Search results

Ethical principles and practices frequently support the position that people with disability are vulnerable. Vulnerability in research traditionally infers a need for protection from harm and raises questions over the person’s capacity to consent and engage. In addition, vulnerability in ethics infers a state of permanency and one that is all-encompassing for everyone within the vulnerable groups. This construction of vulnerability in effect legitimises the exclusion of people with disability from research or monitors and restricts how people with disability can engage in research. This results in an implicitly ableist environment for research. In this chapter, which has been led by researchers with disability, we argue that there is a critical need to move beyond a popularised social construction of vulnerability which serves to perpetuate barriers to including people with disability in research. Like all terms, the traditional and popular construction of vulnerability is open to reclaiming and reframing. Under this reconstruction, what is traditionally viewed as a limiting vulnerability can be owned, openly disclosed and accommodated. Following a pandemic-inspired ‘new normal’ that supports flexible workplace practices, and in accordance with UNCRPD goals of inclusive employment and reducing disability inequity, we argue that the pathway for people with disability as career researchers needs an ethical review and overhaul. We provide readers with a practical roadmap to advance a more inclusive academy for researchers with disability.

In this commentary, I highlight a few of the assertions made by McDaniel et al. (2013) about the importance of complexity science guided management practices, and extend these ideas specifically to how we might think about reducing seemingly intractable problems in health care such as patient safety, patient falls, hospital acquired infection, and the rise of chronic illness and obesity. I suggest that such changes will require managers and providers to view health care organizations and patients as complex adaptive systems and include patients as full participants in co-producing their health care.

Science is too important to be left solely to scientists, and so the public need to be involved in the design, funding, delivery and implementation of health research, and in discussions about the ethics of research. Since the 1960s, the United Kingdom and many other countries have included scientists from outside health care in various roles in health care research, as well as nonscientists, ordinary citizens, patients and carers. In the last 20 years, these roles have increased in number and range, but significant challenges remain in ensuring that research is always conducted in an ethical fashion. Errors arise when it is assumed that research is ethical because it has passed a single test rather than being subject to constant vigilance; when academic training on its own is regarded as sufficient to guarantee ethical conduct; when pontification about sophisticated dilemmas ignores fundamental matters of equity and helpfulness and when there is an absence of curiosity about the value positions of others (Boaz et al., 2016). We argue in this chapter that in every setting, citizens have the potential to contribute to ethical debates, whether they assist in establishing priorities for research funding, serve as research funding co-applicants, take the lay member places on Research Ethics Committees and Steering Committees, collect and analyze data or co-author academic papers.

The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of the student mental health crisis in Higher Education (HE), and how resilience and grit, two important positive psychological constructs, can be beneficial for university students’ success and wellbeing. As part of a discussion around some of the current approaches to intervening in wellbeing in universities, the chapter provides evidence for the use of PPIs for wellbeing in university students, alongside some of the challenges of implementing these in HE. It also provides an overview of the Thriving Students Framework and presents a case for a multicomponent approach to monitoring and improving educational success. In particular, a wellbeing framework that, alongside resilience, also recognises the importance of strengths, persistence in the face of difficulty, a growth mindset, self-control and mental wellbeing; Academic Tenacity. The implications of utilising this framework for educational attainment in university students are discussed. The Bolton Uni-Stride Scale (BUSS), a single short measure of academic tenacity that combines the attributes enabling measurement and intervention to support university students to thrive, is also presented for educators to use.