They Say You are a Danger But You Are Not: Representations and Construction of the Moral Self in Narratives of 'Dangerous Individuals'

This article is based on an analysis of narratives of 26 offenders with mental health problems living in the United Kingdom. It explores the impact of an ascribed dangerous status and the construction of the self as moral and responsible in response to this label with reference to the literature on denial, deviance disavowal and other “techniques of neutralization” and Goffman's presentation of self. Two dominant strands are identified in relation to the construction of moral self-hood: “Not my fault” and “Good at heart” narratives. “Techniques of neutralization” are widely drawn on, particularly denial of responsibility in the “Not my fault” narratives that seek to explain anti-social behavior with reference to external forces such as a hostile environment inhibiting their ability to control their lives. In contrast, “Good at heart” narratives draw on the essentially good and moral nature of the inner-self. Both are used as evidence of sharing and adhering to moral norms in order to present an acceptable and credible self.

Validation of scales measuring self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in evidence-based practice

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) is embraced internationally as an ideal approach to improve patient outcomes and provide cost-effective care. However, despite the support for and apparent benefits of evidence-based practice, it has been shown to be complex and difficult to incorporate into the clinical setting. Research exploring implementation of evidence-based practice has highlighted many internal and external barriers including clinicians’ lack of knowledge and confidence to integrate EBP into their day-to-day work. Nurses in particular often feel ill-equipped with little confidence to find, appraise and implement evidence. Aims: The following study aimed to undertake preliminary testing of the psychometric properties of tools that measure nurses’ self-efficacy and outcome expectancy in regard to evidence-based practice. Methods: A survey design was utilised in which nurses who had either completed an EBP unit or were randomly selected from a major tertiary referral hospital in Brisbane, Australia were sent two newly developed tools: 1) Self-efficacy in Evidence-Based Practice (SE-EBP) scale and 2) Outcome Expectancy for Evidence-Based Practice (OE-EBP) scale. Results: Principal Axis Factoring found three factors with eigenvalues above one for the SE-EBP explaining 73% of the variance and one factor for the OE-EBP scale explaining 82% of the variance. Cronbach’s alpha for SE-EBP, three SE-EBP factors and OE-EBP were all >.91 suggesting some item redundancy. The SE-EBP was able to distinguish between those with no prior exposure to EBP and those who completed an introductory EBP unit. Conclusions: While further investigation of the validity of these tools is needed, preliminary testing indicates that the SE-EBP and OE-EBP scales are valid and reliable instruments for measuring health professionals’ confidence in the process and the outcomes of basing their practice on evidence.