Search results

This article describes two approaches to obtaining the views of users of health services: the self‐completion questionnaire and the focus group. The theoretical framework of each method will be given along with implications for their use in clinical audit. Practical examples of both are provided, in relation to the work of a district general hospital. The advantages and disadvantages of questionnaires and focus groups are set out as well as some suggested steps for the successful application of the two methods. In conclusion, it is argued that when used together, focus groups and questionnaires complement one another and allow users' views to be heard within the audit process.

Umami (the so‐called fifth basic taste in addition to sweet, sour, salt and bitter) is the descriptive term given to glutamate found naturally in foods or added as the flavour‐enhancer monosodium glutamate, as well as other combinations of glutamate and nucleotides. Discusses natural sources of glutamate, as well as commercial production and uses of these flavour‐enhancers. Reviews legislation, thus providing a rounded up‐to‐date picture of this new and fascinating subject area.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

The 2014/2015 UK requirement for involvement of service users and carers in training mental health professionals has prompted the authors to review the work of involvement in clinical psychology training in the university programme. Have the voices of service users and carers been heard? The paper aims to discuss this issue.

The authors update the paper of 2011 in which the authors described the challenges of inclusion and the specific approaches the authors take to involvement. The authors do this in the context of the recent change to UK standards for service user and carer involvement, and recent developments in relation to partnership working and co-production in mental healthcare. The authors describe the work carried out by the authors – members of a service user involvement group at a UK university – to ensure the voices of people affected by mental health difficulties are included in all aspects of training.

Careful work and the need for dedicated time is required to enable inclusive, effective and comprehensive participation in a mental health training programme. It is apparent that there is a group of service users whose voice is less heard: those who are training to be mental health workers.

For some people, involvement has increased. Trainee mental health professionals’ own experience of distress may need more recognition and valuing.

The authors are in a unique position to review a service-user-led project, which has run for 12 years, whose aim has been to embed involvement in training. The authors can identify both achievements and challenges.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

Current issues of Publishers' Weekly are reporting serious shortages of paper, binders board, cloth, and other essential book manufacturing materials. Let us assure you these shortages are very real and quite severe.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

The following classified, descriptive list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” The prevailing policy of including all reference books received has temporarily allowed the listing of titles with imprints older than two years; with increased receipt of more current titles from a longer list of publishers, this policy will soon be discontinued (with the exception of reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

The purpose of this paper is to present the initial relationship between the Classification Research Group (CRG) and the Center for Documentation and Communication Research (CDCR) and how this relationship changed between 1952 and 1970. The theory of normative behavior and its concepts of worldviews, social norms, social types, and information behavior are used to characterize the relationship between the small worlds of the two groups with the intent of understanding the gap between early classification research and information retrieval (IR) research.

This is a mixed method analysis of two groups as evidenced in published artifacts by and about their work. A thorough review of historical literature about the groups as well as their own published works was employed and an author co-citation analysis was used to characterize the conceptual similarities and differences of the two groups of researchers.

The CRG focused on fundamental principles to aid classification and retrieval of information. The CDCR were more inclined to develop practical methods of retrieval without benefit of good theoretical foundations. The CRG began it work under the contention that the general classification schemes at the time were inadequate for the developing IR mechanisms. The CDCR rejected the classification schemes of the times and focused on developing punch card mechanisms and processes that were generously funded by both government and corporate funding.

This paper provides a unique historical analysis of two groups of influential researchers in the field of library and information science.