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 November 2022, the commercial company, OpenAI, launched ChatGPT. Since then, university students have rapidly become regular users of this artificial intelligence (AI) platform. One reason for this is the powerful capability of this generative AI tool to produce textual content, which in many cases, is almost indistinguishable from human-generated content. Another reason is that ChatGPT easily gives anyone access to knowledge. However, there is a problem as the vast majority of its users have no idea how this AI platform works and thus overlook the importance of thinking critically about information communicated in ChatGPT. While some call for banning this generative AI tool, this study aims to provide evidence that science classrooms can become scenarios where students find explicit, concrete, and realistic opportunities to critically evaluate scientific information generated by ChatGPT.

An intervention study was conducted with 55 students (26 females and 29 males, 17–24 years old) during a university Spanish-English bilingual science course taught within an active learning environment. The data consist of the written critiques of the students about Spanish-English bilingual scientific texts produced by ChatGPT.

Results indicate that the intervention had a positive effect on students’ abilities to construct sound arguments in Spanish and in English while judging the quality of scientific texts produced by this AI bot. Moreover, the findings suggest that the intervention enriched students’ skills to make improvements to texts produced by this generative AI tool.

The evidence provided in this study contributes to the exploration of possibilities to help students become critical users of ChatGPT.

Past research has shown there is a relationship between body image, sexual behavior, and pleasure. However, the majority of this research has centered on heterosexual participants. In this analysis, the author considers how this relationship between body image, sexual behavior, and pleasure may look within women and genderqueer individuals who are all AFAB (assigned female at birth) with 26 out of 30 participants identifying as LGBTQIA+. The author examines perceptions of body size, body hair, and genitals to consider how intersections of social structures – specifically internalized sexism, racism, and misogyny – influence the participants’ experience of sexual interactions. Both resistance and embodiment of traditional gender norms, even as queer women and genderqueer individuals, were examined in these narratives. The majority of the moments where traditional gender norms are examined describe situations when the participants were sexually interacting with cis-gendered men.

The purpose of this paper is to present the views of people living with dementia in extra care housing (ECH). This is a model of housing with care and support aiming to support older people, including those with dementia, to live independently. Previous research identifies benefits but is predominantly derived from third-party accounts, with the voices of those living with dementia in ECH significantly absent.

This study adopted a qualitative approach conducting 100 interviews across 8 ECH schemes in England. Over half of the interviews were conducted with people living with dementia and their families with the remainder involving staff and commissioners.

Findings suggest there are a range of benefits including owning your own home, having a safe, age friendly location with flexible support, social interaction and continuing to live as a couple. Challenges included availability of staff, flexible resourcing, loneliness and the advancing symptoms of dementia.

Despite efforts to create an inclusive, diverse sample, the participants were all White British. Participants involved were identified by gatekeepers, which may present some bias in the selection.

Whilst ECH offers benefits to people living with dementia, addressing the challenges is essential for effective dementia care. Improving staff training, promoting person-centred care and fostering an inclusive community are critical for enhancing residents’ well-being and quality of life.

This paper explored the lived experiences of residents and family members, providing new insight into the advantages and disadvantages of ECH for people living with dementia.

The purpose of this paper is to present the results of a scoping review on the implementation of Article12 in health care. The scoping review will provide a summary and overview of the key concepts and published literature on this topic internationally. Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children have a right to express their views, to have them heard and for their views to be given due weight in all matters that affect them. Despite increased calls for Article 12 to be given attention in health care, there is little evidence to suggest this has been well implemented and embedded in Australian health-care delivery. The scoping review was undertaken to provide a summary and overview of the key concepts and published literature on this topic internationally.

A five-step methodological framework described by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) was used to undertake the scoping review. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis was used as a guideline for undertaking the study selection.

Children are still not routinely involved in health-care decision-making, are frequently left out of service planning and evaluation and the perception that they lack the capability to make rational decisions persists.

While there has been a focus on research that investigates children’s participation in health-care decision-making in recent years, there is little that directs attention specifically to the implementation of Article 12, particularly in Australian health care. Recommendations are made for further research in these areas.

The United Nation’s treaty from the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) speaks to the assurance of rights and access to justice. To assure the rights addressed in the treaty, disability scholars have argued for a collaborative approach between police officers, mental health, Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, professionals, and disability rights organisations. Internationally, we have witnessed that rights are being trampled at the intersection of race/ethnicity, gender identity, disability, and sexual orientation. Interactions with the police and the various systems are sometimes experienced as sources of trauma, racism, disrespect, pain, and abuse by individuals living with disabilities. Allyship and organising with the community, particularly with BIPOC and other ‘minoritised’ communities, is essential for policy and other systemic change. Community conversations were done to learn how Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and allies experience and address policing and disability and act at these intersections. The advocacy and activism of Surviving Race: The Intersection of Injustice, Disability, and Human Rights served as the impetus for this study. Surviving Race was created to unite psychiatric survivors, BIPOC impacted by the mental health and disability systems, White allies, and members of the LGBQTIA+ community to stand in solidarity with activists who were demanding systemic change after the deaths of far too many. This chapter explores intersectional and cross-disability allyship, allyship to BIPOC disability, and psychiatric survivor communities. It examines how people with disabilities and allies can more effectively work at the intersection of race, rights, equity, and justice.

The paper aims to provide companies with a better understanding of the needs of institutional investors to improve the disclosure of sustainability information by companies. The study investigates the changed information needs of institutional investors resulting from the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR).

This study uses an internet-based survey instrument amongst institutional investors to gain insights into their needs regarding sustainability information. The authors received 155 responses in total and use descriptive statistics and t-tests to analyse the survey data.

The results demonstrate that the implementation of the SFDR challenges institutional investors, as it affects their decision process. Additionally, the findings still indicate a lack of available corporate sustainability information, making it even more challenging for institutional investors to make appropriate investment decisions. Respondents suggest that information on climate-related risks is more important than the European Union (EU) Taxonomy metrics for meeting the SFDR requirements.

The findings are mainly restricted to the opinion of European investors. However, the evidence contributes to the existing literature by investigating institutional investors' information needs in the new regulatory landscape.

As the study provides insights into institutional investors' needs, reporting companies recognise the relevance of transparently providing sustainability information to be further considered in the investment process of institutional investors despite the regulation. The findings can help regulators develop uniform and global sustainability reporting standards.

This paper is the first to provide evidence on sustainability information requested on the institutional investors' side. The survey gathers primary data from professional investment members unavailable in databases or reports.