Carol Levine. Lisa Sowle Cahill. Sheila Payne and Caroline Ellis-Hill. Joel James Shuman and Keith G. All chapters and articles from sources other than these books will be available on reserve. Keep in mind that chapters of books will often be listed under the name of the book. A complete list of these additional books on reserve, as well as additional literature on the various course topics will be provided at the second class. Articles from journals will normally be on reserve in photocopied form. I will also provide a list of the articles from this group that can be accessed online through the ATLA database or through other websites.
Christian Green. Bioethical expertise is widely sought in the framing of public. Bioethicists regularly provide testi-. They present them-. Furthermore, bioethics as John D. Arras indicates is not a. Bioethics is not a monolithic entity or. There is clinical bio-. There is policy-oriented bioethics where the bioethicist cum. There is bio-. Discussions in a clinical bioethics setting often revo lves. Effective ethics training here is done. Medical students. At a time when the concerns of science and society are in-. To hope that someone will solve these very real problems for us.
It is. We need to be reminded that when it comes to. There is a need for a. The chal-. Also, much still needs to be done to inspire and. In this light, Af-. The strengthening of. Appropriate structures for deliberation and action on bioethical. However, there have been global efforts to strengthen and. Research ethics training. Yet, the major challenge is for African gov-. Till date,. The need to create awareness on issues. More efforts are.
There is need to train experts who can look for means and. Also, to bring in leadership and. The major. When human condition and prospects face challenges from. Africa, when the means and methods to teach or introduce the. Many of the. The relevance of bioethics to Africa is of cardinal importance. Bioethics is one of the most flourishing disciplines in the. However, although the list of immoral research is. The major challenge today is the institution of the teaching of.
Individual Page (Not Available)
As such, effective bioethics education and teaching in Africa. Also, there is a need. Committees to function optimally. It consists of building re-. There is a need to encourage the organization of con-. It develops solid partnerships with other bioethics. Moreover, edu-. Andoh, C. Bioethics and the challenges to its growth in Africa. Open Journal of Philosophy, 2, Arras, J. The owl and the ca duceus: Does bioethics need phi-. Miller, J. Humber Eds. Ashcroft, R. Philosophical introduction: Case analysis in clinical ethics.
Ashcroft, A. Lucassen, M. Parker, M. Cambridge: Cambridge. University Press. Baker, R. In defense of bioethics. Ethics , Braddock, C. Empirical methods in bioethics: A cautionary tale. Annals of Internal Medicine, , Cheshire, W. Coggon, J. On Method and resolution in philosophical bioethics. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 20, Emmerich, N. Literature, history and the humanization of bio-. Bioethics, 25, Fins, J. The humanities and the future of bioethics education. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 19, Gesang, B.
Are moral philosophers moral experts? Haimes, E. What can the social sciences contribute to the study. Theoretical, empirical and substantive considerations. Rehmann-Sutter, M. Mieth Eds. The Netherlands: Springer. Harwood, K. Essays on teaching excellence. Toward the. Best in the Academy. Teaching Bioethics through Participation and. Holm, S. Engaging the world: The use of empiri-. Itai, K. A survey on educa-. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, Kohlberg, L.
Essays on moral development. I: The phi-.
The Nature and Prospect of Bioethics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives
Liaschenko, J. Critique of the. Journal of Medical Ethics,. Macer, D. Moral games for teaching bioethics.
Is there an African Bioethics? Eubios Journal of. Asian and Internation al Bioethics, 19, 4. McCullough, L. Was bioethics founded on historical and con-. Memeyer, R. What conception of moral truth works in bioethics? Journal of Medicine and Phil os op h y, 27, Miller, F. The nature and prospect of. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press. Moore, J. Modern Health-. Murray, S. Critical interventions in the ethics of. Challenging the Principle of Autonomy in Bioethics. Myser, C. How bioethics is being taught: A critical review. Kuhse and P. Singer Eds. Pellegrino, E. Bioethics as an interdisciplinary enterprise:.
Where does ethics fit in the mosaic of disciplines? Burns Eds. Peppin, J. The annals of bioethics. Pickering, M. Research methods for cultural studies p. Priaulx, N. Vorsprungdurch technik: On biotechnology, bio-. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare. Ethics, 20, Rasmussen, L. Ethics expertise: History, contemporary per-. Dordrecht: Springer. Rehmann-Sutter, C. Bioethics in.
Renee, F. Is medical education asking too much of bioethics. Schaller, B. Understanding bioethics and the law: The promises. Westport: Prae-. Singer, P. Moral experts. Analysis, 32, Strengthening the role of ethics in medical education. Canadian Medical Association Journal, , Sugarman, J. Methods in medical ethics p. Tamidayo, O. Enhancing the African bioethics initiative. Medical Education, 4, Taylor, H. Qualitative methods. Sulmasy Eds. Turrens, J. Teaching research integrity and bioethics to science. Cell Biology Education, 4, Velasquez, M. A framework for thinking ethically in.
Ethics, 1. All rights reserved. Open Journal of Philosophy This is an open ac cess article distributed under the Creative Commons At- tribution License, which permits unrestricted use, dist ribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In recent times, bioethics has emerged as a burgeoning interdisciplinary field of scholarly investigation which has in the past decades migrated from bedside consultations to public policy debates and wider cultural and social conversations that privilege all discourse about everyday life issues.
Today, bioethics is increasingly seen as a field departing from a multi-disciplinary perspective to an autonomous discipline. Also, there is a shift from a field populated by bioethics pioneers to a field made up of bioethics professionals. However, in Africa the emergen ce and evolution of the field is still problematic as bioethics is not yet an escalating discipline in th e tradition of books, journals, classroom teachings and conferences.
In this paper, it is argued that the lack of an authentic discourse on the nature and contents of bioethics, interdisciplinary research approaches, in stitutional and infrastructural needs and a critical mass of African experts constitutes the major challenges to the teaching of bioethics in Africa. There is a need to reinvigorate standards for teaching bioethics through a radical critique of traditional values, principles, methods and a careful assessment of the new megatrends and challenges in science, technology and medicine. Keywords : African Bioethics; Bioethics Education; Critical Thinking; Empirical Research; Ethics Expertise; Interdisciplinary Research; Medical Ethics; Turning a Blind Eye Introduction The new advances in science and the megatrends in health- care management and delivery are irrevocably transforming the nature and content of bioethics.
As new innovation in science increasingly transforms human wellbeing, concerns about its applications are increasingly under serious scrutiny as there is increasing awareness of the ambivalence of scientific develop- ment. These advances in science are creating moral questions that challenge accepted ethical thinking and require urgent an- swers. Also, confronted with these advances, traditional modes of understanding and teaching bioethics are proving incom- mensurable with new developments and the dilemmas created.
This imposes the need for more critical and radical approaches to the teaching of bioethics in Africa, as citizens will need to make important decisions that affect their lives and society as a whole. Furthermore, academic bioethics programs have proliferated Western universities and bioethics has been institutionalized as an integral part of mainstream education in academia and the task of teaching bioethics has increasingly become inescapable.
Bioethics education within Africa is still sub-marginal and in- sufficient due to the fact that it is not yet an escalating disci- pline in the tradition of books, journals, classroom teachings and conferences. The field has not yet had any considerable recognition and penetrance in academia as it is not yet a vibrant field in terms of scholarly presentations, publications and learn- ing in academic institutions and educational system in Africa.
There is an insufficient scholarly intellectual recognition of the field in Africa as no major steps are being undertaken to insti- tute and initiate the teaching of bioethics in schools and univer- sities. Bioethics is yet to be recognized by most African gov- ernments as a legitimate field of scholarly investigation. In Africa, bioethics is not yet proactive but has remained diminishingly reactive, corrosive and evanescent as it is not yet institutional- ized and legitimized in academia.
There are no experts or trained professional bioethicists in Africa to support the pro- duction of high quality journal articles and there are almost no published books on bioethics by African scholars that can en- courage the development and production of research within the continent. A critical investigation of the status of bioethics in Africa reveals that bioethics education and ethical concerns have unwittingly been unrecognized, downplayed or overlooked by local governments in Africa for the past fifty to sixty years of its existence.
The Nature and Prospect of Bioethics by Franklin G. Miller (ebook)
This situation is unacceptable considering the fact of the influence of bioethics as the most important field that serves and protects the wellbeing of humanity. Its impact on the lives of Africans and the fu ture of bioethics education in Africa is characterized by ambiguity and uncertainty. ANDOH manner. This need is of utmost urgency for Africa today since we need to recreate ethical life and standards. Methodological and Interdisciplinary Research Challenges Bioethics has now evolved to an interdisciplinary field of scholarly investigation on every as pect of life, and this trans- forms it into a disparate discipline that uses different methods and approaches.
As new scientific innovations moves forward introducing complex challenges or sophisticated problems, the need for an expansion and broadening of the scope and horizon of bioethics became acute requiring inputs from different ex- perts from various disciplines. As interdisciplinarity becomes fundamental in bioethics attracting different practitioners, there is conceptual boundary crossing and crosstalk as the borderlines and intersection between the human, social and exact sciences are blurred. In this current context, research and decision mak- ing becomes complex due to the methodological convergence or the synergistic combination of empirical and theoretical methods to investigate facts and beliefs.
Interdisciplinary re- search is a reality on most campuses of Western universities as academic bioethics programs proliferates these institutions and this creates the challenge to know if this burgeoning teaching approach to education is possible within Africa and if not what is required to enable bioethics education in this form develops. Bioethics is complex and multifaceted, drawing on philoso- phy and law as well as science and medicine Schaller, Many bioethical works express what seems to be a rather wor- thy objective, notably, of investigating ways of making people better or making better people.
Conceivably, this invites a pretty broad approach to the question of how we achieve greater health, happiness, and the living of the good life Priaulx, Initially, works in bioethics used a normative analysis of bio- ethical issues, arguing for or against the moral permissibility of a particular technology, practice, or policy.
Around the 70s, physicians and lawyers became involved and started making normative claims about bioethical issues. The shift of bioethics research from normative analysis to empirical study is not in order to curtail the former, but rather to make the field more practically based in the generation, pres- entation and analysis of its vital evidence. In this approach the gap between normative and empirical analysis become an arti- ficial one. The boundaries between them are blurred in much of the relevant work as they share interests in the conceptual, cul- tural, political and practical aspects of the social world Haimes, Empirical research provides the data upon which norma- tive judgments are made: Moral theories, informed by facts, judge practices.
In this context, researcher s collaboratively are actively engaged in exploring the dynamic interplay of psycho- logical, social, cultural, cross-cultural, and biological factors in health, illness, and care; in studying the experiences, feelings, and behavior of patients and families, doctors and nurses; in describing and analyzing the attributes and impact of the hospi- tal as a social world; and in observing and delineating the so- cialization process through whic h medical students were pro- gressively transmuted into physicians Fox, From Percival to the present day, medical ethics and its dis- courses always privilege professional medical perspectives.
The multidisciplinary nature and anti-elitist stance endemic to bioethics creates significant challenges to the pro- fessionalization process and is a factor in the cautious approach bioethics organizations have taken towards professionalization Baker, Interdisciplinary research is de fined as bringing together dif- ferent disciplines to focus on a circumscribed problem, but keeping the disciplines distinct.
The virtue of th is is that the strengths of one method may help overcome the limitations of another, while using two or more methods in any specific research project will help to build up a richer data set Pickering, Interdisciplinary research takes bits and pieces from the con- tributing disciplines and integrates them in ways that produce a new conceptual framework. For instance biomedical research today would include experts from different specialties such as clinicians, social scientists, lawyers, epidemiologists and phi- losophers. In the bioethics landscape, a whole range of different disciplines engage with a research question.
Bioethics entertains relationship with literature, history, religion, philosophy, law, economics, the social sciences and policy. Interdisciplinary research approach in bioethics emphasizes the use of empirical methods to study the role of empirical re- search in bioethics, and how empirical findings could be used in ethical analysis.
The empirical turn in bioethics has brought the methods of the human and social sciences into an explicit dialogue with those of normatively focused analytic applied philosophy Emmerich, Researchers may use empirical or hypothesis-based methods similar to science and theoreti- cal or principled-based methods as in traditional philosophy. Due to the methods, empirical research has grown substantially as a tool for normative ethics and public policy. It has helped elucidate the magnitude of specific issues, explore the beliefs and experiences of stake- holders, and counter erroneous empirical claims of existing policy positions.
Empirical approach seeks to collect empirical data needed to shed light on a bioethical problem, or it attempts to stand outside the discipline in order to study the field itself. Projects use either qualitative or quantitative social science methodology to collect data needed to make persuasive bio- ethical arguments. Qualitative research is used broadly to refer to text-based, non-statistical methods. Generally, qualitative methods involve asking open-ended questions of a relatively small number of informants to gather data to address particular research ques- tions.
Although qualitative data can be gathered to test hy- potheses, more typically the research questions addressed by qualitative methods are discovery, descriptive, and explorative. Qualitative methods expand understanding of what types of experiences, beliefs, or attitudes exist. Meanwhile, quantitative methods are most appropriate when some previous understand- ing of phenomenon exists; they are used to estimate the propor- tion of individuals with particular experiences, beliefs, or atti- tudes and to explore statistical associations between these ex- periences, beliefs, and attitudes i.
Yet, decision making in bioethics is deeper and more than just the methods of qualitative and quantitative inquiry. The fact is ethical deliberation and explanations go deeper than simply providing interesting data for bioethicists to examine. It is for this reason that we must continue to examine such research with caution and use deconstruction an d deliberation to spot out fuzzy thinking and demolish bad arguments before establishing it validity.
We must spot out the logical fallacies, disambiguate the meaning of propositions, criticize definitions, map the logi- cal structure of arguments, and pinpoint their missing premises and flawed inferences. We must be attentive to the fact that research is done rigorously, we must scrutinize conclusions for their soundness, and we must be vigilant that we do not inad- vertently use empirical findings to justify practices that are morally objectionable Braddock, Bioethics research recognizes the fact that the empirical method has its place since it can help sharpen and accurately focus the dimensions of an ethical challenge or bring clarity to core premises and assumption of an argument, but rigor can come in many forms.
Also, empiricism should not be confused with good academic work. It is important to appreci- ate that many of the best designed empirical studies will fail to answer important value questions and that bioethics without such questions is really, nothing at all. If all our studies resulted in an objective outcome, even success would mean failure be- cause we had limited our inquiry to questions that would result in bite-sized answers Fins, However, the interdisciplinary approach to research poses challenges to bioethics as different experts in the field attempt to propose solutions.
John Coggon writes that, there can be difficulty in finding sound resolution between the competing perspectives. Where fundamentals differ, we face apparent deadlock, with theorists seemingly able only to talk across each other. He further writes that what becomes clear is the great unlikelihood of finding a methodology for bioethics. It com- prises too many analysts from too many backgrounds Coggon, Which discipline or method would be capable of doing which job?
What is the state of the art of interdisciplinary scholarship, education, and service in bioethics in Africa? With the increas- ing use of empirical method in bioethics and the quest for more objective evidence through qualitative methods, numbers, it seems, have replaced values, and because of that, much of our deliberations have become impoverished. Further still, there is need to make clear the boundaries that ought to guide interdis- ciplinary research in bioethics and ensure that the autonomy of research disciplines are always respected and understood in authentically interdisciplinary research.
Moreover, interdisci- plinary research is a challenging and complex domain where Africa is still to introduce and integrate in its programs. Its interdisciplinary nature necessitates mastering an extremely broad area of knowledge which bioethics in Africa still needs to improve its scholarly standards. Its complex, indeterminate, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary character creates con- ceptual and theoretical challenges to it teaching, as well as, the need to define it object and scope.
The challenge of combining the empirical and theoretical approaches of research in Africa and for African researchers to integrate interdisciplinary approaches to resolving dilemmas in scientific research and their application is the most daunting task for researchers within the African context.
Also, the chal- lenge to conflate is with ought to this methodological mix re- m ain the vital problem that burden research in the interdiscipli- nary context. African institutions have not yet develop the theo- retical and normative frameworks for assessment-making and evaluation of interdisciplinary research that integrates different methodologies. Additionally, assessment faces serious chal- lenges in providing reliable, well-communicated, and policy- neutral but policy-relevant aggregation of knowledge in science, technology and medicine.
Bioethics in Africa is still largely empirically uninformed as it is still limited in terms of approach and methodology in this interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary nature of the field and the challenges of doing research with different values and research methodologies. There is little systematic treatment of this area from a cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural perspective. Africa still lacks the technical know-how, human capacity, knowledge on various research methods or approaches of teaching bioethics and sound training Open Access C.
ANDOH in different disciplines which can make interdisciplinary re- search more productive and relevant for bioethics in the conti- nent. Relevance of Teaching Bioethics in Africa The purpose and aims of education or of any educational ini- tiative are to increase and improve human knowledge, virtue and responsibility. Its pedagogic goals are to enable students identify conflicts of values, in- crease their sensitivity to morally perplexing issues, improve their understanding of their own values, and to deal more openly with bioethical dilemmas.
It offers better reasoned re- sponses, and provides the context to explore more thoroughly the implications of different courses of action before taking action. Studies have demonstrat ed that certain outcomes im- prove as a consequence of bioethics education. The existing literature shows that learner aw areness, attitudes, knowledge, confidence, decision making, and, to some extent, moral rea- soning improve with educational interventions.
As such, teach- ing bioethics becomes a moral imperative for Africa as long as new breakthroughs in science, technology and medicine con- tinue to offer new possibilities and capabilities to humans to alter their lives, environment and improve their well being. Contributions that expand the study of populism across new contexts and political movements, and encourage an emphasis on emergent media platforms, are encouraged.
We are living through an exciting time for the philosophy of religion: a time of crisis. There is, it seems, widespread discontent within the discipline about its current state and future directions — indeed about whether it even has a future whatsoever.
For many, the discipline has rightly recognised that it has become philosophically and religiously provincial - with a disproportionate emphasis on analysis of arguments for and against the existence of God. Here, however, consensus evaporates and a range of proposals has been put forward. A rough typology of non-exclusive alternatives suggests a variety of directions for philosophy of religion: 1 a turn towards the continental style of philosophy; 2 a turn towards non-Western philosophies; 3 a turn towards religious practices beyond the current focus on religious beliefs ; 4 a turn towards non-Western religious traditions; 5 a turn towards the methodologies of the study of religions; 6 a turn towards ethico-political engagements; 7 a turn towards those historically marginalised in the discipline; 8 a turn towards confessional apologetics and 9 a turn towards the methodologies of the natural sciences.
This article collection will seek interdisciplinary perspectives on the analysis of the current situation of the crisis of the philosophy of religion and solicit evaluations of proposals for its future. Cultural evolution describes how socially learned ideas, rules, and skills are transmitted and change over time, giving rise to diverse forms of social organization, belief systems, languages, technologies and artistic traditions.
This research article collection will showcase cutting-edge research into cultural evolution, bringing together contributions that reflect the interdisciplinary scope of this rapidly growing field, as well as the diversity of topics and approaches within it. Quantitative and qualitative research from a range of perspectives and disciplines is welcomed, including: sociology, archaeology, anthropology, complex network analysis, economics, history, linguistics, medical humanities, politics, psychology, philosophy, and religious studies.
Read papers already published in this collection. Insights from a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives are invited, including, sociology, social policy, political science, anthropology, economics, history, psychology, philosophy, human geography, public health and development studies. Research that reflects on and seeks to inform policymaking is also welcomed. Civilian-owned firearms are particular material objects whose public health implications garner increasing academic and public attention. After years of relative silence, many leading American public health organizations, medical groups, and research universities have now come out against the research blockade put in place by the so-called Dickey Amendment in Meanwhile, each successive mass shooting highlights the untenable tensions between public demand for expert knowledge to prevent gun death on the one hand, and a government actively engaged in squelching this exact expert knowledge on the other.
In response, growing numbers of medical and public health journals publish research articles and special issues that address the health effects of guns and bullets. To date, however, relatively little attention has been paid to larger questions of what guns mean, and how firearms emerge as powerful symbols whose connotations are shaped by history, politics, and culture. This article collection will explore these latter associations by looking in depth at guns as particular, and particularly charged, cultural and political symbols.
Quantitative, qualitative and investigative research from a range of disciplines is welcomed, including, but not restricted to, anthropology, cultural and media studies, history, literary studies, political science, sociology, public health and psychology. Full articles can be submitted any time up until June 28, Since , the dramatically increased potential of genome editing techniques particularly CRISPR-Cas9 in human therapeutics has created headlines, enthusiasm and concern in genetic research not seen since the mapping of the human genome at the turn of the century.
It could be suggested that the recent developments in genome editing do not bring entirely new ethical, social and legal issues to the fore. Rather, it brings us to a point where many of these theoretical reflections are becoming potentially applicable and therefore can have a greater role to play in policy decisions, which will affect the emerging governance of new genome editing developments.
In order to help move forward a responsible debate on the issue of genome-editing with a focus on human applications and to foster a discussion that is critically reflective on existing responses from academia, policy-makers, business and the media, this collection will bring together a multidisciplinary collection of key perspectives, charged with three key tasks.
Firstly, a key task is to contribute to the question of how to evaluate and guide current and imminent developments in genome editing. Secondly, a closely related task is to contribute to reviewing the existing theoretical literature on the ethical, legal and social considerations of genetic interventions on human beings that has developed over the past number of decades, in order to ascertain their suitability for contemporary genome editing evaluation and guidance.
The third task aims to develop a robust framework for future discussions and evaluations on genome editing developments and to contribute toward a responsible governance framework for scientists, biotech companies and public research institutions in Europe, and beyond, as well as improving the discourse between key stakeholders, including scientists, clinicians, bioethicists, policy-makers and the wider society.
We invite papers, both empirical and theoretical, from a wide range of disciplines, including, but not restricted to, philosophy, ethics, law, medical humanities, politics and social sciences, that:. To register interest prospective authors should submit a short article proposal abstract summary to the Editorial Office in the first instance. Full submissions can be submitted any time up until the end of July The aim of this collection is to develop contemporary knowledge translation KT in medicine by challenging it with current cultural and humanistic theories of translation.
In the process of doing this, however, we will also challenge theories of translation within the humanities by juxtaposing them with the scientific practice of KT. The turn to translation can be traced across a number of human sciences, such as cultural studies, anthropology and science and technology studies STS.
However, KT implies little theoretical reflection over translation as a process of meaning production. The point of departure for the contributors to this collection is the observation that KT is based upon a reductive understanding of translation and knowledge transmission. Quantitative and qualitative contributions from a range of disciplinary perspectives are welcomed, including, but not restricted to, anthropology, cultural studies and cultural history, medicine, medical humanities, sociology, science and technology studies, philosophy, comparative literature, and translation studies.
This is a rolling article collection and as such, submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of October There is a boom in initiatives calling for citizen involvement in research under the recent label of Citizen Science. Citizen Science is on the one hand a new instrument to integrate citizens into scientific knowledge production with the help of digital infrastructures.
On the other hand, there is a Citizen Science movement aimed at democratizing science. While numerous Citizen Science projects have been installed in various disciplines in recent years, some of them with great success, the social sciences are lagging behind. Within what has been termed as Citizen Social Science, the aim of this article collection is therefore not only to explore the possibilities for Citizen Science in the social sciences, but also to subject the Citizen Science phenomenon to a social science analysis.
Digital technologies are increasingly facilitating the collective generation of data, particularly in terms of the mushrooming of crowd-sourced data initiatives in a variety of fields across the sciences, politics, and industry. However, most initiatives working with citizen scientists include them only in certain steps of the research process, rather than more systematically and from the outset. Despite the vast potential of active citizenship for Citizen Social Science: active citizenship vs. Moreover, it is widely debated how sustainable the involvement of citizens via digital platforms can be, particularly in terms of renewing or maintaining citizen enthusiasm and motivation to participate.
The aim of this collection is twofold: to explore the drivers and barriers to the systemic participation of citizens in all research phases to produce socially robust knowledge outcomes; and to open up the debate on the possibilities of blending, overlapping or confronting the different participatory methodologies already present in the field of social sciences, and the current approaches in citizen science projects. This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of September Academia faces ever new challenges as the sector continues to grow and experience profound changes.
Vibrant research in science and technology studies has made specialised knowledge production an object of empirical analysis. And specialists in higher education studies have traced the dynamics of power among academics. Against this backdrop, the objectives of this research collection are twofold: first, to respond to a need for a new niche of integrative, systematic research on academia as power and knowledge; and, second, to make a difference in the broader debate about academia by responding to the challenges of higher education today. Empirical and theoretical research is welcomed that systematically investigates social practices in academia as well as critically reflects on academic practices in society.
While academic research usually aims at the systematic production of specialised knowledge, more research is needed on the conditions that make such knowledge possible. Special emphasis is therefore placed on academia as a social practice of academics at the nexus of power and knowledge. This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until the end of November These concepts apply, in the first instance, to social and cultural threats — that is, to behaviours or visual qualities, which are deemed unacceptable because they are perceived as either amoral or unimaginable.
Against the backdrop, we invite papers that explore the concepts of monsters, monstrosity and the monstrous. Contributions are welcomed on, but are not restricted to, the following themes:. Research is invited from the humanities literature, drama, art, history and the social sciences education and teacher training studies, psychology, counselling studies , as well as interdisciplinary scholarship.
There is a diverse community of policymakers, funders, scholars, and practitioners of different types all working in the field of evidence use. This is both wasteful of scarce resources, and risks leading to a stagnation of the field. We therefore propose a multi-disciplinary collection of papers, to push forward the field and showcase this journal as a unique outlet for novel scholarship in this area, including empirical, methodological and theoretical work. We welcome insights from all geographic perspectives, to ensure that the global community working in this area is reflected.
In particular, we seek studies that provide truly novel insights into how evidence for policy and practice is made, negotiated, translated and used, from theoretical, methodological or practical perspectives. Instead, we are looking specifically for papers that make novel methodological or theoretical contributions, building on the existing field of literature about evidence use. Read the Collection Editors' Comment article 'Transforming evidence for policy and practice: creating space for new conversations'. The project can be a matter for individuals, increasingly made to feel responsible for their own wellbeing under the auspices of a new public health and preventive medicine.
It is also a matter for local and national administrations, struggling with tight budgets and demands on services, mindful of the costs of the treatment and management of chronic conditions. It can have international dimensions. Often structured by the legacies of colonialism and by international advisory bodies and aid programs, global health has long been concerned with issues of inequality and the responsibilities, some would say the self-interests, of high income countries.
More recently still, health has become a collective project, tying together people, nonhuman animals and ecologies One Health , and planetary processes Planetary Health. In their different ways, all of these versions of health and health promotion imply a collective transdisciplinary endeavour.
What ties them together is a common call for new kinds of public participation, engagement and social contract. In this article collection we invite papers that grapple with health as a collective, contested, public, process. We ask authors to engage with how health has been made public in the past and how the contemporary period generates opportunities and constraints for public health and the development of healthy publics.
We encourage contributions across different socio-cultural, historical, legal, political and economic settings, as well as across health domains including human, animal and environmental health. Papers can highlight the processes and struggles involved in generating public involvement and articulating health issues; in making specific health issues public through processes such as advocacy for resource and transformative interventions; in generating the evidence that makes a difference to health practice and is responsive to concerns that are articulated by groups and communities; or in developing a public mandate for concerted and coordinated action.
Papers are particularly welcome from non-Eurocentric perspectives, a variety of historical periods, geographical settings and across a range of substantive and material issues. Read papers published in this collection. The rise of big data in health care research, particularly when incorporated into health care delivery, presents a complex landscape where the role, status and value of the patient or citizen as a research subject is configured in numerous ways.
Social science scholars have drawn attention to the potential for health research participation to constitute exploitation, empowerment or even a form of contemporary citizenship. Emerging big data research practices add another dimension to these issues. They raise questions about how we make sense of health research participation in the change towards datafication of human health, and the automation of data agglomeration and analysis.
Such practices also raise questions about their governance by prompting us to ask whether existing local and centralised ethical regimes are fit for purpose. From trial subject to patient advisory group member, from biobank donor to the infinitely searchable database entry, each of these forms are affected in some way by emerging big data practices. Participation is complicated further by research itself becoming more globally collaborative and thus dealing with multiple local contexts. This collection seeks to examine the diverse ways big data and health research participation converge and are co-produced with local and centralised approaches to governance.
Drawing from the fields of sociology, anthropology, science and technology studies, health research, empirical ethics, bioethics, and critical data studies, we ask authors to engage with these two overarching questions: How is the health research participant constituted, valued and assetised in the era of big data? Theoretical and empirical accounts from individual or multiple healthcare settings are welcome. We envisage that this collection will facilitate a global dialogue on these issues.
This is a rolling article collection and as such submissions will be welcomed at any point up until 31 December The social, environmental and economic challenges confronting academics, policymakers and other stakeholders do not come in neat packages. For example, the stresses of transnational migration present questions for international lawyers, transport experts and conflict analysts alike, and the impacts of water scarcity equally call on civil engineers, anthropologists, natural hazard specialists and policy makers.
Integrating the specialisations of different academic disciplines brings many challenges—not least organisational, bureaucratic, methodological, and cultural. For instance, traditional academic research assessment practices can incentivise approaches to research that lack the interdisciplinary flexibility to engage with pressing societal challenges. Nevertheless there are today many emerging examples of innovative and impactful interdisciplinary collaborations, with interdisciplinary practices becoming a given in many areas of enquiry.