Skip navigation
>»
RSS feed for this page
Know something we don't? Submit a calls for paper announcement
Choose Category:

Academia calls for papers / publications

51 calls for papers / publications listed in Academia 

Call for Papers: Health, Culture and Society
09/10/2012
Health, Culture and Society

Call for Papers: Health, Culture and Society

With the second issue of Health, Culture and Society just released, the international editorial team are inviting contributions for the third issue entitled Health and Identity.

Contributions are encouraged which deal with human rights; equity; social inclusion strategies as well as historical studies - all of course falling within the remit of health and its paradigm.

HCS, boasts an international readership and broad geographic coverage, therefore papers are invited from all continents and economies, which can help us learn as to how, health, culture and society are deeply integrated realities, and important factors to initiatives within health strategy and research.

All are warmly invited to register as readers and subscribers of the journal. Those wishing to submit research for publication, should follow the author guidelines in the 'About' section (Home > About the Journal > Submissions).

HCS adheres to a strictly blind peer review process.

The deadline for submissions is September 10th 2012.

Owing to the volume of submissions HCS receives, possible contributors are encouraged to contact the senior editor with any enquiries they may have regarding their submission.

Email: d.reggio@unochapeco.edu.br

Visit the website at http://hcs.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/hcs/index

Academic, Health Services Researcher, Historian, Policy Analyst, Social Scientist
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Organization Studies: At a Critical Age: The Social and Political Organization of Age and Ageing
01/31/2013
Organization Studies

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Organization Studies: At a Critical Age: The Social and Political Organization of Age and Ageing

Deadline: January 31, 2013

Academic, Gerontologist, Health Services Researcher, Policy Analyst, Public Health Expert, Social Scientist
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies: Disability and Colonialism: (Dis)encounters and Anxious Intersectionalities
01/01/2013
Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies: Disability and Colonialism: (Dis)encounters and Anxious Intersectionalities

Guest Editors: Shaun Grech (Manchester Metropolitan University) &
Karen Soldatic (University of New South Wales)

We are pleased to announce that we will be guest editing a special edition entitled Disability and Colonialism: (dis)encounters and anxious intersectionalities on behalf of the established refereed journal Interventions: International Journal of Postcolonial Studies.

The aim of this special issue is to position disability within the colonial (the real and imagined), through which to explore a range of (often anxious) intersectionalities as disability is theorised, constructed, and lived as a post/neocolonial condition. While postcolonial theory and associated fields (e.g. critical theory, cultural studies etc.) have engaged with race, gender and ethnicity in the exploration of themes of identity, representation, space, historicity and the neocolonial, they have almost wholly bypassed disabled people- paradoxically limited to the subjectification of the able-bodied, or rather disembodying colonialism Westerncentric fields of study such as disability studies often remain detached from the global South, the histories, contexts and cultures of these specific geopolitical spaces, and how disability is ontologically constructed and lived through a history replete with signifiers of power and empire and that frame the global. While some have adopted colonialism as a metaphor for the experience of disability (see for example Shakespeare, 2000), of colonized bodies by the medical profession, the colonial encounter per se, its creation of and implications for the disabled subject, remains inadequately theorised. In turn, disability is persistently removed from history and any contemplation of the post or neocolonial and efforts (discursive or material) at decolonizing these spaces and those within.

The special issue aims to transcend disciplinary, epistemological, methodological, spatial and historical boundaries. Engaging
indigenous, post/neocolonial, disability studies, critical theory, psychology, Latin American Cultural Studies, and a range of other
perspectives and literatures, and prioritising voices from the global South, we invite authors to engage in critical debate around
colonialism to explore a range of thematic concerns (not exclusively):

• Colonial representations and the construction of the disabled body and mind
• The violence and disablism of colonialism
• Intersections of race, ethnicity, culture, gender and disability
• Empire and the domestication of bodies: globalisation, economics and beyond
• Disabled identities, metaphors and language, and their roles in subjugation
• From the colonial to the post/neocolonial: disability and contemporary lineages of imperialism
• Social identities and visions of disability
• Colonial medicalisation: identifying, labelling and ‘treating’ the disabled body
• The Christianising mission, biblical renditions and the disabled subject
• Decolonizing epistemologies, practices and lives: renegotiating power and contemplating global justice

We encourage authors to engage work on Southern theory and movements and approaches prioritising and promoting Southern epistemologies and counter-hegemonic knowledges emerging from struggles for justice.

Those wishing to submit an article, please email your full manuscript to both Shaun Grech (S.Grech@mmu.ac.uk) and Karen Soldatic (ajks123@bigpond.com). Please insert ‘Submission for Disability and Colonialism Special Issue’ in the subject line. Manuscripts will be sent anonymously for double peer review, and comments and recommendations relayed to authors through the editors.

Articles should not exceed 8,000 words in length, and include a 300 word abstract. The journal style guide is available here: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=1369-801X&linktype=44

Manuscripts should be submitted by no later than: 1st January 2013.

Academic, Historian, Social Scientist
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Public Management Review: Service User Involvement in Healthcare
05/30/2013
Public Management Review

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Public Management Review: Service User Involvement in Healthcare

Editors:

Graeme Currie, Warwick Business School

Nellie El Enany, Warwick Business School

Martin Kitchener, Cardiff Business School

Service user involvement has become a prominent area of healthcare policy across much of the developed world Recent studies of this phenomenon have typically portrayed user involvement as a promising vehicle for delivering benefits including: improved professional accountability, extended lay expertise in decision-making, enhanced information for users, and increased innovation in provision (Crawford et al., 2002).

Despite the many promises of user involvement in healthcare, progress in realising performance improvements have proved challenging. This suggests some potential limits to, or constraints upon, the extent to which service users can impact service development. Commentators highlight the following problems in implementing service user involvement: tokenism and the suppression of users’ views; the positioning of service users by policy-makers and healthcare professionals as consumers, or more passive decision-makers; hierarchical power structures, which engender negative professional attitudes towards service user involvement; less than supportive professional and organisational cultures; lack of resources to support service user involvement (Greenhalgh, 2011).

In analysing why service user involvement may prove challenging, three main themes have emerged. First, service user representativeness has been widely cited as a key concern in service user involvement initiatives. Consequently, some service user groups may go unrepresented, particularly those more socially excluded from society who may be hard to reach out to, or those whose condition (e.g. a significant mental health problem) may render them less articulate. Second, healthcare professionals and managers may merely play the ‘service user card’ to legitimise their own interests. Healthcare professionals and managers may select the “right” service user, whom they regard as articulate, and/or who shows the requisite amount of enthusiasm for involvement in decision making about service development. Healthcare professionals and managers may use their positional power as ‘gatekeepers’ to marginalise those service users who do not serve professional interests. Third, service users can become ‘insiders’ and partners to healthcare professionals and managers, so that they become co-opted into the latters’ interests, and so prove difficult to supplant with other, more representative service users, with evidence that a hierarchy of service user involvement emerges (Martin, 2008).

To advance conceptual and empirical understandings of user involvement healthcare, the editors of this Special Issue of Public Management Review welcome submissions that offer more critical reflection upon service user involvement. Submissions can be empirically based, using quantitative, qualitative or mixed methods, or theoretical. We particularly encourage submissions beyond those national contexts in which service user involvement is commonly examined. Overall, we seek to encourage debate and help shape greater theoretical and empirical analysis of service user involvement in healthcare, linking literatures in public policy, health services research and social science research.

Submission details/deadlines /contact:

Note the submission deadline is May 30th 2013, with the expectation that the Special Issue is published mid- 2014. It is planned that the editors will convene a specialist track on this theme at the IRSPM conference in April 2013 (see; www.irspm.net/conferences.html for details).

In the first instance, potential contributors may contact one of the editorial team for the Special Issue to discuss their proposed submission (Graeme.currie@wbs.ac.uk; kitchenermj@cardiff.ac.uk; nellie.elenany@wbs.ac.uk). Please submit manuscripts through Public Management Review submission site, clearly identifying that it is to be considered for the Special Issue, at the same time sending a copy to Nellie.elenany@wbs.ac.uk.

References

Crawford, M., Rutter, D., Manley, C., Weaver, T., Bhui, K., Fulop N. and Tyrer, P. 2002. Systematic review of involving patients in the planning and development of health care. British Medical Journal, 325: 1263–1265.

Greenhalgh, T., Humphrey, C. and Woodward, F., 2011. User Involvement in Health Care. Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Martin, G.P. 2008. Representativeness, legitimacy and power in public involvement in health-care management. Social Science and Medicine, 67 (11):1757-1765.

Academic, Health Economist, Health Services Researcher, Policy Analyst, Social Scientist
Call for Papers for a Special Section on the Topic of Dialogues With Neuroscience: Memory for the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
09/17/2012
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Call for Papers for a Special Section on the Topic of Dialogues With Neuroscience: Memory for the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

September 17, 2012: abstract submission deadline

December 31, 2012: manuscript submission deadline

Neuroscience has long informed the psychology of memory. The paradigm example of this crosstalk is the discovery that damage to the hippocampus impairs long-term declarative memory but leaves other forms of learning and memory intact. This classic finding has motivated decades of research in cognitive neuroscience, inspired the multiple memory systems theory, and cemented the textbook distinction between declarative vs. non-declarative memory.

While this framework has been very fruitful in advancing an understanding of the medial temporal lobe (MTL) memory system, neuroimaging studies of the intact human brain over the past decade have begun revealing a broader role for the hippocampus in many aspects of cognition beyond declarative memory, including reward, decision making, attention, perception, navigation, incidental learning, prediction, action, and working memory.

These new findings complicate our understanding of the function of the hippocampus and suggest that memory may be best understood in terms of the interactions between various cognitive processes. Thus, a current challenge is to develop an integrated framework that represents a broader view of the role of the hippocampus in guiding behavior, bridging psychological theory and neurobiological approaches.

To advance such a framework, we are soliciting contributions in this and related fields to a special section of Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.

Details
Relevant areas of investigation span a range of psychological processes (including but not limited to those listed above) and methods (including behavioral, neuroimaging, and patient studies in humans, as well as animal studies).

Given this broad focus, all contributions should contain specific and identifiable insights into how the hippocampus and surrounding MTL cortex supports cognition, as well as clear implications for psychological theories, computational models, and/or behavior. These insights can arise from direct neuroscientific investigations, or from behavioral studies that connect known functions of the MTL with other processes (e.g., testing the role of relational memory in decision-making).

We are seeking submissions of cutting-edge empirical papers in short or long report format that provides a clear conceptual advance. Short reports (less than 3,000 words) could include a single experiment with straightforward methods, while long reports could include multiple experiments or complex analyses. We will also consider theoretical notes that provide a hypothesis or perspective on one issue, and longer theoretical papers that review recent work in a field or that present a new theory or model.

Although JEP: General has not traditionally published many neuroscientific studies, this call exemplifies a new priority of the journal to include neuroscience as one of several modern and important approaches for studying the mind. In exchange for publishing studies that might otherwise appear in general or specialized neuroscience journals, JEP: General will ensure that your work receives a broad audience, being ranked 4 of 81 among all psychology journals.

All submitted papers must meet the high quality standards of JEP: General, and thus will undergo the journal's regular review process. Every paper will be reviewed by experts in the relevant methods and topics in psychology and neuroscience, ensuring a fair and accurate evaluation. Reviewers will be blind to the fact that the papers were invited, and all papers will be subject to the possibility of rejection, with the editorial decisions made by the action editors of JEP: General.

It is important to emphasize that the journal believes that the issues dealt with in this special section are exciting and that these developments are highly promising. JEP: General is therefore committed to advancing and promoting this special section.

To indicate interest, please submit a tentative abstract by September 17, 2012. Based on these abstracts, the Organizers and Editors will select a number of papers to be submitted and reviewed. The planned timeline for the submission of papers is December 31, 2012. This abstract submission procedure is intended to ensure that the special section provides coherent and reasonable coverage.

We hope that this special section, bringing together a broad range of findings, will advance our understanding of both the cognitive processes that contribute to memory and the underlying neural processes by which memory systems influence behavior.

Questions about the special section can be addressed to the Special Section Organizers, Daphna Shohamy or Nick Turk-Browne.

Submit through the JEP: General Manuscript Submission Portal and please note that the submission is for this special section.

Academic, Behavioral Scientist, Neurobiologist, Neuropsychologist, Neuroscientist, Psychologist
Call for Papers for a Special Section of the Journal of Family Psychology: Spirituality and Religion in Family Life
05/03/2013
Journal of Family Psychology

Call for Papers for a Special Section of the Journal of Family Psychology: Spirituality and Religion in Family Life

May 3, 2013 - submission deadline

This special section of the Journal of Family Psychology aims to stimulate the breadth and depth of rigorous scientific studies on the interface of faith and family life. Recent reviews demonstrate that spirituality and religion remain relevant to contemporary families, but critical gaps in the research literature compromise a balanced or deep understanding how faith operates in a family context (see Mahoney, Swank & Tarakeshwar, 2001; Mahoney, 2010; Mahoney, in press).

For example, repeated studies suggest that higher religious attendance and salience helps to form (e.g., marital unions) and maintain (e.g., lowers divorce risk) traditional family bonds. But scarce research exists on specific positive or negative roles that spirituality and religion may play in families, especially in nontraditional or distressed families.

To help address these gaps, we invite papers that address any of the following ways in which specific spiritual cognitions and behaviors centered on family life may:

help or harm relational and individual adjustment, including, but not limited to, the sanctification of an aspect of family life, prayer for a family member, positive religiousspiritual coping strategies to cope with family issues, spiritual struggles or negative religiousspiritual coping tied to family difficulties, and perceiving negative family events as a sacred loss andor desecration.facilitate or undermine the formation and maintenance of diverse types of families (e.g., cohabiting unions with and without children, same-sex couples with and without children, blended, foster, adoptive, and multi-generational families).be part of the problem or solution in coping with family-related distress. This includes, but is not limited to, difficulties in the formation (e.g., unwanted singlehood or cohabitation, unintended pregnancy, infertility) and maintenance (e.g., coping with infidelity, partner or parent-child violence, chronic relational conflict, divorce, or a family member who has medical, mental health, or developmental problems) of family relationships.

Questions about the special section can be addressed to the section editors, Annmarie Cano, PhD or Annette Mahoney, PhD.

Submit manuscripts through the Journal of Family Psychology portal no later than May 3, 2013 and please note that the submission is for this special section.

Academic, Behavioral Scientist, Psychologist
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation: What Sorts of People Should There Be?
07/15/2012
International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of the International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation: What Sorts of People Should There Be?

Guest Editor

Gregor Wolbring, Community Rehabilitation and Disability Studies, Dept. of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary

Throughout history, people with non-normative abilities have been judged. Sometimes this judgment led to positive consequences, however for the most part these non-normative abilities were judged negatively and the carriers of such non-normative abilities experienced disabling treatment. This very judgment (ableism) and its disabling consequences is one of the main areas of scholarly work within the realm of disability studies. Eugenics, the practice of finding ways to better heritable abilities of humans, is one dynamic that influences the judgment of people’s abilities and the disabling consequences and vice versa.

What sorts of people should there be is a question that has been asked and answered in different ways throughout human history, is still a question asked and answered today and will be with us also for some time in the future.

Advances in science and technology will allow new judgments and actions linked to the sentiment around the question of what sorts of people there should be.

In partnership with the SSHRC-CURA-funded project “Living Archives on Eugenics in Western Canada” (eugenicsarchive.ca), the Editors of IJDCR would like to devote a special issue on this topic.

We invite potential contributors, regardless of fields of study (discipline), to submit 250-word abstracts that articulate the conceptual arguments and knowledge base to be covered in a critical analysis on various aspects from history to future of “What sorts of people should there be”.

Please submit abstracts to the Guest Editor via e-mail at gwolbrin[at]ucalgary.ca by 15 July, 2012

From selected abstracts, we will request full articles of 3000-5000 words (excluding figures and tables) of original research and scholarship on a range of topics to be submitted to the editor by 15 October 2012. Note that an invitation to submit an article does not guarantee its publication.

Every submitted article will be subject to blind peer review and recommendations arising.

As to possible areas linked to the theme the below is a sample list of possible topics

What sorts of people should be born
What sorts of people should live
What sorts of people should be citizens
What sorts of people should compete
What sorts of people….

We invite authors to investigate the history, contemporary use and potential future exhibition of the relationships between the core question “What sorts of people should there be” and such issues as:

disabled people and what it means to be ‘disabled’,
the community around them
practitioners, consumers and researchers linked to the disability discourse
community rehabilitation and the rehabilitation field in general
inclusive education and the education of disabled people in general
the future of education
employability of disabled people
citizenship of disabled people
global citizenship
body image of disabled people
medical and social health policies and their impact on disabled people
health care for disabled people
elderly people, youthism and ageism
disabled people in low income countries
laws and international conventions related to disabled people such as the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities
the concept of personhood
concept of health and health care
the measure of disability adjusted life years and other measurements used to guide health care dollar allocation
quality of life assessment
history
future
science and technology governance
science and technology assessment
ethics
enhancement

For more information about the International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation (IJDCR) please go to http://www.ijdcr.ca.

International Journal of Disability, Community & Rehabilitation

www.ijdcr.ca

Academic, Allied Health Professional, Bioethicist, Disabled Person, Health Economist, Health Services Researcher, Historian, Occupational Therapist, Physical Therapist, Policy Analyst, Public Health Expert, Social Scientist
Call for Papers: Maximizing Community Contributions, Benefits, and Outcomes in Clinical and Translational Research
08/06/2012
Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

Call for Papers: Maximizing Community Contributions, Benefits, and Outcomes in Clinical and Translational Research

A thematic issue of Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action

Deadline for submissions August 6, 2012

Academic, Community Activist, Health Services Researcher, Physician Researcher, Public Health Expert, Social Scientist
Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Safety Science: the Foundations of Safety Science
11/30/2012
Safety Science

Call for Papers for a Special Issue of Safety Science: the Foundations of Safety Science

Safety as a particular science can be claimed to have emerged in relation to social ambitions for increased safety and security – developing, experimenting and testing practical methods, tools and models with the aim of understanding and managing unwanted actions or events. However, being “applied” in nature does not mean that safety science is philosophy-free. All knowledge claims about safety are based on some form of foundational assumptions, rationality and logics. The ‘science’ part of ‘safety science’ seeks to ensure rigorousness of theories and methods for research, while providing credibility for the field and the community of people contributing to the domain.

Although established as a particular domain of knowledge, the status of safety science is in many ways contested. This can be related to its holistic character – through being constituted by a mix of scientists coming from different scientific traditions – and to its relatively young age as a scientific community. Moreover, over the last two decades safety science has been questioned in different ways and from different perspectives, for example: being found incoherent in its approach to risk (Clarke and Short, 1993); showing a disregard of safety as a social construct (Rochlin, 1999); and becoming embroiled in controversies over the role of culture in contributing to human actions in organisations (Hale, 2000). In addition to the concerns of safety science in particular, such questions are related to fundamental issues within scientific disciplines and the philosophy of science, such as the possibility for social modelling, the workings of the human mind, and the objective existence of the phenomenon of culture.

Perhaps one of the most profound foundational issues is the possibility of science being normative. The status of scientific knowledge can itself be questioned, for example by stating that science cannot be seen as anything more ‘value neutral’ than other knowledge, or by questioning whether scientific theories can be seen as true representations of reality. A large proportion of current debate within the philosophy of science can be argued as relating to the ongoing incommensurability of ‘realist’ and ‘constructivist’ scientific foundations. These hotly debated topics are nevertheless only the visible side of a wider debate on both science and technology, explored for some decades by different disciplines (philosophy, history, sociology) and addressing a number of classical questions about causality, determinism, laws, objectivity, induction, deduction, reductionism, facts, values, emergence, ontology, ethics, etc. These topics relate to any scientific endeavour, including safety science. We find, however, that such links to philosophical issues are not made in any consistent manner within the safety literature. New concepts, theories and models are often introduced with insufficient time and consideration devoted to clarifying and discussing their philosophical underpinnings and methodological foundations. In our view, this may be hampering the potential for fundamental and broadening scientific debate within the field. In fact, the diversity of disciplines involved in safety science is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on the different underlying assumptions about causality, laws, determinism, reductionism, value, etc. that influence methodological, empirical and theoretical developments. The idea behind this call for papers is to motivate a wide range of thought on these foundational issues.

As an example, a question such as ‘Can we learn from past incidents and accidents in order to project useful predictions into the future?’ represents an issue central to safety science. The question, however, is closely related to the well-known ‘problem of induction’ that has interested and puzzled philosophers of science for decades (Taleb, 2007). On logical grounds, it is indeed impossible to justify prediction through the observation of specific cases to be generalised. Only deductive reasoning can ensure such a logical approach. The way in which logical foundations are applied within safety science is therefore an interesting question.

A statement such as ‘safety is an emergent property’ challenges the principle of reductionism when it comes to applying it to open and complex systems. From cognitive and social-psychological dimensions to the social and political, including their technological aspects, can a reductionist account of safety be a likely prospect for the future? Reductionism, though not a popular option for many at the moment (Bunge, 2003), has been an important methodological driver for past success in science, and is certainly still influencing the rationale of many researchers (Wilson, 1999). For example: looking for simple solutions to complex problems will always reassert itself over more complex models and answers.

With regard to the ‘realist versus constructivist’ debate (Hacking, 2000), many may argue that ‘accidents cannot be seriously seen as including a subjective or socially constructed dimension’; these must be viewed as purely objective phenomena. To a realist, the consequences of an explosion may demonstrate that accidents are real, and nothing can deny this. However, a constructivist may say that this type of reasoning is missing a crucial point. That consequences (such as damages) are experienced may be certain and undeniable; nevertheless, the models used to interpret them fail to demonstrate how close they are to a ‘true’ description of reality ‘as it is’. To a constructivist, our understanding and knowledge of accidents and consequences varies with history and is dependent on social contexts. These elements of discussion indicate the necessity – in order to better understand arguments on safety and accidents – to distinguish ontology from epistemology.

The ‘realist versus constructivist’ debate also questions the scientist in relation to the object he or she studies and to society (Gibbons et al., 1994). Is the safety scientist outside society, trying to describe and predict external objective phenomena? Is this ideal of a ‘value neutral’ scientist producing an objective knowledge – to be used by various decision-makers within society – representative of safety researches? One might instead be inclined to think that, for most safety studies, there is a much closer relationship between researchers and their object. For many, indeed, safety is also a societal value for which they want clearly to contribute by producing useful models for improving situations. This value somehow blurs the boundaries of the traditional divide between outsiders and insiders.

In fact, when one starts exploring foundational topics such as these, it becomes clear that there is no ‘philosophy-free’ safety science, and that any research introduces, more or less implicitly, a great number of preconceptions that have been taken for granted. This call for papers is intended to contribute towards making scientific foundations more explicit to the community of safety scientists. The aim of this special issue is to facilitate an understanding of the philosophical underpinnings of safety science and the construction of a more systematic view on the foundations of safety science.

Original contributions are invited that deal, for example, with the following questions:

Key concepts and underlying assumptions affecting safety science
The object of study and the aim of safety science
Moral implications of the philosophical foundations of theories of safety science
Explanation and causality in safety science
Prediction in safety science
Duality of subjective and objective in safety science
The question of emergence in safety science
Philosophical underpinnings of Resilience Engineering, Behaviour Based Safety, Safety Culture, High Reliability Organisations, etc.

The deadline for receipt of papers is 30 November 2012, with publication expected for the second quarter of 2013. All papers will be subjected to the standard peer-review procedures of the journal. Papers should be submitted online via the Elsevier Editorial System (http://ees.elsevier.com/safety/)

References
Bunge, M. (2003). Emergence and convergence: Qualitative novelty and the unity of knowledge. University of Toronto Press.
Clarke, L., Short, J. F. (1993). Social organization and risk: Some current controversies. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 375-399.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contempory societies. Sage.
Hacking, I. (2000). The social construction of what? Harvard University Press.
Hale, A.R. (2000). Culture’s confusion. Editorial in Safety Science, 34, 1-14. Elsevier Science Ltd.
Rochlin, G. I. (1999). Safe operation as a social construct. Ergonomics, 42, 1549-1560.
Taleb, N. (2007). The Black Swan: The impact of the highly improbable. Penguin Books.
Wilson, E. O. (1999). Consilience: The unity of knowledge. Vintage.

Academic, Behavioral Scientist, Social Scientist
Invitation for Proposals for American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Theme Issue: Student Pharmacist Leadership Development
05/30/2012
American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education

Invitation for Proposals for American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education Theme Issue: Student Pharmacist Leadership Development

In 2011, an AACP working group was assembled to explore ways to better integrate leadership development opportunities in the PharmD curriculum, with a special focus on furthering our students' ability to create positive change. One of our group's recommendations was to propose a professional student leadership development theme issue of the American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education (AJPE). We are now working with AJPE to develop this theme issue and would like to invite you to submit a manuscript proposal. Information on submitting a proposal is provided below:

Proposals must include an abstract and detailed outline (see selection process below). All proposals must be submitted to Lynette Bradley-Baker at lbbaker@aacp.org, as a Word document, no later than May 30, 2012. No late submissions will be accepted.

AJPE Student Leadership Development Theme Issue Manuscript Proposal Components

1) Title of Manuscript and Author Name(s) and Affiliation(s)

2) Student Leadership Development Topic Area (CHOOSE ONE)
a) Research-focused work in areas of professional student leadership development
b) The role of didactic, experiential, co-curricular, international/global, or interprofessional education in leadership development
c) The role of student organizations in leadership development
d) Best practices in leadership instruction, including outcomes and quality indicators
e) The role of leadership abilities in the recruitment, selection, progression and/or graduation of student pharmacists

3) Abstract (Limit of 300 words)

For research articles, the abstract should include a brief statement (1-3 sentences) on each of the following sections: Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

For Instructional Design and Assessment papers, the abstract should include a statement on the following sections: Introduction, Design, Evaluation, Assessment and Summary.

4) Detailed Outline of the Manuscript Proposal (Limit to 1 page)

For Research Articles, the outline should include a detailed description for each of the following sections: Objective, Methods, Results, and Conclusions.

For Instructional Design and Assessment papers, the outline should include detailed description for each of the following sections: Introduction, Design, Evaluation, Assessment, and Summary.

The format of the outline can be in either bulleted or paragraph form. Authors may include additional sections as they deem necessary to their manuscript.

Manuscript proposals will be reviewed by the Student Leadership Curriculum Workgroup and members of the Leadership Development Special Interest Group (SIG). Members of the review committee are not excluded from submitting proposals for the special issue. However, each committee member will be excused from voting on their individual proposal and any proposal
from other individuals at their institution. In all, 6 to 8 manuscript proposals will be invited to for development into manuscripts to be reviewed and potentially published in the theme issue.

Authors of manuscript proposals that are not invited for the theme issue may submit their manuscripts to AJPE through the regular submission process.

The committee will complete its review by NO LATER than June 24, 2012. All proposal authors will be contacted within 7 days of this date. If your proposal is accepted, the following guidelines for your manuscript submission will apply:

(1) The completed manuscript will be subjected to the AJPE review process. The editor has the right to reject any manuscript that does not meet AJPE guidelines and quality.

(2) All manuscripts must be prepared following AJPE guidelines (http://www.ajpe.org/instructions.asp) and submitted via the AJPE online system.

(3) The final manuscript must be submitted by NO LATER than September 28, 2012.

The theme issue is projected to be published in late 2012.

If you have any questions, please contact Nanci Murphy, at murphyna@uw.edu or Lynette Bradley-Baker at lbbaker@aacp.org. We look forward to receiving your proposals!

Members of AACP working group of student leadership development
Lynette Bradley-Baker
Kristin Janke
Susan Meyer
Jenelle Sobotka
Todd Sorensen
Nanci Murphy, AJPE Guest Editor for Student Leadership Development theme issue

Academic, Pharmaceutical Scientist, Pharmacist, Pharmacologist

23456next