1,721,064 research outputs found
Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005
Get PDFInformation: Title: Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Author(s): Jonathan Parker, (Bournemouth University, UK), Bridget Penhale, (University of Sheffield, UK), David Stanley, (Northumbria University, UK) Citation: Jonathan Parker, Bridget Penhale, David Stanley, (2010) "Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005", Social Care and Neurodisability, Vol. 1 Iss: 2, pp.22 - 32 Keywords: Mental Capacity Act 2005, Ethics, Research, Safeguards, Social care Article type: General review DOI: 10.5042/scn.2010.0430 (Permanent URL) Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited Abstract: The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (HM Government, 2005) introduced safeguards to protect people who lack capacity from intrusive research. While these safeguards stemmed from predominantly medical ethical review concerns and developments aimed to protect people from physical and psychological damage and harm, the Act relates to all forms of research. The implications of the requirements of the Act for the conduct of social care research and the identification of helpful approaches or development of new knowledge concerning people who may lack capacity are, as yet, unknown. There are some concerns that the Act does not fully account for social research, does not recognise its importance to and differences from health-related research, and may even hamper such research from taking place. This paper describes the findings and implications from a research project funded by the Social Care Institute for Excellence (SCIE) and the Department of Health that considered the impact of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 on the ethical scrutiny and development of social care research. The particular focus of the study was processes relating to university research ethics committees (URECs). The study was undertaken in two stages, beginning with an online survey of UREC policies and procedures and was followed by interviews with social care researchers working in areas in which people may lack capacity according to the terms of the Act. Recommendations for research ethics review are made that will be of importance to practitioners, policy-makers and researchers
Review of Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture
No full textReview of Gendered Domestic Violence and Abuse in Popular Culture, ShulamitRamon, Michele Lloyd and Bridget Penhale (eds) Bingley, Emerald PublishingLtd, 2021, pp. 208, ISBN 9781838677817, £65.00 (p/b
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Get PDFThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
