Dataset Information

Increasing the accessibility and impact of justice-related student and practitioner research.

ABSTRACT: Much good quality research by pre-doctoral students and case-work focused practitioners remains unpublished. However, their findings could contribute to the evidence base underpinning science and practice within international justice system contexts. There are two main challenges to making findings accessible: reaching all criminal justice stakeholders, and encouraging collaborative efforts in research addressing 'real world' problems. This article presents the rationale for a new, open access repository. The aim is to share good quality pre-doctoral and practitioner criminal justice research across traditional disciplinary and international borders. Such a repository should be easy to use, well maintained and sustainable. Its reach, value and impact also need to be measurable. We present the major considerations relating to the operation and workflow of such a repository, and outline the potential value, benefits and limitations. Our research suggests that the proposed repository could foster interdisciplinary and collaborative work to benefit global justice systems and societies.

SUBMITTER: Bolton-King RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7219186 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Increasing the accessibility and impact of justice-related student and practitioner research.

Bolton-King Rachel S RS Kara Helen H Cassella John P JP Rankin Brian W J BWJ Morgan Ruth M RM Burke Siobhan S Fripp Dom D Kaye John P JP

Forensic science international. Synergy 20191121

Much good quality research by pre-doctoral students and case-work focused practitioners remains unpublished. However, their findings could contribute to the evidence base underpinning science and practice within international justice system contexts. There are two main challenges to making findings accessible: reaching all criminal justice stakeholders, and encouraging collaborative efforts in research addressing 'real world' problems. This article presents the rationale for a new, open access r ...[more]

PMID: 32412000

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAdvances in health equity rely on representation of diverse groups in population health research samples. Despite progress in the diversification of research samples, continued expansion to include systematically excluded groups is needed to address health inequities. One such group that is infrequently represented in population health research are adults with intellectual disability. Individuals with intellectual disability experience pervasive health disparities. Representation in population health research is crucial to determine the root causes of inequity, understand the health of diverse populations, and address health disparities. The purpose of this paper was to develop recommendations for researchers to increase the accessibility of university health research and to support the inclusion of adults with intellectual disability as participants in health research.MethodsA comprehensive literature review, consultation with the university ethics review board, and review of United States federal regulations was completed to identify barriers to research participation for individuals with intellectual disability. A collaborative stakeholder working group developed recommendations and products to increase the accessibility of university research for participants with intellectual disability.ResultsEleven key barriers to research participation were identified including gaps in researchers' knowledge, lack of trust, accessibility and communication challenges, and systematic exclusion among others. Together the stakeholder working group compiled seven general recommendations for university health researchers to guide inclusion efforts. Recommendations included: 1) address the knowledge gap, 2) build community partnerships, 3) use plain language, 4) simplify consent and assent processes, 5) establish research capacity to consent, 6) offer universal supports and accommodations, and 7) practice accessible dissemination. In addition, four products were created as part of the stakeholder working group to be shared with researchers to support the inclusion of participants with intellectual disability. 1) Supports I Need Checklist, 2) Plain language glossary of health and research terms, 3) Understanding Consent and Assent in Plain Language, 4) Easy-Read Paper Template.ConclusionCommunity members and individuals with intellectual disability want to be included in research and are eager to engage as research participants. It is the responsibility of the researcher to open the door to university health research. The recommendations discussed in this paper could increase accessibility for a broader range of research participants and, in particular, promote the inclusion of individuals with intellectual disability to advance health equity in population health research.

Project description:ContextThe function of medical school entities that determine student advancement or dismissal has gone largely unexplored. The decision making of 'academic progress' or student promotions committees is examined using a theoretical framework contrasting ethics of justice and care, with roots in the moral development work of theorists Kohlberg and Gilligan.ObjectivesTo ascertain promotions committee members' conceptualisation of the role of their committee, ethical orientations used in member decision making, and student characteristics most influential in that decision making.MethodsAn electronic survey was distributed to voting members of promotions committees at 143 accredited allopathic medical schools in the USA. Descriptive statistics were calculated and data were analysed by gender, role, institution type and class size.ResultsRespondents included 241 voting members of promotions committees at 55 medical schools. Respondents endorsed various promotions committee roles, including acting in the best interest of learners' future patients and graduating highly qualified learners. Implementing policy was assigned lower importance. The overall pattern of responses did not indicate a predominant orientation toward an ethic of justice or care. Respondents indicated that committees have discretion to take individual student characteristics into consideration during deliberations, and that they do so in practice. Among the student characteristics with the greatest influence on decision making, professionalism and academic performance were paramount. Eighty-five per cent of participants indicated that they received no training.ConclusionsPromotions committee members do not regard orientations of justice and care as being mutually exclusive and endorse an array of statements regarding the committee's purpose that may conflict with one another. The considerable variance in the influence of student characteristics and the general absence of committee member training indicate a need for clear delineation of the medical profession's priorities in terms of justice and care, and of the specific student characteristics that should factor into deliberations.

Project description:BackgroundPatient and Public Involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly being utilized to better connect patients and researchers. The Patient Engagement Studio (PES) supports PPI in research by working directly with researchers throughout various stages of their projects. Recently, two researchers presented to the PES for assistance with their project, Embryo+™. The purpose of Embryo+™ is to decrease miscarriage rates using RNA sequencing technology that screens for the most viable embryos. To date, no examples of PPI directly in the planning or implementation of bench research concerning in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer have been identified.Main bodyEmbryo+™ researchers met in-person with the PES two times (fall 2019; each meeting had 9 PES members in attendance) for initial feedback and protocol development. After these meetings, PES leadership and Embryo+™ researchers decided that the unique nature of the project merited a PPI evaluation. Subsequent evaluation of engagement efforts occurred by reviewing the PES reports for the Embryo+™ researchers, conducting two recorded web-based discussion meetings with the PES (summer 2020; meeting 1 n = 7; meeting 2 n = 6), and a brief survey (n = 13). The discussion meetings provided an opportunity for the PES members to define engagement themes through consensus via verbal agreement to the studio director's periodic summaries during the discussions. Combining survey results and PES themes allowed for a broad discussion for meaningful engagement. The Embryo+™ researchers established trust with the patients by changing some of their language in response to patient suggestions, allowing for unintended ethical conversations, and implementing the patient developed protocols. Overall, the patient experts thought this project was very meaningful and valuable, quantified by a mean loyalty score 89.43 (s.d. 10.29).ConclusionBench science researchers may need additional PPI training prior to engaging with patient groups. PPI in this project was successful in large part due to this training, where the director emphasized the importance of gaining trust with the patients. The researchers applied what they learned and several examples of how to develop trust with patients are discussed. If trust is established, PPI in an ethically charged, basic science research study can be both valuable and successful.

Dataset Information

Increasing the accessibility and impact of justice-related student and practitioner research.

Publications

Increasing the accessibility and impact of justice-related student and practitioner research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets