The second author discloses that an immediate family member obtained employment with Facebook after the research was conducted and concluded. No other conflicts of interest to disclose.

For families with limited opportunities for face-to-face interaction, social media can be a vital communication medium to help shape the family identity, maintain bonds, and accomplish shared tasks. This mixed-methods systematic review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-method empirical studies published between 1997 and 2019 uses a convergent data-based framework to explore how long-distance families engage in family practices using various modes of social media. Fifty-one papers were synthesized into four domains: (1) doing family in a social media environment, (2) performing family through stories and rituals, (3) the nature of online communication practices, and (4) privacy, conflict, and the quality of family relationships. Given the value of patterned routines to families, research into the role of family kinkeepers is suggested. Finally, families use chat (messages) extensively for both assuring behaviour and conflict resolution so further investigation of the impact of this asynchronous mode is recommended.

No abstract

Significance Communicating in ways that motivate engagement in social distancing remains a critical global public health priority during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study tested motivational qualities of messages about social distancing (those that promoted choice and agency vs. those that were forceful and shaming) in 25,718 people in 89 countries. The autonomy-supportive message decreased feelings of defying social distancing recommendations relative to the controlling message, and the controlling message increased controlled motivation, a less effective form of motivation, relative to no message. Message type did not impact intentions to socially distance, but people’s existing motivations were related to intentions. Findings were generalizable across a geographically diverse sample and may inform public health communication strategies in this and future global health emergencies.

A growing body of literature critical of ethics review boards has drawn attention to the processes that determine the ethical merit of research. Citing criticism on the bureaucratic nature of ethics review processes, this literature provides a useful provocation for (re)considering how the ethics review might be enacted. Much of this criticism focuses on how ethics review boards deliberate, with particular attention given to the lack of transparency and opportunities for researcher recourse that characterise ethics review processes. Centered specifically on the conduct of ethics review boards convened within university settings, this paper draws on these inherent criticisms to focus its analysis on the ways that ethics review boards might enact more communicative deliberative practices. Outlining a set of principles against which ethics review boards might establish strategies for engaging with researchers and research communities, this paper draws attention to how Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility for the ethics review might be enacted in the day-to-day practice of the university human ethics review board. This paper develops these themes via a conceptual lens derived from Jürgen Habermas' (1984) articulation of 'communicative action' and Nancy Fraser's (1990) consideration of 'strong publics' to cast consideration of the role that human ethics review boards might play in supporting university research cultures. Deliberative communication, Engagement with researchers and the Distribution of responsibility provide useful conceptual prompts for considering how ethics review boards might undertake their work.

No abstract

The Australian National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) reached full national implementation in July 2019. It supports Australians with disabilities via individualized funding packages for disability-specific services and assistive technology. This systematic review of literature presents research describing the experiences of parents of children with disabilities in accessing and participating in the fledgling NDIS and makes recommendations to assist the Agency in better supporting new participant families.

Ethics review processes are frequently perceived as extending from codes and protocols rooted in biomedical disciplines. As a result, many researchers in the humanities and social sciences (HASS) find these processes to be misaligned, if not outrightly obstructive to their research. This leads some scholars to advocate against HASS participation in institutional review processes as they currently stand, or in their entirety. While ethics review processes can present a challenge to HASS researchers, these are not insurmountable and, in fact, present opportunities for ethics review boards (ERBs) to mediate their practices to better attend to the concerns of the HASS disciplines. By highlighting the potential value of the ethics review process in recognising the nuances and specificity across different forms of research, this article explores the generative possibilities of greater collaboration between HASS researchers and ERBs. Remaining cognisant of the epistemic and methodological differences that mark different disciplinary formations in turn will benefit the ethical conduct of all researchers.