We seek to understand how the experiences of groups that differ in gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation produce college-level educational performances that differ from the experiences of the dominant majority group. We employ two datasets: a National Database of 24,701 participants and a Paired-Measures Database with 3,323 participants. Both datasets provide demographic information, socioeconomic conditions of status as first-generation student, English as a first language, and interest in majoring in science, and competency scores on understanding science as a way of knowing obtained from the Science Literacy Concept Inventory. The Paired-Measures Database includes additional selfassessed competence ratings that enabled quantifying affective confidence. We meld the ways of knowing of ethics, numeracy, and social justice, especially the social justice concept of Othering, to interpret our data. Two of three competing hypotheses about self-assessment encourage Othering. Our data strongly support the third-that all groups are good at self-assessment and merit equal respect. Women and men are equally competent in science literacy. Women, on average, are more accurate in their self-assessments whereas men, on average, are overconfident. Those with minority sexual orientations register higher competence than the binary-sexual majority but are less confident of their competency. Minority ethnicities, on average, produce significantly lower science literacy scores. With one exception (Middle Eastern), groups produce mean self-assessed competence ratings that are remarkably accurate predictors of their mean competence scores. The three socioeconomic conditions exert significant and unequal impacts across ethnic groups, with Hispanic, Middle Eastern and Pacific Islander data providing some unique results.

Social care settings provide a complex landscape for systemic psychotherapists, particularly in relation to issues of power that are particularly pervasive. Conversation Analysis (CA) was used as a research method to understand the detail of how systemic psychotherapists and parents work together in the safeguarding context. The study aimed to examine the power issues arising, and how they were being managed. CA literature, seen as a reminder of the centrality of ‘talk as action’, is used as a lens through which to present the findings, and the concept of authority as joint action is introduced. The findings of the study showed how systemic approaches, put to use through systemic techniques, can uniquely contribute to safeguarding work in contexts where issues of power prevail, with a particular emphasis on the importance of the concept of self‐reflexivity. Practitioner points Notice and work with the complex circular ways that power issues arise in relationships in social care settings Use the concept of Jointly Created Authority to provide a relational frame for managing issues of power Revisit the concept of self‐reflexivity which is of primary importance to effective working in this context Develop understanding of how, using reflexive practice, adjusting responses in the moment can invite agency in clients

No abstract

Senior manager Rachel Watson provides a personal account of combatting staff's susceptibility to Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD) and describes one simple solution to lightening mood and morale in her nursery.