Abstract
In this paper, I introduce a special case of epistemic injustice that I call ‘structural contributory injustice’. This conception aims to capture some dimensions of how policy—separately ...from individual agential interactions—can generate epistemic injustice at a group level. I first locate the case within Kristie Dotson’s original conception of contributory injustice. I then consider one potential case of structural contributory injustice—namely, the policy problem of significant financial risk burden on students considering university in the USA. Finally, I consider potential policy reforms in response to this injustice.
North American classroom teachers routinely face ethical challenges yet are seldom given opportunities to discuss this aspect of their practice with colleagues in professional development (PD). This ...paper analyzes data collected from 58 educators in a large American school district who participated in a PD that used a normative case study (NCS) to support discussions of ethical dilemmas in education. We find that while trusting relationships can mitigate uncomfortable discussions with colleagues, even one-time facilitated NCS PDs provide promising supports for perspective-sharing and internal reflection on ethical dilemmas in teaching.
Introduction. In the context of mental health, obtaining adequate care requires accurate information sharing across diverse actors, institutions and technologies. Yet, information sharing is often ...complicated by the vast range of institutional structures involved, creating multiple constraints for both providers and care-seekers. Method. This study seeks to analyse these obstacles to information sharing through an exploration of provider experiences within a local mental health care system. We conducted sixteen semi-structured interviews with mental health care providers in Philadelphia, USA in order to provide a localized portrait of obstacles to information sharing related to mental health care. Analysis. Conceptually, we expand on Balka and Star’s (2016) framework of individuals’ shadow bodies to understand how information is shared and fractured within the scope of mental health. Results. We outline three dimensions of (or obstacles to) information sharing: physical spaces, inter-institutional referrals, and the influence of external institutions. Together, these factors decontextualise and scatter information in a way that complicates the provision and quality of care. Conclusion. Our paper concludes with a discussion of how our findings can inform information science theory, the design of health data systems and policy related to personal health information.
Research ethics review committees (RERCs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) are responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of research participants while avoiding unnecessary ...inhibition of valuable research. Evaluating RERC/HRPP quality is vital to determining whether they are achieving these goals effectively and efficiently, as well as what adjustments might be necessary. Various tools, standards, and accreditation mechanisms have been developed in the United States and internationally to measure and promote RERC/HRPP quality.
We systematically reviewed 10 quality assessment instruments, examining their overall approaches, factors considered relevant to quality, how they compare to each other, and what they leave out. For each tool, we counted the number of times each of 34 topics (divided into structure, process, and outcome categories) was mentioned. We generated lists of which topics are most and least mentioned for each tool, which are most prevalent across tools, and which are left unmentioned. We also conducted content analysis for the 10 most common topics.
We found wide variability between instruments, common emphasis on process and structure with little attention to participant outcomes, and failure to identify clear priorities for assessment. The most frequently mentioned topics are Review Type, IRB Member Expertise, Training and Educational Resources, Protocol Maintenance, Record Keeping, and Mission, Approach, and Culture. Participant Outcomes is unmentioned in 8 tools; the remaining 2 tools include assessments based on adverse events, failures of informed consent, and consideration of participant experiences.
Our analysis confirms that RERC/HRPP quality assessment instruments largely rely on surrogate measures of participant protection. To prioritize between these measures and preserve limited resources for evaluating the most important criteria, we recommend that instruments focus on elements relevant to participant outcomes, robust board deliberation, and procedures most likely to address participant risks. Validation of these approaches remains an essential next step.
...public institutions are less protected than their private peers when it comes to research and teaching, despite benefiting from more robust First Amendment protections. ...the ideas presented at ...these institutions may be more susceptible to the influence of philanthropic donations, which are increasingly affected by ideological positions about issues like climate or business policy. ...the inequalities within academe are compounded. ...students and professors at some institutions — private or well-off colleges — can engage and challenge a broader diversity of ideas, while others — public institutions dependent on political support or even private institutions dependent on external funds — will lack access to truly open classroom discussions and campus environments, and the learning and
Through a series of semi-structured interviews with mental health care providers, this study explores the gaps in access to mental health services and information in Philadelphia. Following Balka and ...Star 1, we present shadow bodies as a framework for understanding the ways routinized information flows fail to capture the messiness, complexity and context of mental health care needs. While Balka and Star theorized shadow bodies at the level of individual clients, we examine shadow bodies at institutional and infrastructural levels. Expanding the levels of analysis for shadow bodies enriches discussion of how CSCW research can incorporate contextual information about mental health to improve the provision of care.
PDF
