Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members' perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants' risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members' beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants' welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.

Zoom In, Zoom Out: The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Classroom

On 11 March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 to be a pandemic to be confronted by humanity. As a result, social isolation has become the norm in most countries, with the consequent replacement of face-to-face classes by classes mediated by information and communication technology. Within this context, this work sets out to investigate the factors necessary for courses mediated by technology to attain their pedagogical objectives. Additionally, the study examines how subjects that develop hard and soft skills differ in a technology-mediated setting. The results show that the teacher’s digital competence on the technological platform and the metacognitive support available in the digital environment are significant factors for a course to attain its pedagogical objectives successfully. Lastly, the study revealed that hard skill disciplines, when they migrate to technology-mediated environments, are more likely to fail to achieve their educational goals than soft skill disciplines subject to the same migration.

Experiences of young adults with a history of foster care during COVID-19

This study assessed the needs, concerns, and strengths of young adults (ages 18-26), previously placed in foster care, in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). One hundred and twenty-seven participants completed the survey in May and June, offering a preliminary description of the impact of Shelter in Place (SIP) due to COVID-19 on their well-being. The mixed-methods, cross-sectional survey assessed participants' perspectives regarding (1) changes in physical, financial, professional, social, relational, and psychological levels of concern and (2) the general impact of SIP due to COVID-19, as well as the unique impact as a current or former foster youth. Participants reported significant increases in their level of concern in each domain from before SIP orders to during SIP, which was maintained in anticipation of the year following SIP. Participants also described their experiences with SIP and COVID-19 as unique, due to their lived experience as a former foster youth. Findings highlight a need for a coordinated short and long-term response to address the needs and concerns of this vulnerable population.

A brief measure of attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology

The adoption of mixed methods research in psychology has trailed behind other social science disciplines. Teaching psychology students, academics, and practitioners about mixed methodologies may increase the use of mixed methods within the discipline. However, tailoring and evaluating education and training in mixed methodologies requires an understanding of, and way of measuring, attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology. To date, no such measure exists. In this article we present the development and initial validation of a new measure: Attitudes toward Mixed Methods Research in Psychology. A pool of 42 items developed from previous qualitative research on attitudes toward mixed methods research along with validation measures was administered via an online survey to a convenience sample of 274 psychology students, academics and psychologists. Principal axis factoring with varimax rotation on a subset of the sample produced a four-factor, 12-item solution. Confirmatory factor analysis on a separate subset of the sample indicated that a higher order four factor model provided the best fit to the data. The four factors; 'Limited Exposure,' '(in)Compatibility,' 'Validity,' and 'Tokenistic Qualitative Component'; each have acceptable internal reliability. Known groups validity analyses based on preferred research orientation and self-rated mixed methods research skills, and convergent and divergent validity analyses based on measures of attitudes toward psychology as a science and scientist and practitioner orientation, provide initial validation of the measure. This brief, internally reliable measure can be used in assessing attitudes toward mixed methods research in psychology, measuring change in attitudes as part of the evaluation of mixed methods education, and in larger research programs.

Using mixed methods research designs in health psychology: an illustrated discussion from a pragmatist perspective

PURPOSE

To outline some of the challenges of mixed methods research and illustrate how they can be addressed in health psychology research.

METHODS

This study critically reflects on the author's previously published mixed methods research and discusses the philosophical and technical challenges of mixed methods, grounding the discussion in a brief review of methodological literature.

RESULTS

Mixed methods research is characterized as having philosophical and technical challenges; the former can be addressed by drawing on pragmatism, the latter by considering formal mixed methods research designs proposed in a number of design typologies. There are important differences among the design typologies which provide diverse examples of designs that health psychologists can adapt for their own mixed methods research. There are also similarities; in particular, many typologies explicitly orient to the technical challenges of deciding on the respective timing of qualitative and quantitative methods and the relative emphasis placed on each method. Characteristics, strengths, and limitations of different sequential and concurrent designs are identified by reviewing five mixed methods projects each conducted for a different purpose.

CONCLUSIONS

Adapting formal mixed methods designs can help health psychologists address the technical challenges of mixed methods research and identify the approach that best fits the research questions and purpose. This does not obfuscate the need to address philosophical challenges of mixing qualitative and quantitative methods. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Mixed methods research poses philosophical and technical challenges. Pragmatism in a popular approach to the philosophical challenges while diverse typologies of mixed methods designs can help address the technical challenges. Examples of mixed methods research can be hard to locate when component studies from mixed methods projects are published separately. What does this study add? Critical reflections on the author's previously published mixed methods research illustrate how a range of different mixed methods designs can be adapted and applied to address health psychology research questions. The philosophical and technical challenges of mixed methods research should be considered together and in relation to the broader purpose of the research.

The place of theory in assembling the central argument for a thesis or dissertation

While theory plays a variety of roles in forming the central argument of an academic work, it is often assigned a secondary status to that of research methods. The following paper focuses specifically on the benefits for psychology research students in engaging with the capacity of theory to enhance the coherence and originality of their academic works (such as theses or dissertations). Barriers to engagement with theory are identified and contributory factors discussed. General trends in academic environments are seen to play an important part in why many students view theory as difficult, unnecessary, and unconnected with the real world. The article then develops an account for understanding the dynamic and multilayered ways in which theory contributes to research enquiries. A framework involving six different layers of theory is described along with a model for understanding how these layers interact and the order in which they might be best addressed. The paper also considers some of the complications between these layers and possible changes to learning environments in psychology that could promote stronger involvement with theory.