Art Therapy: Expanding Borders and Boundaries Through Artistic Responses (Art-thérapie : élargir les frontières par des interventions artistiques)

ISJ Editorial

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to provide a brief history of the evolution of the Diana Project and the Diana International Research Conference. The authors examine the impact of the publications, conferences and research contributions and consider key factors in the success of this collaborative research organization. They discuss the ongoing legacy, suggesting ways to extend this into the future.Design/methodology/approachThis paper uses an historical narrative and a citation analysis.FindingsThe Diana Project was founded by five women professors in 1999 with the purpose of investigating women’s access to growth capital. Following a series of academic articles, and numerous presentations, the first Diana International Conference was held in Stockholm, Sweden. At this convening, 20 scholars from 13 countries shared their knowledge of women’s entrepreneurship, venture creation and growth, culminating in the first volume of the Diana Book Series. Since then, 14 international conferences have been held, resulting in 10 special issues of top academic journals and 11 books. More than 600 scholars have attended or participated in Diana conferences or publications.Research limitations/implicationsContributions from the Diana International Conferences’ special issues of journals and books have advanced theory across topics, levels, geographies and methods. Articles emerging from Diana scholars are some of the top contributions about women’s entrepreneurship and gender to the field of entrepreneurship. Future research directions are included.Practical implicationsThis analysis demonstrates the success of a unique woman-focused collaborative research initiative and identifies key success factors, suggesting how these might be expanded in the future.Social implicationsTo date, more than 600 scholars have participated in the Diana International Conferences or publications. Diana is the only community dedicated to rigorous and relevant research about gender and women’s entrepreneurship. Going forward, efforts to expand work on education for women’s entrepreneurship, women entrepreneurship faculty and careers, and women entrepreneurs, gender and policy will take place to extend this legacy.Originality/valueThe paper is unique in that it is the first to show the substantial legacy and impact of the Diana project since its inception in 1999. Further, it demonstrates how a feminist approach to entrepreneurial principles can yield insights about this unique research initiative and collaborative organization.

should be recognized as important to our readers and to the practice. The recognition that issues of historical discrimination and the consequent need to address issues of diversifying the workforce emerged as a central theme from this discussion. It was determined that a special issue of the Journal would be appropriate as a venue to present a comprehensive overview of the types of discrimination that have been, and to a great extent still are, pervasive in the workforce, and in particular in the white-male-dominated practice of engineering. Special issues of ASCE journals are typically edited by an outstanding member of the engineering community designated as a “special editor.” We were most fortunate in having Dr. James Jim H. Johnson Jr., Dean of the College of Engineering, Architecture, and Computer Science at Howard University, consent to take on this important role. Jim has worked tirelessly with other outstanding leaders to put together this special issue to address diversity in a number of significant areas. I sincerely hope that our readers will find these articles enlightening and helpful in clarifying possible confusion and/or perhaps misunderstanding regarding the need for diversity in our engineering community. We cannot thank Jim and the contributing authors enough for taking their valuable time to contribute to this special issue.

Forest-ungulate interactions: monitoring, modeling and management

Success stories in molecular farming—a brief overview

Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: "Marketplace Morality"

Call for papers for a special issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology: “Marketplace Morality”

Announcement of a Special Issue in Journal of Consumer Psychology on: “Sensory perception, embodiment, and grounded cognition: Implications for consumer behavior"

The theoretical and research literatures on links between family functioning and pediatric chronic health conditions are extensive both in their comprehensiveness and depth. On the other hand, the assessment of family relationships is no easy task and there appear to be gaps between the quality of our family assessment methods and our theories, research methodologies, and clinical endeavors (Kazak, 2008). Why is the assessment of family functioning so challenging? First, when studying families, the focus of one’s research questions can be on individuals (e.g., the functioning of mothers, fathers, children), dyads (e.g., relations between mothers and children, relations within sibling pairs), the family system (e.g., the level of cohesiveness in the family as a whole), or any combination of these. Second, the same individual may serve different roles within the family (e.g., a mother could also be a spousal partner; an adolescent is a child but could also be a sibling). Third, there are different methods of assessment that can be employed with families (e.g., questionnaires, observational methods, interviews, daily diaries) and these methods often yield nonoverlapping or divergent data. Fourth, with our assessment methods, we are attempting to evaluate the functioning of the families where the individuals themselves as well as their health status are changing over time. Finally, such research is particularly challenging in families with individuals who have chronic health conditions because the assessment of family functioning can be based on generic and/or illness-related family assessment methods. Despite such challenges, empirical studies of families are among the most common types of research in the field of pediatric psychology and have been the basis for entire volumes and special issues of journals. In fact, one of the co-editors of the current special issue authored a review of 29 of the most commonly used family-based measures in pediatric psychology and concluded that the database for 19 of these measures had advanced to the point where they could be classified as “well-established” (Alderfer et al., 2008). Although this is an impressive number of high-quality measures, Alderfer et al. (2008) also advanced several recommendations for those who seek to further the quality of family assessment in the field of pediatric psychology. First, they maintained that many family measures were developed on general populations and that little is known about the psychometric quality of these measures in samples of individuals with chronic health conditions. Second, they suggested that we need more studies that focus on fathers and siblings and that the literature on the effects of factors such as family structure and ethnicity on family functioning in pediatric populations is less well developed. Finally, they suggested that we lack knowledge concerning the clinical utility and treatment sensitivity of our family-based measures (Alderfer et al., 2008). Although one issue of a journal could not possibly address all of the challenges of family assessment or the recommendations of Alderfer et al. (2008), the current special issue moves the field forward by providing new measures (including the development of noncategorical and disease-specific measures of various aspects of family functioning), novel uses of previously developed measures, and new approaches to integrating across existing measures. The contributors are all to be commended for the value of their research in advancing the field of pediatric psychology. In this commentary, we first discuss the many strengths of the articles in this issue. Next, we evaluate the evidence base for the family-based instruments included in these papers by using the checklist for measure development and validation, which we published in the Journal of Pediatric Psychology in 2009 (Holmbeck & Devine, 2009). Finally, we discuss research that is needed to continue our progress in the area of family assessment.

Introduction to this special issue on Geostatistics and Geospatial Techniques in Remote Sensing

The previous 28thAustralasian Polymer Symposium in Rotorua, New Zealand, was particularly notable for its elegant fusion of polymer science with biomaterials. As co-Chairs Greg Russell and Martina Stenzel put it in their foreword[1] to the corresponding special issue of the Australian Journal of Chemistry: ‘We must embrace the important challenges posed by the frontier between polymers and biomaterials, for the better future of the world depends on it.’ Although this notion was retained in the conference program of the recent 29th Australasian Polymer Symposium (APS) held in Hobart in February this year, it is notable that the current research and funding culture is permeated with a strong application focus on the biomaterials/ synthetic polymer frontier and the need (or pressure?) to generate immediateand short-term benefits for society. This is also evidenced by an inflation of ‘nano/bio’buzz words in the titles of journal articles as well as funding applications.While an application focus is highly important, great care has to be taken that more fundamental questions also continue to be addressed: after all, the fusion of biological with synthetic polymer science can only advance and benefit immediate applications when the underpinning polymerization processes are fully understood. It is an often overlooked fact that access to the kinetics and mechanism of a polymerization process are key to predicting and controlling polymer microstructures and functionality as well as the design of improved polymerization protocols for accessing well-defined and complex polymer structures. Thus, the main message, which is evident in the current resulting special issue, is that applications and fundamental investigations must support each other. The application-driven fusion of biological aims with synthetic polymer science is highlighted in the current special issue by several articles: a review on the design of star polymer systems and their application in drug delivery[2] contributed by Greg Qiao and James Wiltshire (one of the 29th APS Treloar Prize[3] winners); a focus article on flexible honeycomb-structured films that can be employed in biological contexts (from the second Treloar Prize winner Luke Connal),[4] while a further review

Direct and Conceptual Replication in Numerical Cognition - Special Issue in Journal of Numerical Cognition

First Person is a series of interviews with the first authors of a selection of papers published in Journal of Cell Science, helping early-career researchers promote themselves alongside their papers. Nicola De Franceschi is co-first author on ‘ ProLIF – quantitative integrin protein–protein interactions and synergistic membrane effects on proteoliposomes’ and first author on ‘ The ESCRT protein CHMP2B acts as a diffusion barrier on reconstituted membrane necks’, companion papers published in the ‘Reconstituting Cell Biology’ special issue in Journal of Cell Science. Nicola conducted the research in the first of these articles while a PhD student in the lab of Johanna Ivaska at Turku Centre for Biotechnology, Turku, Finland. He is now a postdoctoral fellow, and conducted the research in the second article, in Patricia Bassereau's lab at Institut Curie, Paris, France, where his research focuses on in vitro reconstitution of ESCRT-III machinery.

Perrot-Rechenmann, C. and Hagen, G. Auxin molecular biology

While academic cronyism is an acknowledged phenomenon it is rarely the subject of research in higher education except by reference to staff recruitment and academic in-breeding. It constitutes a ‘wicked’ problem that is complex to understand and investigate since it is based on networks of individuals that are grounded on reciprocal professional benefits that are often private or at least partly hidden from view. Drawing on social network theory, this paper demonstrates how academic cronyism works by reference to journal special issues developing illustrative case studies of relationships between authors and special issue editors. Publicly available data from journal home pages, journal special issues, individual bibliometrics, citation systems and social media are used to trace prior and current authorship relationships between contributors to journal special issues. The case studies indicate that academic social networks are a significant factor in respect to journal special issues providing a strong prima facie indicator of academic cronyism. While some journals use the standard peer review process for special issues based on open calls for papers others use irregular procedures and operate a closed system that promotes academic cronyism. It is recommended that a set of principles labeled ‘CORE’ –consistency, openness, rigour, and equity – should be adopted by journals to protect the integrity of journal special issues.