Editorial

This issue of the Journal contains three interesting articlesabout central aspects of public opinion research, as well asan equal number of research notes that reflect the range oftopics that interest all public opinion researchers. Toshio Takeshita takes a turn at reconceptualizing agenda-settingstudies, using a taxonomy     

Unsustainable Growth,Hyper-Competition,and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives

There is a crisis of valuation practices in the current academic life sciences, triggered by unsustainable growth and “hyper-competition.” Quantitative metrics in evaluating researchers are seen as replacing deeper considerations of the quality and novelty of work, as well as substantive care for the societal implications of research. Junior researchers are frequently mentioned as those most strongly affected by these dynamics. However, their own perceptions of these issues are much less frequently considered. This paper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the interplay between how research is valued and how young researchers learn to live, work and produce knowledge within academia. We thus analyze how PhD students and postdocs in the Austrian life sciences ascribe worth to people, objects and practices as they talk about their own present and future lives in research. We draw on literature from the field of valuation studies and its interest in how actors refer to different forms of valuation to account for their actions. We explore how young researchers are socialized into different valuation practices in different stages of their growing into science. Introducing the concept of “regimes of valuation” we show that PhD students relate to a wider evaluative repertoire while postdocs base their decisions on one dominant regime of valuing research. In conclusion, we discuss the implications of these findings for the epistemic and social development of the life sciences, and for other scientific fields.     

Accuracy of activPAL Self-Attachment Methods

This study examined the accuracy of self-attachment of the activPAL activity monitor. A convenience sample of 50 participants self-attached the monitor after being presented with written material only (WMO) and then written and video (WV) instructions; and completed a questionnaire regarding the acceptability of the instructional methods. Participants positioned the monitor lower than the instructed position on the thigh (WMO ?5.15 ± 2.75 cm, WV ?4.16 ± 2.15 cm; p = .008 difference) and approximately 2 cm laterally from the thigh midline (WMO 1.90 ± 0.92 cm; WV 2.08 ± 1.24 cm). The orientation of the device was positioned correctly along the midline (within < 1° of vertical). Acceptability was high for both instructional methods although preference was shown for the WV instruction. In conclusion, participants consistently self-attached the activPAL close to the intended placement with either instructional method. The addition of video instruction produced a slightly more accurate attachment and was preferred by the participants.     

Access to human,animal, and environmental journals is still limited for the One Health community

Objective

“One Health” is an interdisciplinary approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments they share that relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. The authors'' objective was to evaluate the extent of open access (OA) to journal articles in a sample of literature from these domains. We hypothesized that OA to articles in human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature.

Methods

A One Health seminar series provided fifteen topics. One librarian translated each topic into a search strategy and searched four databases for articles from 2011 to 2012. Two independent investigators assigned each article to human health, the environment, animal health, all, other, or combined categories. Article and journal-level OA were determined. Each journal was also assigned a subject category and its indexing evaluated.

Results

Searches retrieved 2,651 unique articles from 1,138 journals; 1,919 (72%) articles came from 406 journals that contributed more than 1 article. Seventy-seven (7%) journals dealt with all 3 One Health domains; the remaining journals represented human health 487 (43%), environment 172 (15%), animal health 141 (12%), and other/combined categories 261 (23%). The proportion of OA journals in animal health (40%) differed significantly from journals categorized as human (28%), environment (28%), and more than 1 category (29%). The proportion of OA for articles by subject categories ranged from 25%–34%; only the difference between human (34%) and environment (25%) was significant.

Conclusions

OA to human health literature is more comparable to animal health than hypothesized. Environmental journals had less OA than anticipated.Keywords (Medical Subject Headings) Publishing, Periodicals as Topic, Access to Information, Veterinary Medicine, Environment, Environmental Health, Medicine“One Health” is an integrated, transdisciplinary approach to solve complex problems at the diverse interfaces shared by humans, animals, and the environment [1]. The One Health approach to evaluating and managing the health and well-being of humans, animals, and the environments that they share relies on knowledge from the domains of human health, animal health, and the environmental sciences. Although there is a growing body of literature about the development of the One Health concept as documented by Pepper, Carrigan, Shurtz, and Foster [2], this literature is not the same as the combination of literature from the three domains that is applied in service of One Health. Every discipline related to One Health has its unique mindset and language, with corresponding lists of acronyms that are frequently an impediment to effective communication across the participating professions. Relevant papers guiding a One Health approach may never specifically use “One Health” as a term or concept.To promote better communication and collaboration among health professionals and environmental scientists, a public monthly One Health Intellectual Exchange Group (IEG) hosted by the North Carolina Biotechnology Center was launched in 2009. In 2011, faculty from the North Carolina State University College of Veterinary Medicine, University of North Carolina''s Gillings School for Global Public Health, Duke Global Health Institute, and Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University expanded the IEG series into a weekly seminar course with eight One Health focus areas [3]. The eight focus area modules were the following: an introduction to One Health; environmental health and ecology; the human and animal bond; zoonoses and emerging infectious diseases; food and water safety; disease surveillance, informatics, and disaster preparedness; benefits of comparative medicine; and policy and education (Appendix A, online only). Each seminar speaker recommended papers to read prior to the session to provide a foundation for the topic because student backgrounds and majors were quite diverse. Represented student majors included master''s of public health, master''s of animal science, doctor of veterinary medicine, graduate-level environmental sciences, and undergraduate-level biochemistry, engineering, and biology.Open access (OA) to relevant literature is very important to scholars and practitioners working on interdisciplinary problems. The One Health Proof of Concept Workgroup found that few studies assess outcomes in human, animal, and environmental spheres simultaneously [4], making it important to be able to access articles from each of the three domains to get a more complete picture.The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent of OA to journal articles in a sample of literature relevant to One Health from the human, animal, and environmental domains. Working in a college of veterinary medicine and supporting faculty, staff, and students addressing interdisciplinary problems under the One Health umbrella [5], the authors were familiar with the extent of OA in human biomedical and public health literature and the literature of veterinary medicine but were less familiar with environmental journals. In light of general availability of environmental information and OA to publications such as Environmental Health Perspectives, we thought it likely that environmental literature would be relatively open compared to the other subject areas. Therefore, we hypothesized OA to articles from human health or environmental journals was greater than access to animal health literature. We chose to look at article-level subject categorization and access, as well as journal-level categorization and access, because they might differ. Article-level access relates more to authors'' decisions about OA for a content domain, while journal-level access and subject categorization are driven by publishers and associations. Understanding the distinction and having data would inform our efforts to promote increased OA to this literature.     

Influence of Previous Knowledge, Language Skills and Domain-specific Interest on Observation Competency

Many epoch-making biological discoveries (e.g. Darwinian Theory) were based upon observations. Nevertheless, observation is often regarded as ‘just looking’ rather than a basic scientific skill. As observation is one of the main research methods in biological sciences, it must be considered as an independent research method and systematic practice of this method is necessary. Because observation skills form the basis of further scientific methods (e.g. experiments or comparisons) and children from the age of 4 years are able to independently generate questions and hypotheses, it seems possible to foster observation competency at a preschool level. To be able to provide development-adequate individual fostering of this competency, it is first necessary to assess each child’s competency. Therefore, drawing on the recent literature, we developed in this study a competency model that was empirically evaluated within learners (N = 110) from different age groups, from kindergarten to university. In addition, we collected data on language skills, domain-specific interest and previous knowledge to analyse coherence between these skills and observation competency. The study showed as expected that previous knowledge had a high impact on observation competency, whereas the influence of domain-specific interest was nonexistent. Language skills were shown to have a weak influence. By utilising the empirically validated model consisting of three dimensions (‘Describing’, ‘Scientific reasoning’ and ‘Interpreting’) and three skill levels, it was possible to assess each child’s competency level and to develop and evaluate guided play activities to individually foster a child’s observation competency.     

Choice and goal-directed behavior in preschool children

Preschool children (3–4 years old) were trained to perform two actions to gain different outcomes, in the form of video clips from different cartoons, before one of these outcomes was devalued by noncontingent exposure. The effect of outcome devaluation was subsequently assessed in an extinction test by giving children the opportunity to perform both actions in the absence of any outcomes. When the two actions were trained concurrently, performance during the test was modulated by outcome value and children showed a preference for the action trained with the currently valued outcome. By contrast, when each action was trained separately on different trials, test performance was insensitive to outcome devaluation. These effects of the training schedules are interpreted in terms of dual-process theories of action control.     

Virtual Reality Simulation: Effects on Academic Performance Within Two Domains of Writing in Science

The purpose of this study was to investigate the role textbooks can play on writing complexity and lexical density as a proxy for critical thinking and ultimately learning, in relation to argumentative and summative writing when integrated with a virtual reality experience. In this study, differences in writing complexity and lexical density scores were measured across four different pedagogical modalities: VR alone, VR followed by textbook readings, textbook readings followed by VR, and textbook readings alone. Adult students, recruited from non-science-based higher education programs, responded to two prompts related to content found in the VR environments and discussed in the textbooks. The authors hypothesized that exposure to a virtual marine environment prior to responding to the writing prompts would enhance both argumentative and summative writing products, when compared to participants who only had access to the textbook experiences. Participants who were exposed to the VR environment then a textbook demonstrated significantly greater writing complexity and lexical density scores than those who had access to VR alone, or access to the text alone.

     

Les accidents domestiques chez l'enfant handicape et sa famille

Abstract

A review of the literature on integration was commissioned by the Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). This drew on literature from around the globe and was conducted by leading experts in five different countries. The review was organized in terms of categories of disability. This paper introduces the review and sets it in the context of emerging developments in integration. The pros and cons of using a categorical approach are discussed. Attention is drawn to key issues arising in the literature ‐ efficacy, characteristics of effective integration programmes and attitudes to integration. Finally, some pointers for the future development of integration are considered.