Search results

This chapter explores the role of an ethics committee led by disabled academics, in supporting co-produced disability research beyond academia, in the context of a five-year research programme in the UK (2015–2020). This chapter includes reflections by the Ethics Committee members, alongside documentary research which analysed the communications between the Ethics Committee and the research projects it supported. This review of the role of the Ethics Committee showed that there were dilemmas in considering the boundaries between ethical review and providing pedagogic advice on research design, and in balancing its role in supporting and regulating research. Ethics review processes are sometimes seen as overly bureaucratic and as an obstacle course for researchers, and this was also sometimes the case for projects supported by the DRILL (Disability Research on Independent Living and Learning) Ethics Committee. Lessons to be learned from the process included that communication between ethics committees and researchers is key, and that ethics review can be a two-way process, recognising the expertise of both the researchers and the reviewers, thus mirroring the principles of co-production. We suggest that an alternative model for ethics review process could build on this generally positive experience of the DRILL Ethics Committee.

In this article, we examine the historical and cultural foundations of Nordic states’ strong contemporary social indicators to understand whether their successes can be replicated in other contexts.

We draw on a range of academic literature to frame a comparison of two regions’ cultural and theological roots, identifying contrasts to make arguments about prescriptions for contemporary welfare policy.

We find Nordic history contributes to a duty-based culture with strong cohesion and social trust. These cultural norms make palatable welfare policies with strong activation measures, while the US model prefers to avoid the latter because of its strong cultural orientation to rights and autonomy.

To mitigate differences between the Nordic states and other cultural contexts, policymakers seeking to replicate Nordic welfare successes should consider welfare programming that combines stronger activation policies with oversight and relational components that mitigate gaps in social cohesion.

We uniquely bring together the literature on comparative welfare policy and on religion and culture to understand the precursors of contemporary attitudes and their implications for welfare policy prescriptions.