught, it was relatively easy to influence their attitudes and how they thought they would use the new information in the future. However, if their prior experiences or existing knowledge conflicted with what was taught they resisted and often rejected new ideas that were presented. Interviews also revealed the tremendously complex process trainees must undergo trying to resolve or integrate all of the different perspectives they receive on RCR from other sources. These results revealed the importance of viewing RCR training from the perspective of learning theory and how prior knowledge influences what people learn. The results also support the need for periodic rather than one-time RCR training to counter the often conflicting views and practices young scientists experience in real-life research settings.     

Meeting report--National Institute on Aging Workshop on the Comparative Biology of Aging

This Perspective is a summary of the Comparative Biology of Aging Workshop that was held in February 2002 by the National Institute on Aging in Bethesda, MD. Participants discussed ways to exploit similarities and differences in aging among diverse species to learn more about critical factors that affect aging and regulate life expectancy in animals. The aim of the workshop was to stimulate new approaches to understanding the molecular bases for differences in aging rates and life expectancy among species.     

Recidivism and resilience in juvenile sexual offenders: an analysis of the literature

The majority of research that exists studying juvenile sex offenders (JSOs) is dominated by the predilection that identifying risk factors associated with recidivism will benefit both the JSOs and treatment providers. Further, the majority of existing treatments are guided by research that has identified what makes JSOs more likely to reoffend. Absent from the majority of the literature is an examination of the strengths and positive characteristics demonstrated by JSOs that may prove useful in both reducing recidivism and increasing the likelihood of achieving positive outcomes (i.e., demonstrating resilience). Research examining known risk factors for sexual and nonsexual recidivism is described. Next, literature on resilience is reviewed, followed by a discussion of this literature in the context of treatment for JSOs. Finally, future directions of research are presented.     

Joint Reviews: The Methodology in Action

Correspondence to Jill Humphrey Family, Adoption and Family Finding Unit, 3 Unthank Road, Nowich NR2 2PA, UK. E-mail: jill.humphrey.socs{at}norfolk.gov.uk Summary Joint Reviews form the crown of the regulatory apparatus insocial services in England and Wales, and reviewers have craftedan impressive methodology to investigate the workings of socialservices authorities. My aim in this article is to expose andexplore the social processes underpinning this methodology,drawing upon interviews with people on both sides of the regulatoryfence and an ethnographic study of Joint Reviews in action.I shall discuss the cultural politics of regulatory researchand demonstrate the ways in which communications and interpretationsin the field can be constructed, confused, and contested. Thisis not an argument against regulation but rather a quest forgreater reflexivity in regulation and research.