<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
		<rss version="2.0">
		  <channel>
				<title><![CDATA[Woodhill Park Retreat - Articles - Opinion Pieces]]></title>
				<link>http://www.woodhillpark.com</link>
				<description />
				<language>en-us</language>
				<copyright><![CDATA[http://www.woodhillpark.com]]></copyright>
				<generator>N/A</generator>
				<webMaster>jens@woodhillpark.com</webMaster>
				<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 01:38:18 CDT</lastBuildDate>
			
				<ttl>20</ttl>

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[On ethical determinism – part one - five uneasy pieces.]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.woodhillpark.com/articles/22/1/On-ethical-determinism-a-part-one---five-uneasy-pieces/Page1.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[
<div class="PostContent"><!-- The Adsense will automatically be inserted half way through the content. Applies for both Side and Middle options. --><em>This is the first of a three parts&nbsp;on the vexed matter of ethics and the impact of ethics committees.&nbsp; This first part proposes that a latent consequence of the deliberations of ethics committees is that they change the design and&nbsp;behaviour of researchers in a range of ways.&nbsp; I have&nbsp;labelled this as "ethical determinism" and propose that there are at least five variants to this phenomenon.<br/><br/>The second part will examine the need to develop 'win-win' situations between ethics committees and researchers.&nbsp; Some possible common-sense strategies will also be proposed.<br/><br/>The third and final&nbsp;installment will consider some cases where ethical considerations have gone awry and will briefly outline the consequences of such outcomes.&nbsp;&nbsp;<br/><br/>I need at the outset to make the point that&nbsp;as this is an opinion piece, it comprises my ruminations about an issue.&nbsp; This means that&nbsp;I've not yet looked at the literature about this matter and much of what I have&nbsp;to say here may, in fact, already have been considered by other writers.&nbsp;&nbsp;If anyone wants to drop me a line about any of the points I've made, please do... so here we go with part one of three.&nbsp;&nbsp;</em></div>]]></description>
					  <author>no@spam.com (Dr. Jens J. Hansen)</author>
					  <pubDate>Mon, 02 Mar 2009 02:17:40 CST</pubDate>
					 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.woodhillpark.com/articles/22/1/On-ethical-determinism-a-part-one---five-uneasy-pieces/Page1.html</guid>
					</item>

				

					<item>
					  <title><![CDATA[Some thoughts on supervision]]></title>
					  <link>http://www.woodhillpark.com/articles/3/1/Some-thoughts-on-supervision/Page1.html</link>
					  <description><![CDATA[
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">Often the thesis supervision process is flawed.&nbsp; This brief paper considers the importance of good supervision and offers the Woodhill Park Research Retreat as an alternative venue when supervision challenges arise.&nbsp; Ideally, candidates and their supervisor/s should work together with staff at the Woodhill Park Research Retreat.&nbsp; <br/><br/>Hint: Pay particular attention to the footnote because it provides a hotlink to a key-note presentation that was given by the author at a conference for Ph.D. candidates that was held University of Auckland&nbsp;(or if you like, you can click <a href="http://www.woodhillpark.com/attachments/1/phd.pdf">here</a> to access that keynote address).&nbsp;</span></p>]]></description>
					  <author>no@spam.com (Dr. Jens J. Hansen)</author>
					  <pubDate>Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:16:43 CST</pubDate>
					 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.woodhillpark.com/articles/3/1/Some-thoughts-on-supervision/Page1.html</guid>
					</item>

				
				  </channel>
				</rss>
			