Researching stigma as an outsider: considerations for qualitative outsider research

In this article, we discuss a number of important considerations that we have encountered in the process of researching health stigma topics as “outsiders”: researchers (personally) unfamiliar with the experience or topic under study. In particular, we discuss the importance of the following: a reflective stance, challenging negative representations, flexible and sensitive recruitment strategies, validating experiences of stigma, and participant control and power. We see these points as particularly important in the context of researching stigma as outsiders, where our privilege may contribute to unhelpful, narrow, de-politicized or overly simplistic representations of particular “groups” or experiences. We share these considerations in hope of assisting other researchers to reflect on, and articulate, how they negotiate their positionings within their research and the ways in which they shape and construct the research agenda and, by implication, the people or topics under examination.     

An Ethical Exploration of Barriers to Research on Controlled Drugs

We examine the ethical, social, and regulatory barriers that may hinder research on therapeutic potential of certain controversial controlled substances like marijuana, heroin, or ketamine. Hazards for individuals and society and potential adverse effects on communities may be good reasons for limiting access and justify careful monitoring of these substances. Overly strict regulations, fear of legal consequences, stigma associated with abuse and populations using illicit drugs, and lack of funding may, however, limit research on their considerable therapeutic potential. We review the surprisingly sparse literature and address the particular ethical concerns pertinent to research with illicit and addictive substances, such as undue inducement, informed consent, therapeutic misconception, and risk to participants, researchers, and institutions. We consider the perspectives of key research stakeholders and explore whether they may be infected with bias. We conclude by proposing an empirical research agenda to provide an evidentiary basis for ethical reasoning.     

Prompting reflection and learning in career construction counseling

Adopting the overall framework provided for an international inquiry into career counseling interventions, this article reports on a qualitative study into the efficacy of a relatively new approach to practice in England. Using career construction interviews as the counseling intervention, research involving two adult participants was undertaken. Interpersonal process recall (IPR) was used to explicate the perceptions and understandings of both the participants and the counselor in the process. Outcome analysis framed the approach used to making sense of the data collected. Two contrasting responses were immediately evident from participants in the counseling intervention: one positive and one negative. The use of the IPR process enabled an understanding of the value of a structured process of reflection.     

Happier together. Social cohesion and subjective well‐being in Europe

Despite mushrooming research on “social” determinants of subjective well‐being (SWB), little is known as to whether social cohesion as a collective property is among the key societal conditions for human happiness. This article fills this gap in investigating the importance of living in a cohesive society for citizens' SWB. For 27 European Union countries, it combines the newly developed Bertelsmann Foundation's Cohesion Index with individual well‐being data on life evaluation and psychological functioning as surveyed in the recent European Quality of Life Survey. The main results from multi‐level analyses are as follows. First, Europeans are indeed happier and psychologically healthier in more cohesive societies. Second, all three core domains of cohesion increase individuals' SWB. Third, citizens in the more affluent part of Europe feel the positivity of social cohesion more consistently than those in the less affluent part. Finally, within countries, cohesion is good for the SWB of resource‐rich and resource‐poor groups alike. Our findings also shed new light on the ongoing debate on economic progress and quality of life: what makes citizenries of affluent societies happier is, in the first place, their capacity to create togetherness and solidarity among their members—in other words, cohesion.     

Exploitative,irresistible, and coercive offers: why research participants should be paid well or not at all

This paper begins with the assumption that it is morally problematic when people in need are offered money in exchange for research participation if the amount offered is unfair. Such offers are called ‘coercive’, and the degree of coerciveness is determined by the offer's potential to cause exploitation and its irresistibility. Depending on what view we take on the possibility to compensate for the sacrifices made by research participants, a wish to avoid ‘coercive offers’ leads to policy recommendations concerning payment for participation. For sacrifices considered compensable, we ought to offer either no payment or payment at a level deemed fair, while for sacrifices deemed incompensable, we always ought to offer no payment because as compensation appears and increases, so too does coercion. This article provides a model for thinking of the way in which degrees of exploitativeness, irresistibility, and coerciveness interact with the size of the reward for compensable and incompensable cases. The conclusions are of particular relevance in contexts where potential research participants are poor or in other ways lack reasonably good options, as is often the case when international pharmaceutical companies or researchers based in the Global North place clinical trials in the Global South.     

The Need for Synergy in Academic Policies: An Introduction to the Dialogue on Pre‐registration

There has been much debate on the need for preregistering experimental studies. Opinions differ with some people believing that “pre‐registration should be required—for us to believe the results of papers,” and others believing that “pre‐registration makes no difference to science and just adds work.” This research dialogue brings differing viewpoints together, in an open academic dialogue. Two target articles and two commentaries discuss what pre‐registration does for replicability of studies, and what cost it adds on authors and reviewers. Additionally, in my introduction to the research dialogue, I deliberate on the need for synergy between our journals, review teams, authors, and institutions, in order for any new policies on pre‐registration to be successfully adopted.     

Le capital psychologique : un construit d’intérêt majeur pour les psychologues du travail

This literature review focuses on the concept of Psychological Capital (PsyCap), a construct that comprises dimensions of self-efficacy, hope, resilience and optimism. France has not a particular interest at the moment in PsyCap. The objective of this article is to provide a comprehensive review on both the relevance and use of PsyCap in work psychology. Once we have reviewed the conceptual foundations of PsyCap, its measurement and its consequences on various areas such as health and occupational attitudes will be dealt with. We will also identify the antecedents of this construct. Finally, research prospects will be developed.