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.     

On the margins of the child protection system: creating space for relational social work practice

In the UK, a threshold divides between two categories of children, child protection (CP) and child in need. Each category tends to be treated as a homogeneous entity, despite containing heterogeneous levels and forms of risk and need. CP practice, accompanied by regulation, protocols and procedures, aspires to achieve a coordinated multi‐agency response to identified concerns with available resources targeted towards this category. However, it is well known that those children assessed as falling just below the CP threshold can still have high levels of need and risk, requiring a level of social work involvement beyond the low‐resource and low‐oversight model that generally accompanies a child in need categorisation. This paper probes an approach to practice, which divides levels of risk within the child in need category enabling adequate, coordinated support and oversight to be provided for children and families with complex needs. Evidence from our study evaluating this approach suggests that a simple protocol provided a clear process within, which social workers and agency partners felt confident and safe to practice outside of the formal CP framework. The protocol prevented drift and helped to create a space within, which relational social work practice flourished.     

‘Nothing about us without us’: the emerging disability movement and advocacy in China

The disability movement and disabled persons’ self-help organizations (DPOs) are emerging in China, some of which succeeded in promoting policy and social changes with special strategies. Based on an original survey and interview, this article explains the development and survival strategies of China’s DPOs, and especially interprets some successful cases of social advocacy and policy advocacy in the emerging disability movement. It is hoped that scholars will pay more attention to the advocacy and public engagement of the disability community in non-western settings in the future.     

The association between social support networks and maternal employment: a comparison of western German,eastern German,and migrant mothers of preschool-aged children

A lack of adequate childcare can delay mothers’ return to the labor market after childbirth. This paper examines whether social support with childcare by kin and friends facilitates maternal employment in the first 72 months after childbirth. Using data from the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) 1993–2009, a comparison of natives (n?=?1409) and migrants (n?=?411) in corporative-conservative western Germany with mothers in former socialist eastern Germany (n?=?528) shows that kinship support is positively associated with maternal employment when public childcare is limited. Western German and migrant mothers return to work sooner if they are surrounded by kin. But kin do not provide support for maternal employment in eastern Germany, where public childcare is more easily accessible and continuous female employment is a prevalent social norm. Friendship networks, by contrast, are most valuable for maternal employment if they complement public childcare.     

Family support policies and child outcomes: a realist-scoping review*

Family support policies (FSP) refer to government policies that promote the well-being of families with children (e.g. job-protected paid leave, cash transfers, childcare). We developed an initial conceptual and theoretical framework of FSP and conducted a realist-scoping review to document the state of evidence regarding the influence of FSP on three child outcomes: poverty, development, and health. Based on the contexts and mechanisms through which FSP are hypothesized to affect child outcomes, we constructed a framework to guide a search of five electronic databases (OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge). We analysed articles meeting our inclusion criteria (i.e. conceptualized FSP as a function of the welfare state; conceptualized child poverty, development, and health as outcomes; and conducted empirical analyses) in relation to our mechanisms and thematic concerns (context, developmental periods, and differential impacts). A total of 22 studies met our inclusion criteria, which tested 25 independent child outcomes. Our findings identified initial mechanisms that explain the relationship between FSP and child outcomes through (1) increasing parents’ basic capabilities, (2) shaping parents’ childcare options, and (3) influencing parental leave-taking and shifting beliefs about gender relationships in the home and workplace. Future work will be to test these mechanisms and framework through a realist synthesis.     

‘I couldn’t just entirely be her sister’: the relational and social policy implications of care between young adult siblings with and without disabilities

Research has commonly explored siblings of people with disabilities’ roles in care for their brothers or sisters with disabilities. Social policy has also commonly framed young adult siblings of people with disabilities as ‘young carers’. However, there has been less consideration of the implications of care for the relationship shared between young adult siblings with and without disabilities and of what this may mean for social policy. What do different types of care mean for sibling relationships? What are the relational and social policy implications of care between siblings? Drawing on a qualitative study of 25 siblings with disabilities and 21 siblings without disabilities aged 15–29, this article explores how young adult siblings perceive, talk and act with regard to the different types of care enacted between them. The article identifies how, during young adulthood, some types of care can endanger siblings’ capacity to feel like siblings and discusses ways that young adult siblings talk and act in order to – as best they can – keep their role within the bounds of a normative sibling relationship. The findings are discussed in light of implications for social policy, particularly with regard to seeing siblings of people with disabilities as ‘young carers’.     

Evaluation from a Gender+ Perspective as a Key Element for (Re)gendering the Policymaking Process

ABSTRACT

Feminist scholars have challenged the neutrality of policymaking processes and the outputs resulting from these processes. However, some elements of policymaking have not been studied as well as others. In this article I explore the concept of evaluation from a gender+ perspective as an essential step for a complete gender mainstreaming strategy, which can help to identify gender issues that should be integrated into the content of evaluated policies and to ensure gender does not get lost in the policymaking process. This exploration is carried out by relying on feminist policy and evaluation studies.