To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Black, Asian and minority ethnicity groups may experience better health outcomes when living in areas of high own-group ethnic density – the so-called ‘ethnic density’ hypothesis. We tested this hypothesis for the treatment outcome of compulsory admission.
Data from the 2010–2011 Mental Health Minimum Dataset (N = 1 053 617) was linked to the 2011 Census and 2010 Index of Multiple Deprivation. Own-group ethnic density was calculated by dividing the number of residents per ethnic group for each lower layer super output area (LSOA) in the Census by the LSOA total population. Multilevel modelling estimated the effect of own-group ethnic density on the risk of compulsory admission by ethnic group (White British, White other, Black, Asian and mixed), accounting for patient characteristics (age and gender), area-level deprivation and population density.
Asian and White British patients experienced a reduced risk of compulsory admission when living in the areas of high own-group ethnic density [odds ratios (OR) 0.97, 95% credible interval (CI) 0.95–0.99 and 0.94, 95% CI 0.93–0.95, respectively], whereas White minority patients were at increased risk when living in neighbourhoods of higher own-group ethnic concentration (OR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11–1.26). Higher levels of own-group ethnic density were associated with an increased risk of compulsory admission for mixed-ethnicity patients, but only when deprivation and population density were excluded from the model. Neighbourhood-level concentration of own-group ethnicity for Black patients did not influence the risk of compulsory admission.
We found only minimal support for the ethnic density hypothesis for the treatment outcome of compulsory admission to under the Mental Health Act.
In recent years, a variety of efforts have been made in political science to enable, encourage, or require scholars to be more open and explicit about the bases of their empirical claims and, in turn, make those claims more readily evaluable by others. While qualitative scholars have long taken an interest in making their research open, reflexive, and systematic, the recent push for overarching transparency norms and requirements has provoked serious concern within qualitative research communities and raised fundamental questions about the meaning, value, costs, and intellectual relevance of transparency for qualitative inquiry. In this Perspectives Reflection, we crystallize the central findings of a three-year deliberative process—the Qualitative Transparency Deliberations (QTD)—involving hundreds of political scientists in a broad discussion of these issues. Following an overview of the process and the key insights that emerged, we present summaries of the QTD Working Groups’ final reports. Drawing on a series of public, online conversations that unfolded at www.qualtd.net, the reports unpack transparency’s promise, practicalities, risks, and limitations in relation to different qualitative methodologies, forms of evidence, and research contexts. Taken as a whole, these reports—the full versions of which can be found in the Supplementary Materials—offer practical guidance to scholars designing and implementing qualitative research, and to editors, reviewers, and funders seeking to develop criteria of evaluation that are appropriate—as understood by relevant research communities—to the forms of inquiry being assessed. We dedicate this Reflection to the memory of our coauthor and QTD working group leader Kendra Koivu.1
Conventional approaches to evidence that prioritise randomised controlled trials appear increasingly inadequate for the evaluation of complex mental health interventions. By focusing on causal mechanisms and understanding the complex interactions between interventions, patients and contexts, realist approaches offer a productive alternative. Although the approaches might be combined, substantial barriers remain.
Declaration of interest
All authors had financial support from the National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research Programme while completing this work. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, the Medical Research Council, Central Commissioning Facility, National Institute for Health Research Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, the Health Services and Delivery Research Programme or the Department of Health. S.P.S. is part funded by Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care West Midlands. K.B. is editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry.
Should constructivist research engage empirical debates with other approaches, especially non-constructivists? Recent calls for ‘eclectic’ and ‘pluralistic’ scholarship seem to encourage engagement, including across epistemological divides many constructivists have long perceived with non-constructivists. Yet this literature downplays competition between approaches, instead emphasizing that they answer different parts of questions. In seeming to evoke a division of labor, the eclectic turn actually strengthens a sense that approaches occupy distinct spaces. This article offers a sympathetic corrective to the eclectic turn, and to common accounts of older epistemological divides. Before eclectic combinations, empirical work necessarily begins from contrasting accounts on the same terrain. Only a naïve positivist imagines that meaningful scholarship tests solitary hypotheses against reality. Today’s scholars vary in how far they move toward more socially based epistemologies, with constructivists moving furthest – and the further we move, the more the shape and significance of our accounts depends on contrasts to others. Thus, all scholars should seek out competing alternatives, especially constructivists. After making this point, the article unpacks how it has been obscured by four arguments that limit competition between constructivist claims and alternatives, concerning constitutiveness, understanding, holistic methodology, and anti-foundationalism. Each view contains errors that can be corrected without undercutting the epistemological commitments of its proponents. This clears the way for introducing more competition into constructivism and into the eclectic turn more generally. All scholars, including all constructivists, working within their own epistemologies, will do their best work through contrasts to alternatives across our old divides.
Moises Ostrogorski once denounced political parties for burying diverse concerns of pluralistic societies under monolithic electoral options. E.E. Schattschneider celebrated them for the same reason: organizing choice and ‘responsible party government’ amid pluralistic complexity. Comparativists have found both dynamics in European legislatures: most European parties exhibit the high average levels of voting unity that Schattschneider’s theory implies, but also display rather Ostrogorskian cycles of discipline, stifling dissent on divisive issues at election time. We use comparativists’ tools to explore the dynamics and normative quality of party unity in the different terrain of the US Congress. We find similar cycles of unity in roll-call voting, but in the American context – with more loosely organized parties, especially historically but still today – Ostrogorskian stifling of dissent operates against a less Schattschneiderian background. In comparative perspective, Congressional parties muffle divisive issues more effectively than they deliver governance, with tenuous implications for representation.
Taxation, Wage Bargaining and Unemployment. By Isabela Mares.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006. 288p. $70.00 cloth, $27.99
Just three years after publishing The Politics of Social Risk:
Business and Welfare State Development, a prize-winning book on the
role of employers in the development of European welfare states, Isabela
Mares offers an overarching explanation of labor market performance in
postwar Europe. She builds on the institutionalist literature in political
economy, but combines its best-known models of labor markets with other
elements. As foundations, she takes the Calmfors-Driffil model, which
stressed that unemployment varies with labor union centralization (since
more centralized unions are better at delivering wage moderation), and the
Soskice-Iversen model, which stressed that unemployment varies with the
independence and policies of central banks (since union moderation is
encouraged by nonaccommodating monetary policy, which adjusts to cancel
out wage inflation that exceeds productivity growth). Mares notes,
however, that in most cases, neither union centralization nor monetary
policy institutions have varied as much as unemployment over
time—leaving these models better able to account for cross-national
variation than for cross-temporal patterns.
A new kind of historic transformation is underway in twenty-first-century Europe. Twentieth-century Europeans were no strangers to social, economic and political change, but their major challenges focused mainly on the intra-European construction of stable, prosperous, capitalist democracies. Today, by contrast, one of the major challenges is flows across borders - and particularly in-flows of non-European people. Immigration and minority integration consistently occupy the headlines. The issues which rival immigration - unemployment, crime, terrorism - are often presented by politicians as its negative secondary effects. Immigration is also intimately connected to the profound challenges of demographic change, economic growth and welfare-state reform. Both academic observers and the European public are increasingly convinced that Europe's future will largely turn on how is admits and integrates non-Europeans. This book is a comprehensive stock-taking of the contemporary situation and its policy implications.
A new kind of historic transformation is underway in Europe at the outset of the twenty-first century. Twentieth-century Europeans were no strangers to social, economic, and political change, but their major challenges focused mainly on the intra-European construction of stable, prosperous, capitalist democracies. While the extra-European world obviously affected the continent in many ways, the biggest problems turned on compromises within or between European societies (and with the most influential offshoot of European society, the United States). In many ways, the creation of a single currency for the European Union in 1999 marked a fitting conclusion to Europe's inwardly-focused twentieth century. Today, by contrast, most Europeans perceive their main challenges as related to flows across their borders – flows of Europeans from other European Union nations (including the ten new partners from eastern and southern Europe), but particularly inflows of non-European people. Immigration and minority integration consistently occupy the headlines and loom over the political agenda, even playing some role in the French and Dutch rejections of the European Constitution in Spring 2005. Moreover, the issues that rival immigration for immediate political salience – unemployment, crime, terrorism – are often presented by politicians as its negative secondary effects. Immigration is also intimately tied to serious global economic pressures, the challenges of population ageing, and welfare-state reform. Both academic observers and the European public are increasingly convinced that Europe's future will turn to a substantial degree on how they incorporate and integrate non-Europeans into European culture, customs and institutions.
Why did Western Europe create uniquely strong international institutions in the 1950s, setting the foundations for today's quasi-federal European Union? This article contests explanations of the European Economic Community (EEC) as a straightforward response to structural interdependence, or as an institutionally “path-dependent” variation on such a response. Only leadership based on certain ideas explains why Europeans created the EEC rather than pursuing cooperation within weaker institutions or standard diplomatic instruments. In France—the only major state that insisted on the “community” framework—divided preferences and issue-linkages created “multiple equilibria” that allowed leaders to mobilize support for several European strategies. The EEC strategy was selected over viable alternatives by leaders who stood out from their party, bureaucratic, sectoral, and regional allies in holding certain ideas about Europe. This demonstration of the major, distinct impact of ideas offers concrete support to the growing theoretical literature on ideas and norms.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.