Divorcing romance, rights and radicalism:Beyond pro and anti in the lesbian and gay marriage debate

In this article about ‘For Better or Worse? Lesbian and Gay Marriage’ (Feminism & Psychology, 14[1]) we focus on the contributions to the special feature, the commentaries provided by Ellen Lewin (2004), Sheila Jeffreys (2004) and Sue Wise and Liz Stanley (2004), and on wider debates about lesbian and gay marriage and partnership recognition. We agree that ‘there is a lot of confusion/assumptions made about what “it” (i.e. “marriage”) is’ (Wise and Stanley, 2004: 333). Thus, when talking about same-sex partnership recognition we are concerned with civil marriage (or civil union, or civil partnership), and not religious marriage. Our emphasis is on the public not on the private sphere; we are less interested with the personal aspects of relationships (such as intimacy or commitment) than with their public function in, for instance, obtaining ‘rights and responsibilities’.

Motherhood on ice? A media framing analysis of older mothers in the UK news

Changing gender roles and increased sexual and economic freedom have created opportunities for women to give birth relatively late in life. However, stigma and misplaced fears about physical capacity are often reported as sources of anxiety among older, and in vitro fertilisation-induced mothers. In this study, we apply a specially adapted method for analysing news media content to a week's selection of material in the British media following the dissemination of research at an international medical conference. Our findings suggest, despite some positive commentaries, that much negative discourse is circulated by the media about older mothers, from implied claims of selfishness (older mothers as 'delaying' conception) to violations of the 'natural order'. These latter claims reflect the long-standing ambivalence by the media generally towards scientific advancement, but they also reveal continuing resistance towards unorthodox lifestyles.

Problems with formative and higher-order reflective variables

Cadogan and Lee (this issue) discuss the problems inherent in modeling formative latent variables as endogenous. In response to the commentaries by Rigdon (this issue) and Finn and Wang (this issue), the present article extends the discussion on formative measures. First, the article shows that regardless of whether statistical identification is achieved, researchers are unable to illuminate the nature of a formative latent variable. Second, the study clarifies issues regarding formative indicator weighting, highlighting that the weightings of formative components should be specified as part of the construct definition. Finally, the study shows that higher-order reflective constructs are invalid, highlights the damage their use can inflict on theory development and knowledge accumulation, and provides recommendations on a number of alternative models which should be used in their place (including the formative model). © 2012 Elsevier Inc.

Transdisciplinarity and reflective practice in sustainable development learning

Using various extracts from the reflective commentaries of MSc students, this article explores how transdisciplinarity and reflective practice operate in the programme. It shows how learners managed the uncertainties of sustainable development through regular critical and evaluative reflections. Students were able to apprehend the several worlds making up the sustainable development project and their own personal learning journey through the various competing, complementary and occasionally contradictory perspectives, modes of learning, sources of knowledge and information. One conceptual device facilitating this process was offering an understanding of sustainable development as constituting a ‘dialogue of values’, an approach that effectively invites students to square the metaphorical circle - i.e. broadly reconciling (ecological) sustainability with (economic) development.

Formative variables and unreal variables:why the formative MIMIC model is invalid

In this rejoinder, we provide a response to the three commentaries written by Diamantopoulos, Howell, and Rigdon (all this issue) on our paper The MIMIC Model and Formative Variables: Problems and Solutions (also this issue). We contrast the approach taken in the latter paper (where we focus on clarifying the assumptions required to reject the formative MIMIC model) by spending time discussing what assumptions would be necessary to accept the use of the formative MIMIC model as a viable approach. Importantly, we clarify the implications of entity realism and show how it is entirely logical that some theoretical constructs can be considered to have real existence independent of their indicators, and some cannot. We show how the formative model only logically holds when considering these ‘unreal’ entities. In doing so, we provide important counter-arguments for much of the criticisms made in Diamantopoulos’ commentary, and the distinction also helps clarify a number of issues in the commentaries of Howell and Rigdon (both of which in general agree with our original paper). We draw together these various threads to provide a set of conceptual tools researchers can use when thinking about the entities in their theoretical models.

Medication review of children on long term medications:a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.