Explain the main differences between formal, academic research and other forms of research, including (where relevant) investigations you undertake in the course of your professional work.
200-300 words, approx.
Answer must be supported with references
For each of the following ‘research questions’ (RQ1-RQ3),
a) Explain whether you think each is well articulated. Give reasons for your answers.
b) Explain whether you think each is doable in terms of access to relevant information.
RQ1: What is the difference between teachers’ and doctors’ views of drug use among adolescents?
RQ2: Why do the families of police officers suffer from poor mental health?
RQ3: Why do students drop out of secondary school before completing year 12?
150-200 words (approx.) per ‘research question’
You have been asked to conduct research into the interactions between police officers and ambulance officers in your town.
a) Identify an approach that could be taken to this research question based on ontology that says there is one reality, and an epistemology that says we can know measurable specific things about that reality.
b) Explain why/how your approach demonstrates that sort of epistemology and ontology.
c) Identify an approach that could be taken to this research question based on an ontology that says there is more than one reality, and an epistemology that views perceptions and experiences as important sources of knowledge.
d) Explain why/how your approach demonstrates that sort of epistemology and ontology.
What are tolerant agents and advocates, and in what ways do they profit patients? There has been a doubtful change inside the working practices of the social insurance frameworks in the UK (and somewhere else) in the current couple of decades. One can point to the steady development of the overall population view of the specialist/doctor from an unchallengeable, unapproachable all-knowing figure typifying kind paternalism at the commencement of the NHS to the still learned, however by the by responsible, social insurance proficient who needs to think about the patient's needs and prerequisites yet can at present be equipped for settling on choices which may not be in the patient's best general premiums. (1) This has been combined with the authority of different partners, for example, the pharmaceutical business, whose points and goals may not generally run parallel with the idea of all encompassing patient care. (2) One can likewise contend that the idea of support has ascended to the fore lately, because of such developmental procedures, with most partners concurring that the part of the patient promoter is a fundamental essential of current human services frameworks and is accepted to be a methods for defending great patient care. At first sight, this development could be viewed as an all inclusive idea of perfection with no drawback, all things considered, quiet focused care and patient strengthening and instruction are viewed as present beliefs in medicinal services conveyance and most likely patient support must be viewed as a noteworthy apparatus in accomplishing these objectives? This exposition challenges this idea and plans to set out the contentions both for and against this suggestion. There is almost certainly that the idea of support has picked up trustworthiness in the current past and is thought to be a methods for protecting principles of good patient care. (3) It is maybe obvious that various diverse social insurance proficient groupings guarantee the characteristic appropriate to be quiet backers proposing, in help of their cases, that their specific branch of the calling has an innate capacity in the part. Nearer assessment may propose that the diverse callings, and in reality unique people inside these callings, may really have distinctive understandings of, and applications for the part of the patient supporter. (4) The consequence of this range of convictions is that there is both disarray and vulnerability as to what support may be, or really ought to be, what it involves and what esteems it ought to have. This is irritating from a systematic perspective, as it is for the most part concurred that the idea of support carries with it various benefits, some of which are to a great extent in light of the acknowledgment of the way that the patient promoter is ventured to have experiences into the manner by which patients see their own particular advantages, others incorporate an upgrade of the person's own particular expert standing. To extend the principal point further. We have utilized the expression "patients saw interests" to incorporate their apparent convictions into their rights and defensive systems, including their privilege of power and level of contribution to clinical basic leadership, identifying with their own case. Regardless of the remarks and contemplations as of now exhibited, we would propose that natural in the discourses identifying with persistent backing, will be a component which considers whether there is a genuine requirement for the patient supporter. In the event that we can show a need, at that point we ought to likewise consider precisely what are the highlights that a patient backer would need to exemplify and furthermore it takes after that we ought to talk about who is most appropriate to satisfy the part. Right off the bat at that point, we have to consider regardless of whether a patient supporter is really required in the present instruments of conveyance of NHS medicinal services. Is there really a need to help patients, to express their apparent needs more vociferously, to guarantee that their needs are considered important and that their advantages are effectively advanced? This is most likely best outlined by thinking about cases at the outrageous end of the continuum of need. We can refer to as of late pitched situations where conjoined twins were isolated by course of a court in spite of the protestations and direct restriction of their folks (5). One can likewise consider an all the more as often as possible experienced reasonable issue, where the rationally sick patient chooses to stop drug and the specialist accountable for the case opposes this idea. On confront esteem, these sorts of circumstances seem to make a genuinely unanswerable case for the presence of the patient promoter. On more profound examination anyway, one can take the view that the idea of promotion can seem to force certain troubles in the conspicuous and fundamental connection between the human services proficient and the patient, which may give it an appearance which is potentially neither required, attractive or really justified. The nearness of a supporter in the restorative arrangements amongst specialist and patient conveys with it an inferred recommendation that the two gatherings are not just in struggle over the choices identifying with the best (or most suitable) treatment for the patient, yet that the experts may not really have patient's best advantages in locate and may really have ulterior thought processes from which the patient should be secured. Obviously this is an outrageous position, and may well not be illustrative of most by far of specialist tolerant connections. We don't look to contend against the way that the perfect (and presumably typical) connection amongst specialist and patient is something besides one of all encompassing consideration and that the medicinal services proficient considers the necessities and wants of the patient completely while detailing care designs and doing proficient collaborations. In the event that we are right in the suspicion this is really the case, at that point it takes after that, in the typical specialist understanding cooperation, there is unmistakably no requirement for a patient promoter as this can be deciphered as being viewed as an inalienable piece of the expert movement of a human services proficient. This perspective is upgraded by an examination of the guidance given and directions forced by the different expert administrative bodies in the UK. For instance, the GMC offers exhortation to every single enlisted specialist: make the care of your patients your first concern, regard patients' nobility and protection; tune in to patients and regard their perspectives; regard the privilege of patients to be completely engaged with choices about their care. (6) The United Kingdom Central Committee for Nursing and Health Visiting (UKCC) likewise include that their suggestion is that their enlisted experts should "guarantee that the interests of patients educate each demonstration of the specialist" (refered to in 7). Medical attendants particularly are coordinated to: act constantly in such a way as to defend and advance the interests of patients and customers. Work in an open and helpful way with patients, customers and their families, encourage their freedom and perceive and regard their association in the arranging and conveyance of care." (8) These contentions and expert articulations are reliable with the Ethical important of Beneficence, which viably accuses all social insurance experts of an obligation to shield the patient from hurt. It is likely past debate that by far most of human services experts, if asked, would propose that they would embrace these standards in their expert work. If so, at that point one could sensibly contend that there is no requirement for the patient promoter since the experts in the human services framework are as of now mindful of their duties in this regard and that an emphasis on a prerequisite for a particular and separate part of a patient supporter could be viewed as superfluous, scaremonger and laden with the possibility to deliver strife. (9) Some portion of the inconsistency in these perspectives ends up evident when one thinks about the privilege of the individual patient and the aggregate privileges of all patients. Medicinal services experts have an obligation of helpfulness to the patient that they are treating, however there is additionally a more extensive duty to "The Public Health" in a general sense, and this absolutely is a noteworthy wellspring of potential clash. This isn't a scholastic contention however an exceptionally commonsense one. Nearer examination of the archives refered to above demonstrates that, for instance, the GMC expects specialists to consider and react to the requirements of "all patients" - not only the individual patient that they are treating at the time. This unmistakably has a tremendous potential for creating struggle when, since the appearance of activities, for example, Fundholding, numerous specialists likewise have changing degrees of duty regarding running their own financial plans which at that point specifically ponder understanding consideration. (2). Such clashes upgrade the recognition, by general society everywhere, that their own particular saw singular interests are being adjusted by the specialist (or other medicinal services proficient) against the interests of different groups. In the event that the specialist needs to organize treatment (as unavoidably they should in an apportioned administration, for example, the NHS), the patient may trust that their own needs are being subsumed by a thought of the more noteworthy open great, subsequently denying them of both self-governance and the likelihood of accomplishing those treatment objectives that would somehow or another have been set for them. (10) One just needs to consider the furore encompassing the Alderhey organ maintenance issue to value that such a view has an impressive legitimacy and topical reverberation. This issue has been tended to by various experts before. In a point of reference paper on the issue, Fried looked at the part of the promoter in the medicinal field with the eponymous part in the lawful calling. (11) He drew various analogies between the specialist - tolerant relationship and the connection between the legal counselor and the customer, portraying them both as non-utilit>GET ANSWER