Search results

This chapter centers on practices of Review Ethics Board (REBs) as they may impact academic freedom for faculty members acting as participants in research. A case example is provided, which highlights the authors’ experience applying for ethics clearance to conduct a qualitative research study. While the study was classified as minimal risk and received ethics clearance from the researchers’ host institution, additional research ethics applications were required from the higher education settings identified, before being able to recruit participants. In addition to pressing timelines, extra workload and the coordination of different requirements for each institution, not all REBs permitted faculty members the option to reveal their identity and their beliefs on pedagogical practices. This particular experience with the ethics review process elicited questions centering on research ethics committees’ practices in terms of (a) providing opportunities for faculty members, as participants in research, to freely share information about their beliefs and teaching practices as well as (b) infringing on faculty members’ autonomy and rights to intellectually express, share and take ownership of their personal beliefs and pedagogical approaches to teaching in higher education.

This paper aims to assess patient satisfaction with nursing care and related hospital services, and association between satisfaction and patient characteristics at the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL).

A systematically selected sample of 380 patients warded for three to 90 days in general surgical/medical units was interviewed on discharge. Data were collected using a satisfaction instrument previously developed and validated for the same setting, that contained 36 items under five sub‐scales. Multiple logistic regression analyses were used to identify factors associated with satisfaction in each sub‐scale.

The paper finds that the majority of respondents were males (61 percent), aged 35‐64 years (70 percent), educated to GCE (O/L) and above (61 percent), and previously hospitalized (66 percent). The proportion satisfied with “interpersonal care” was 81.8 percent, “efficiency and competency”, 89.7 percent, “comfort and environment”, 59.2 percent, “cleanliness and sanitation”, 48.7 percent, and “personalized and general information”, 37.4 percent. Males reported higher satisfaction (OR varied from 2.29‐2.87, p < 0.001) than females. Patients with GCE (A/L) were less satisfied with “comfort and environment” (OR=0.45, p < 0.05) and “cleanliness and sanitation” (OR=0.45, p < 0.05) compared with those educated below grade 5. Satisfaction with “comfort and environment” was lower among patients from medical (OR=0.51, p < 0.01) rather than from surgical units.

Quality can be improved by assuring comfort, cleanliness, sanitary facilities in wards, and provision of general and personalized instructions. Nursing staff should understand patient characteristics and their expectations when providing care.

This is the first study that described patient satisfaction with nursing care and related supportive services using a validated instrument at the NHSL. The study highlighted aspects of dissatisfaction and recognized patient characteristics that predict satisfaction.

There is much hype about academics' attitude to Wikipedia. This paper seeks to go beyond anecdotal evidence by drawing on empirical research to ascertain how academics respond to Wikipedia and the implications these responses have for the take‐up of Web 2.0+. It aims to test the hypothesis that Web 2.0+, as a platform built around the socially constructed nature of knowledge, is inimical to conventional power‐knowledge arrangements in which academics are traditionally positioned as the key gatekeepers to knowledge.

The research relies on quantitative and qualitative data to provide an evidence‐based analysis of the attitudes of academics towards the student use of Wikipedia and towards Web 2.0+. These data were provided via an online survey made available to a number of universities in Australia and abroad. As well as the statistical analysis of quantitative data, qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis using relational coding.

The data by and large demonstrate that Wikipedia continues to be a divisive issue among academics, particularly within the “soft sciences”. However, Wikipedia is not as controversial as popular publicity would lead one to believe. Many academics use it extensively though cautiously themselves, and therefore tend to support a cautious approach to its use by students. However, evidence supports the assertion that there is an implicit if not explicit awareness among academics that Wikipedia, and possibly by extension Web 2.0+, are disruptors of conventional academic power‐knowledge arrangements.

It is clear that academics respond differently to the disruptive effects that Web 2.0+has on the political economy of academic knowledge construction. Contrary to popular reports, responses to Wikipedia are not overwhelmingly focused on resistance but encompass both cautious and creative acceptance. It is becoming equally clear that the increasing uptake of Web 2.0+in higher education makes it inevitable that academics will have to address the “political” consequences of this reframing of the ownership and control of academic knowledge production.

The paper demonstrates originality and value by providing a unique, evidence‐based insight into the different ways in which academics respond to Wikipedia as an archetypal Web 2.0+application and by positioning Web 2.0+within the political economy of academic knowledge construction.

The purpose of this paper is to highlight levels of power in research ethics that are insufficiently addressed in self-ethnographic research literature.

The paper reflexively draws from a qualitative research that was conducted in a higher education institution (HEI) in South Africa. The reflection is substantiated with literature on various aspects of the reflection. The research design was self-ethnography, conducted within a postmodernist paradigm.

The reflection exposes the hidden levels of power in the process of ethical clearance and gatekeeping of access to participants. It also suggests that different theoretical perspectives about ethics work together throughout the self-ethnographic research process.

The research on which the paper is based was conducted in only one college of one HEI. Therefore its findings may only be contextual.

The exposure of the levels of power contributes to the discourses of research ethics and may caution self-ethnographic researchers about the complexities of research ethics involved in this research design.

Although there is plethora of literature about ethics and insider research, little has been done to bring to light the various levels of power that this paper highlights.

The study examined the relationship between psychological contract breach and organizational commitment and whether leader-member exchange and job embeddedness mediate this relationship.

The study adopted a quantitative approach and is based on a sample of 298 teachers in basic schools in Accra, Ghana. Participants completed surveys with standardized measures on psychological contract breach, job embeddedness, leader-member exchange and organizational commitment. Hypothesized relationships were tested using structural equation modeling in AMOS 21.0.

Psychological contract breach had a direct negative relationship with affective and normative commitment but had no significant direct relationship with continuance commitment. Psychological contract breach was indirectly related to affective and normative commitment through both job embeddedness and leader-member exchange, and indirectly related to continuance commitment through only job embeddedness.

Findings from the study suggest that employers' failure to fulfill their obligations to employees has significant potential cost to the organization, and underscore the need for managers, particularly in educational institutions, to institute measures to eliminate or minimize the occurrence of psychological contract breach.

The study contributes to research examining antecedents of organizational commitment as well as the mechanisms linking psychological contract breach to organizational commitment in the educational context.

Despite competition and supply-chain disruptions during Covid-19 pandemic (2019–2021), one grocery retailer consistently thrived and was ranked top. The sources of the sustained performances needed examination. Guided by self-congruity theory and integrating three models, the authors examined how much the retailer's brand performances (brand loyalty, equity, preference and repurchase intentions) were emanating from brand personalities and marketing offerings. The mediating roles of brand loyalty and equity were tested.

Cross-sectional data was collected from 480 frequent customers using an online questionnaire posted on the researchers' social media pages. Factor analysis was conducted to identify the dimension that best describes the grocery retailer. Partial least square–structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) was used to test a conceptual model.

Factor analysis results show that brand sincerity (28.582% variance-explained; M = 4.1) was top (factor 1), followed by excitement (20.336% variance-explained; M = 3.9) and then trustworthiness (18.854% variance-explained; M = 3.87). PLS-SEM results revealed that two brand personalities (brand excitement and trustworthiness) and marketing offerings (price, place, product, promotion) impacted loyalty found to be a strong driver of brand equity. Repurchase intention and brand preference were influenced by brand equity. Brand loyalty mediated most of the relationships between brand personality dimensions, marketing offerings and brand equity. Brand equity also significantly mediated the relationships between brand loyalty, preference and repurchase intentions. The integrated model produced high explanatory powers with brand equity (67.8%), brand preference (71.7%), brand loyalty (63.2%) and repurchase intentions (54.2%).

The study extends a brand personality-loyalty model through integrating two other models that provided marketing offerings and brand equity outcomes. It demonstrates that a stream of profitable customers' responses awaits a retailer who holds both brand and customer mindsets by building admired brand personalities while providing desired marketing offerings.

For many Indigenous nations globally, ethics is a conversation. The purpose of this paper is to share and mobilize knowledge to build relationships and capacities regarding the ethics review and approval of research with Indigenous peoples throughout Atlantic Canada. The authors share key principles that emerged for shifting practices that recognize Indigenous rights holders through ethical research review practice.

The NunatuKavut Inuit hosted and led a two-day gathering on March 2019 in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, Newfoundland and Labrador, to promote a regional dialogue on Indigenous Research Governance. It brought together Indigenous Nations within the Atlantic Region and invited guests from institutional ethics review boards and researchers in the region to address the principles-to-policy-to-practice gap as it relates to the research ethics review process. Called “Naalak”, an Inuktitut word that means “to listen and to pay close attention”, the gathering created a dynamic moment of respect and understanding of how to work better together and support one another in research with Indigenous peoples on Indigenous lands.

Through this process of dialogue and reflection, emergent principles and practices for “good” research ethics were collectively identified. Open dialogue between institutional ethics boards and Indigenous research review committees acknowledged past and current research practices from Indigenous peoples’ perspectives; supported and encouraged community-led research; articulated and exemplified Indigenous ownership and control of data; promoted and practiced ethical and responsible research with Indigenous peoples; and supported and emphasized rights based approaches within the current research regulatory system. Key principles emerged for shifting paradigms to honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice, including: recognizing Indigenous peoples as rights holders with sovereignty over research; accepting collective responsibility for research in a “good” way; enlarging the sphere of ethical consideration to include the land; acknowledging that “The stories are ours” through Indigenous-led (or co-led) research; articulating relationships between Indigenous and Research Ethics Board (REB) approvals; addressing justice and proportionate review of Indigenous research; and, means of identifying the Indigenous governing authority for approving research.

Future steps (including further research) include pursuing collective responsibilities towards empowering Indigenous communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. This entails pursuing further understanding of how to move forward in recognition and respect for Indigenous peoples as rights holders, and disrupting mainstream dialogue around Indigenous peoples as “stakeholders” in research.

The first step in moving forward in a way that embraces Indigenous principles is to deeply embed the respect of Indigenous peoples as rights holders across and within REBs. This shift in perspective changes our collective responsibilities in equitable ways, reflecting and respecting differing impetus and resources between the two parties: “equity” does imply “equality”. Several examples of practical changes to REB procedures and considerations are detailed.

What the authors have discovered is that it is not just about academic or institutional REB decolonization: there are broad systematic issues at play. However, pursuing the collective responsibilities outlined in our paper should work towards empowering communities to build their own consensus around research with/in their people and their lands. Indigenous peoples are rights holders, and have governance over research, including the autonomy to make decisions about themselves, their future, and their past.

The value is in its guidance around how authentic partnerships can develop that promote equity with regard to community and researcher and community/researcher voice and power throughout the research lifecycle, including through research ethics reviews that respect Indigenous rights, world views and ways of knowing. It helps to show how both Indigenous and non-Indigenous institutions can collectively honour Indigenous rights holders through ethical research practice.

Ethical practices in relation to indigenous research require that the researcher decolonise the research. This can be challenging when institutional guidelines are unclear but at the same time exacting in terms of the level of input required as a prerequisite for approval. This article explores the ambiguities of approval through a study of the application process for ‘my’ doctoral research to observe indigenous athlete‐role models engaging with young people. I draw on Simmel’s (1976) ‘stranger’ to enunciate the constraints of approval and consent within a decolonising methodology and to propose the possibilities of an ethics of the self.

Purpose – The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the roles of ethics and wisdom in knowledge economies and specifically the place of ethics and wisdom in social research in knowledge economies.

Approach – It does this through examining traditional theories of ethics, their application in the context of research ethics, and the origins of the current institutional ethics approval regimes. The limitations of consequentialist and deontological approaches to ethics in social research are articulated, as is the rise of neo Aristotelian virtue ethics – to which wisdom is integral. Questions are posed about several high-profile cases of past social research, and the extent to which these might be considered both unethical and unwise. Attention is then given to the place of wisdom in the practice of social research. Aristotle presents practical wisdom as an executive virtue that coherently integrates intellectual and ethical virtues to create deliberative excellence.

Findings – Practical wisdom is thus seen as a way of performing as an educated, skilled, and ethical social actor with carefully constructed predispositions which automatically seek excellence and well-being. Furthermore, a wise social researcher considers the needs of others carefully to try to find the right thing to do, but in understanding others emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise, is not manipulative. The conclusion poses the question as to how practical wisdom might be developed applied to the practices of contemporary social research.

Over recent decades, research institutions have prescribed discrete ethics guidelines for human research with Indigenous people in Australia. Such guidelines respond to concerns about unethical and harmful processes in research, including that they entrench colonial relations and structures. This chapter sets out some of the limitations of these well-intentioned guidelines for the decolonisation of research. Namely, their underlying assumption of Indigenous vulnerability and deficit and, consequently, their function to minimise risk. It argues for a strengths-based approach to researching with and by Indigenous communities that recognises community members’ capacity to know what ethical research looks like and their ability to control research. It suggests that this approach provides genuine outcomes for their communities in ways that meet their communities’ needs. This means that communities must be partners in research who can demand reciprocation for their participation and sharing of their knowledge, time and experiences. This argument is not purely normative but supported by examples of Indigenous research models within our fields of health and criminology that are premised on self-determination.