Commentary on ‘mentoring and the impact of the research climate’

Conclusions First of all, I would like to commend Roberts and colleagues for taking on a difficult but very important topic. It would be valuable if someone could follow up with a broader sample of universities and laboratories — paying careful attention to possible sampling and non-sampling errors. In general, I recommend that mentors explicitly both learn and teach ethical theory and practice within the context of their scientist development programs. Finally, while it is important to emphasize sound and ethical research standards and processes in mentoring programs, this should not be at the expense of an appropriate emphasis on skills essential to professional competitiveness, such as responsible, effective publication, grant winning, and demonstrably strong performance on the grants won. Dr. Gardenier is a survey statistician at the National Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The views presented are his personal opinions only.     

Placebos and the UK medical research council — and the consumer perspective

The UK Medical Research Council, in order to further its mission of maintaining and improving human health, supports a substantial number of clinical trials on a wide variety of medical questions; some of these trials involve the use of placebos as controls or to maintain blinding. Before providing support, proposed trials are carefully reviewed to assess scientific quality, and to determine whether a placebo is required and is ethical — in addition to ethics review by independent Research Ethics Committees. Some questions such as the choice of placebos in trials in developing countries, in surgical trials and those involving alternative medicine require consideration of additional, specific issues. Involvement of consumers in MRC work has been increasing and includes the establishment of a Consumer Liaison Group; members of this group comment on patient information leaflets for clinical trials, helping to improve patient understanding of trials and ensuring topics like placebo use are explained clearly. Views differ on the value of placebos in clinical care and on their mechanism of action; continuing research is helping to clarify the issues. An earlier version of this paper was presented at an international conference, “Placebo: Its Action and Place in Health Research Today,” held in Warsaw, Poland on 12–13 April, 2003.     

On the motivations for Merleau-Ponty’s ontological research

This paper attempts to clarify Merleau-Ponty’s later work by tracing a hitherto overlooked set of concerns that were of key consequence for the formulation of his ontological research. I argue that his ontology can be understood as a response to a set of problems originating in reflections on the intersubjective use of language in dialogue, undertaken in the early 1950s. His study of dialogue disclosed a structure of meaning-formation and pointed towards a theory of truth (both recurring ontological topics) that post-Phenomenology premises could not account for. A study of dialogue shows that speakers’ positions are interchangeable, that speaking subjects are active and passive in varying degrees, and that the intentional roles of subjects and objects are liable to shift or ‘transgress’ themselves. These observations anticipate the concepts of ‘reversibility’ and ‘narcissism’, his later view of activity and passivity, and his later view of intentionality, and sharpened the need to adopt an intersubjective focus in ontological research.     

Increased reliability for single-case research results: is the bootstrap the answer?

There is need for objective and reliable single-case research (SCR) results in the movement toward evidence-based interventions (EBI), for inclusion in meta-analyses, and for funding accountability in clinical contexts. Yet SCR deals with data that often do not conform to parametric data assumptions and that yield results of low reliability. A resampling technique, the bootstrap, largely bypasses statistical assumptions and usually yields more reliable results. This study answers questions about the extent of need for the bootstrap in SCR and its impact on effect size reliability. The bootstrap was applied in Allison et al. mean shift analyses (Faith, Allison, & Gorman, 1997) to data from 166 published AB graphs. Results showed the bootstrap improved reliability of 88% of the analyses and reduced reliability of only 3%. The reliability improvement was large enough to be practically useful. The bootstrap was paired with a method for cleansing data of autocorrelation, which also proved effective. Pending replication, the findings encourage broad application within SCR of both the bootstrap and autocorrelation cleansing.     

Ethics of field research: Do journals set the standard?

To determine whether ethical issues concerned with field research are addressed in the peer-review process, instructions to authors and reviewers of 141 (mainly natural science) journals were examined to ascertain how often ethical issues were mentioned. Only one-third (n=41) of responding journals addressed ethical issues in their instructions to authors or reviewers. When ethical issues were considered, most of the journals limited their concerns to ethical issues associated with animal and general human experimentation. No journal mentioned ethical practices in working with indigenous peoples or on traditional lands. Only two journals addressed the ethics of research in sensitive areas in their instructions to authors, only one in its instructions to reviewers. We suggest that peer-reviewed journals respond to an emerging issue in ecological research by formally incorporating research ethics into their instructions to authors and reviewers. Furthermore, these instructions should address the ethical issues associated with field research and in working with indigenous peoples and on traditional lands.     

Barking up the wrong tree? Industry funding of academic research

This case raises ethical issues involving conflicts of interest arising from industrial funding of academic research; ethical responsibilities of laboratories to funding agencies; ethical responsibilities in the management of a research lab; ethical considerations in appropriate research design; communication in a research group; communication between advisor and graduate student; responsibilities of researchers for the environment; misrepresentation or withholding of scientific results.     

Jungian theory of dreaming and contemporary dream research – findings from the research project ‘Structural Dream Analysis’

The research method ‘Structural Dream Analysis’ (SDA) is described which allows for systematic and objective analysis of the meaning of dreams produced by patients in Jungian psychotherapies. The method focuses especially on the relationship between the dream ego and other figures in the dream and the extent of activity of the dream ego. Five major dream patterns were identified which accounted for the majority of the dreams. The clients’ dream series were dominated by one or two repetitive patterns which were closely connected to the psychological problems of the dreamers. Additionally, typical changes in the dream series’ patterns could be identified which corresponded with therapeutic change. These findings support Jung's theory of dreams as providing a holistic image of the dreamer’s psyche, including unconscious aspects. The implications for different psychoanalytic theories of dreaming and dream interpretation are discussed as well as implications for the continuity hypothesis.     

Family therapy research: What are the most important variables?

This report summarizes the results of a nearly day-long session of a group of experienced and distinguished family therapy practitioners and researchers. The task the group set for itself was to begin delineating the most important variables to attend to in understanding family therapy and evaluating its effectiveness. With full recognition that such a task could be only partially and tentatively accomplished in the time allotted, a great many such variables were outlined.     

Why theatre-based research works? Psychological theories from behind the curtain

While many scholars have demonstrated the effectiveness of theatre-based knowledge mobilization, fewer studies have examined its psychological dimensions. This article examines some psychological theories that may account for the success behind theatre-based knowledge mobilization. Drawing from the Canadian Experience Project, a study about the labor market challenges of skilled immigrant workers, we show how theatre-based research dissemination efforts attempt to achieve optimal stress by using aesthetic distance processes. We maintain that this psychological capacity to attune to audience members, especially evident in forum theatre, makes theatre a particularly effective means for knowledge mobilization.     

Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?

Animals can be used in many ways in science and scientific research. Given that society values sentient animals and that basic research is not goal oriented, the question is raised: "Is the use of sentient animals in basic research justifiable?" We explore this in the context of funding issues, outcomes from basic research, and the position of society as a whole on using sentient animals in research that is not goal oriented. We conclude that the use of sentient animals in basic research cannot be justified in light of society's priorities.     

Jury decision making research: Are researchers focusing on the mouse and not the elephant in the room?

The concerns of jury research have extensively focused on subject selection, yet larger issues loom. We argue that observed differences between students and non-students in mock juror studies are inconsistent at best, and that researchers are ignoring the more important issue of jury deliberation. We contend that the lack of information on deliberating jurors and/or juries is a much greater threat to ecological validity and that some of our basic findings and conclusions in the literature today might be different if we had used juries, not non-deliberating jurors, as the unit of measure. Finally, we come full circle in our review and explore whether the debate about college and community samples might be more relevant to deliberating versus non-deliberating jurors.     

Rules all the way down: Consumer behaviour from the standpoint of the ‘ONE behavioural’ research programme

This article sets out a unified behavioural research programme that integrates compatible elements of old, new and evolutionary behavioural approaches to economics as an alternative to the dominant unified approach to economics based on rational choice theory and a Walrasian view of market coordination. However, the proposed programme can also be viewed as a general framework for interdisciplinary research on consumer behaviour. It employs the view of scientific research programmes proposed by Lakatos, setting out groups of ‘hard-core’ propositions and their associated ‘do’ and ‘do not’ rules for the conduct of researchers. The unifying theme is that evolution in the economy (and in human systems more generally) entails the creation, adoption and abandonment of rules for dealing effectively with open-ended choice problems that are bedevilled by infinite regress problems and cognitive challenges that people seek to address via personal repertoires of hierarchically related rules. To anticipate behaviour, researchers need to develop knowledge of these rules (including heuristics and routines), their functionality and the processes by which they get changed or prove difficult to change even where they cause problems.     

Seeing ‘the dark passenger’ – Reflections on the emotional trauma of conducting post-disaster research

This paper acknowledges ‘the [my] dark passenger’ of emotional vicarious trauma associated with conducting post-disaster research. Post-disaster research is tightly bounded by ethics and professional codes of conduct requiring us to be vigilant about the impact of our work on our participants. However, as a disaster researcher, I have been affected by vicarious trauma. ‘Direct personal’ vicarious trauma is where I experienced trauma associated with witnessing devastation making a professional separation from my objective subjects impossible. ‘Indirect professional’ vicarious trauma occurred when PhD students and others under my supervision that I sent to disaster affected places, experienced significant negative emotional responses and trauma as they interviewed their participants. In these situations, I became traumatised by my lack of training and reflected on how the emphasis on the participants came at the expense of the researcher in my care. Limited literature exists that focuses on the vicarious trauma experienced by researchers, and their supervisors working in post-disaster places and this paper is a contribution to that body of scholarship. In acknowledging and exploring the emotions and vicarious trauma of researchers embedded in landscapes of disaster, it becomes possible for future researchers to pre-empt this phenomenon and to consider ways that they might manage this.     

Behavioral obesity research: Where have all the single subjects gone?

Many recent reviews of the literature concerning behavioral treatments of obesity have concluded that behavioral methods have not been as successful in treating this problem as might have been predicted in the early years of behavior modification. Among the many potential reasons for this lack of success is the growing trend to utilize group statistical designs rather than single subject designs to examine the problem of obesity, in spite of the fact that single case methodology has provided the foundation for applied behavior analysis and behavior therapy. Several behavioral journals were surveyed to determine more precisely the trends in types of research strategies utilized in obesity studies. The potential relationship between research methodology and the development of effective treatments is discussed.     

The physician’s role in the protection of human research subjects

Responsibility for the protection of human research subjects is shared by investigators, research ethics committees, sponsors/funders, research institutions, governments and, the focus of this article, physicians who enrol patients in clinical trials. The article describes the general principles of the patient-physician relationship that should regulate the participation of physicians in clinical trials and proposes guidelines for determining when and how such participation should proceed. The guidelines deal with the following stages of the trial: when first considering participation, when deciding whether to enrol patients, when asking patients to participate, when the trial is underway and when it is completed.