Search results

An estimated 1.2 million students gamble, equating to approximately two in every three students. In the UK, university students have reached the legal age to gamble; many have received significant sums of financial support and will be responsible for managing their own finances. Some UK universities have acknowledged that students engage in gambling activity and the need to provide gambling-related support. However, more research is needed to better understand student gambling activities and how universities can optimise provision of support. The purpose of this study was to enhance this understanding.

A total of 210 university students completed an online survey to provide details of their gambling behaviour and views on the types of support that they felt would best support students.

Both gambling and non-gambling students reported a preference for specialised gambling-related support within student services without the requirement for gambling-focused workshops (p < 0.01). Follow-up analysis revealed a significantly greater proportion of females did not gamble (p < 0.01), that males spent more money when gambling (p < 0.01) and were higher risk gamblers than females (p < 0.01).

These results provide evidence for gambling support to feature overtly as part of university support and well-being services.

This study aims to identify causes of (un)ethical behaviour in research and how they influence adherence to research ethics.

The authors developed and tested a conceptual model that includes mediation and helps to understand the mechanism of adherence to ethical standards of research based on the “social judgment theory” (SJT). In Study 1, the authors conducted an exploratory study using the exploratory factor analysis technique to identify factors responsible for adherence to research ethics. In Study 2, the authors used SJT to provide support for establishing a relationship between key variables.

Two factors, “Proclivity to Egoism” and “Proclivity to Emotivism”, were identified based on the personal beliefs of researchers. These factors were found to play an important role in determining the tendency towards adherence to standards of research ethics (Belmont Report and COPE). SJT successfully explains the mechanism of adoption of ethical standards. Adherence to Belmont principles was seen to mediate relationship between factors identified and tendency to adhere to COPE.

Majorly, this study is unique as it establishes and guides to incorporate researchers’ point of view in formulating ethical standards and guidelines, apart, from various other important theoretical and societal implications.

This study aims to explore different themes related to impostor phenomenon, as experienced by graduate students and postdocs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Open-ended survey responses from 120 US-based participants from 40 states and Washington, D.C., describing an occasion when they felt like an impostor, were analyzed thematically.

Following content analysis, three themes emerged: occurrence, attribution and identity. While impostor-like feelings were experienced as early as high school or college, the majority experienced it during PhD application, on being admitted to a PhD program and throughout PhD training. The people experiencing impostor phenomenon attributed their achievements and success to others (other’s name, prestige, or connections, other’s mistake, other’s lies or misrepresentation, or other’s kindness) or self (self-inadequacy, pretense, luck or self-doubt) rather than their own hard work or ability. Gender-based and race/ethnicity-based identity also shaped the experiences of the impostor phenomenon.

Open-ended survey responses varied in length and level of detail. Responses provided a one-time snapshot of a memory related to impostor-feelings that stood out, not indicating if the feeling persisted or evolved with time. The findings are not generalizable over a larger population.

This study identified multiple themes related to the impostor phenomenon not investigated before, enriching existing research while also providing methodological rigor for the development of follow-up studies.