Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.     

Minimal Risk in Pediatric Research: A Philosophical Review and Reconsideration

Despite more than thirty years of debate, disagreement persists among research ethicists about the most appropriate way to interpret the U.S. regulations on pediatric research, specifically the categories of “minimal risk” and a “minor increase over minimal risk.” Focusing primarily on the definition of “minimal risk,” we argue in this article that the continued debate about the pediatric risk categories is at least partly because their conceptual status is seldom considered directly. Once this is done, it becomes clear that the most popular strategy for interpreting “minimal risk”—defining it as a specific set of risks—is indefensible and, from a pragmatic perspective, unlikely to resolve disagreement. Primarily this is because judgments about minimal risk are both normative and heavily intuitive in nature and thus cannot easily be captured by reductions to a given set of risks. We suggest instead that a more defensible approach to evaluating risk should incorporate room for reflection and deliberation. This dispositional, deliberative framework can nonetheless accommodate a number of intellectual resources for reducing reliance on sheer intuition and improving the quality of risk evaluations.     

Less than human: a qualitative study into the experience of parents involved in the child protection system

This paper reports on the findings from a qualitative study into the experiences of parents who were involved in the English child protection system in 2013. Seventeen in‐depth interviews were conducted involving 19 parents and/or partners, and a framework approach was used to analyse the data. There were positive experiences of individual social workers and some positive experiences of the child protection system. However, the overwhelming theme of the parents' experiences was that the system was uncaring, inflexible and for some harmful to both themselves and their children. Despite being included in the child protection process, parents felt they were not afforded the same rights as a participant, as a decision‐maker or as a partner in seeking to improve the situation. The threat of consequences silenced parents who felt unable to speak out or challenge the things they disagreed with or coerced others into signing agreements they did not agree to. Such experiences related to a sense that they were being treated as ‘less than human’. These findings are considered within the context of recent reforms within the English child protection system.     

Family court ordered “reunification therapy:” junk science in the guise of helping parent/child relationships?

This Commentary addresses the issue of the ethics of mental health professionals recommending or doing what family courts and some others are calling “Reunification Therapy.” This is often being recommended and used across the country, and ordered by family courts, as if it has a scientific basis for successful therapy between an estranged parent and a child who does not wish to re-engage with that parent, often where the child has alleged the parent has abused them physically, sexually, or psychologically. This Commentary challenges the ethics and validity of such approaches and programs.     

Judging public relations: An analysis of an Israeli court judgement on a defamatory and negative campaign

This article analyzes a recent court ruling in Israel and argues that it has major implications for the public relations community internationally. To date, the public relations literature on legal judgments has focused on cases where media channels were sued for defamation. The article uses a 2012 Israeli court decision that may be unique in ruling out defamatory intentions in a public relations plan that was part of a lawsuit. The defendant in this case was not the media but rather a company that hired a public relations firm to, according to the judgement, conduct a defamatory campaign against a competitor. Although this is just one case in one country, the article also considers some of the wider implications for the profession and for democracy.     

Unanticipated ethical issues in a participatory research project with individuals with intellectual disability

The conduct of a participatory research investigation into the everyday literacy of adults with intellectual disability within the context of a PhD thesis highlighted issues related to the ethics of participatory research and the need to revisit and reconsider ethical guidelines around working with individuals with intellectual disability. Tensions were identified between participatory research ideology and the reality of research experiences, with additional issues arising due to disability in the first author.     

浅论当代中国家庭伦理的构建——基于中西方个人与家庭伦理观的对比

中西方有着迥异不同的家族历史与家庭伦理,这极大地影响了中西方现代人的思维方式与生活方式,尤其对人的个体观念、团体观念产生了一种决定性的作用。文章简略对比中西方家族制的历史、家族伦理的显著差异,以及家族文化对当代中国家庭伦理构建的深刻影响,对我们扬弃中西方的个人、家庭伦理观,处理好个人的自由与对家庭的责任关系有一定的启示意义。     

育人为本理念下高校辅导员职业道德评价

"立德树人"是高校辅导员的育人理念,揭示了高校辅导员职业道德建设的重要性。目前我国高校尚未建立一套辅导员职业道德评价体系,这种状况必将导致辅导员道德的职能和作用发挥失常,进而会使师德失去意义并变成无生命力的东西。因此,构建辅导员的职业道德评价体系迫在眉睫,应该从树立育人为本的教育理念、把握正确的价值取向、运用多元化的评价方式、建立职业道德评价的考评激励制度、规范职业道德评价的网络准入机制、构建"双能型"职业道德评价模式、发挥校本文化的职业道德评价功能等方面来构建高校辅导员职业道德评价体系。     

试论受众的心理需求与家庭伦理剧的叙事样态之关系——以上世纪90年代的家庭伦理剧为例

20世纪90年代以来的家庭伦理剧在叙事样态上呈现的特点是受众心理与时代文化的“共谋”。为满足观众补偿现实生活之不足的心理需求,在叙事主旨、叙事精神上表现出回归传统伦理道德、彰显底层与民粹的倾向;受观众认知现实的观看心理的影响,在视觉图谱和风格上呈现出现实主义的平民世界图景;为满足观众的娱乐心理,家族伦理剧在伦理形态上呈现出快乐伦理的指向。研究表明,90年代以来的家族伦理电视剧所呈现出的上述叙事样态与受众的补偿心理、认知心理以及娱乐心理互为生成。     

REVISITING THE AGENT OF SOCIAL CONTROL ROLE: IMPLICATIONS FOR SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT

The agent of social control role and its responsibilities and goals provide an important function in social work practice. Workers in varied positions often combine this role with others that define the profession. Yet in the not too distant past, a debate arose as to whether this role, focusing on promoting and protecting the general welfare of society, could be congruent with also fostering the improved functioning and self‐determination of individual clients. Periodically, this topic emerges to challenge the appropriateness of these dual activities in satisfactorily and equitably serving both constituents.

Within the field of substance abuse, court‐mandated referrals have established a need for practitioners to perform social control tasks to monitor and report clients' compliance with and progress in treatment. This has created a conflict for many who consider their practice to be client‐centered. This article will explore the dilemmas experienced in attempting to simultaneously carry out both roles and the guidance provided from the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics. In addition, proposed strategies to reduce the duality of difficulties will be summarized.