Search results

Research that follows people over a period of time (longitudinal or panel studies) is increasingly recognised as of great importance in helping us to understand the ageing process and changes over time in the lives of older people. If people drop out of studies ‐ which older people are more likely to do ‐ the value of the study diminishes. This research draws on evidence from ongoing and previous longitudinal studies of people aged 55 and over to examine what factors encourage the retention of participants and what causes them to drop out. The research is synthesising existing evidence, drawing together the experiences of researchers involved in longitudinal studies, and collecting some new evidence about the views of survey participants. This article reports on the first part of the research by drawing together evidence from other studies. These show that there are some factors that are related to attrition whereas for others the evidence is mixed. Methods employed by these studies to reduce attrition and retain participants are examined. It must be noted that apart from the consistent finding that attrition is associated with age, education, socio‐economic status and cognitive impairment, not all studies examined the same variables; some only being explored by one study. This makes it difficult to draw any further conclusions and indicates that attrition needs to be addressed in a uniform manner by more studies. This article identifies some implications for policy‐makers and practitioners.

Increasing attention is being placed on clinical trials as a source of evidence. Presents thoughts about the advantages and disadvantages of clinical trials and their influence on thinking and clinical practice.

If law's foundational promise lies in the belief that it promotes the social good, then we need to reassess the limits of that promise. Exploring the often problematic translation of legal goods into social ones, the central claim is that the legal discipline has been limited by a “legal imperative” that manifests itself in an excessive focus upon law as a social tool and attitude of complacency in the face of law's limits. Seeking to displace this approach, the author argues for an attitudinal shift that expresses honesty about limits, greater social inquisitiveness and care about law's promise.

The objective of this conceptual paper is to synthesise psychodynamics and paradox inherent in complex situations to investigate the cause and effects of identity shifts and self-organisation particularly apposite expatriation. The methodology used will be to find intersections and parallels among psychodynamic theories1 to demonstrate that inside the paradox of expatriation is other-organisation, which is basically defined as the unorganised becoming organised in ‘good’ or ‘bad’ ways and with formal and planned interventions. We will also see that self-organisation works with other-organisation to keep one safely ‘held’ between feelings of being isolated or engulfed. Whether real or imagined, perceptions of being isolated and engulfed lead to the confusion or pain of becoming encapsulated.

Universities globally have faced the introduction of research performance assessment systems that provide monetary and ranking rewards based on publication outputs. This study aims to seek an understanding of the implementation of performance-based research funding (PBRF) and its impact on the heads of departments (HoDs) and accounting academics in New Zealand (NZ) tertiary institutions. The study explores NZ accounting academics’ experiences and their workload; the relationship between teaching and research in the accounting discipline and any issues and concerns affecting new and emerging accounting researchers because of PBRF.

Applying an institutional theoretical lens, this paper explores accounting HoDs’ perceptions concerning the PBRF system’s impact on their academic staff. The research used semi-structured interviews to collect data from NZ’s eight universities.

The key findings posit that many institutional processes, some more coercive in nature, whereas others were normative and mimetic, have been put in place to ensure that academics are able to meet the PBRF requirements. HoDs suggest that their staff understand the importance of research, but that PBRF is a challenge to new and emerging researchers and pose threats to their recruitment. New academics must “hit the ground running” as they must demonstrate not only teaching abilities but also already have a track record of research publications; all in all, a daunting experience for new academics to overcome. There is also a teaching and research disconnect. Furthermore, many areas where improvements can be made in the design of this measurement tool remain.

The PBRF system has significantly impacted on accounting academics. Central university research systems were established that subsequently applied coercive institutional pressures onto line managers to ensure that their staff performed. This finding offers scope for future research to explore a better PBRF that measures and rewards research productivity but without the current system’s unintended negative consequences.

Several recent statistical analyses provide overwhelming evidence for substantial injustice in immigration court decisions. Writers also explored the data for evidence of bias. Several ended with recommendations for more legal training for judges and more professional appellate review. These recommendations assume that the problem is in the interpretation of the law and conduct of the trial. My own experience has been that there is actually a greater problem in the interpretation of facts, at several levels. Courts provide for translators, but merely verbal translation is not enough. Cultural translation is required. In this chapter I illustrate what cultural translation is with instances from five different asylum cases that I have been involved in as an expert witness. I conclude with recommendations to support better use of this kind of information.