Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
AbstractThis thesis comprises three main sections: a literature review, research report, and a critical appraisal of the research process. The literature reviewed is the existing research relating to trust as a construct. An attempt is made to clarify the conceptual confusion that exists in the area, by suggesting a comprehensive definition of what is meant by the term trust for the purposes of both the current study and future research. The importance of trust in relation to mental health and therapeutic relationships is discussed. Current measures of the construct are critically examined, and the ‘scientist’ versus ‘humanist’ divide is explored. It is concluded that a new multidimensional trust measure is required to further research efforts in the area. The aim of the research project was to develop a trust measure to form a part of a larger endeavour to operationalise the concept of mental health via key set of basic human emotions and responses. The research reported in Section 2 consists of a Pilot Test, Main Study, and follow up validation study of a new multidimensional measure of trust. Three bases of trust were hypothesised and tested. These were: self trust, interpersonal trust, and environmental trust (that is, trust in wider social, cultural, or political context). A new measure was constructed and validity tested using an inductive approach, and the relationship between trust and trait anxiety was also examined. The results supported the hypothesis that trust is a multidimensional construct, and demonstrated a strong relationship between trust and trait anxiety. It is hoped that this work will rekindle research interest in this important area. The final section is the researcher’s critical appraisal of the research process based on her personal research diary. It is a reflective piece that examines the impact of the research on the researcher (and vice versa) and the critical events in the research process.
PublisherUniversity of Wolverhampton
TypeThesis or dissertation
DescriptionThesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Counselling Psychology
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
THE DOCTRINE OF PAROL AGREEMENT TRUSTS AND FRAUD IN EQUITY: AN HISTORICAL-DOCTRINAL ANALYSIS OF EQUITY'S JURISDICTION UNDER THE HEAD OF FRAUD TO IMPOSE TRUSTS ARISING OUT OF PAROL AGREEMENTSGREGORY, WILLIAM ALLAN (2016)This thesis examines, through the most comprehensive historical-doctrinal analysis to date, the nature and extent of equity’s jurisdiction to impose trusts arising out of parol agreements. The central argument of this thesis is that all such trusts are enforced pursuant to a single doctrine of equity which arises to prevent fraud. This doctrine, which is uncovered and elucidated in this thesis, is named ‘the doctrine of parol agreement trusts’. It is argued that the ‘fraud’ which brings the doctrine into play will occur if the recipient of property knowingly reneges on a parol agreement subject to which she took the property and upon which the other party thereto relied. Moreover, it is demonstrated that trusts arising for the prevention of fraud were, until the early twentieth century, not seen as express, resulting or constructive trusts, but that, according to modern nomenclature, they are best regarded as constructive trusts. This thesis also challenges several modern orthodoxies. It is proven that the leading case of Rochefocuauld v Boustead was reported imperfectly, and that all previously presented accounts of the facts are inaccurate. Furthermore, it is categorically demonstrated that secret trusts are enforced for the prevention of fraud, but that this is not inconsistent with the notion that secret trusts are dehors the will. The juxtaposition between parol agreement trusts and related equitable innovations such as mutual wills, proprietary estoppel and ‘common intention’ constructive trusts is also examined, as well as the doctrine’s relationship with contract law and the law of agency, with a view to providing a doctrinal solution to some modern controversies in these areas. The historical-doctrinal relationship between parol agreement trusts and other types of constructive trusts is also examined with surprising results which suggest doctrinal affinities with the liability which affects knowing recipients. Finally, it is suggested that the manner in which modern commentators and some judges have eschewed fraud as a justification for parol agreement trusts and other related trusts may represent an unwelcome development.
Pedagogically mediated listening practices; the development of pedagogy through the development of trustLyndon, H; Bertram, T; Brown, Z; Pascal, C (Informa UK Limited, 2019-04-18)© 2019 EECERA. This paper reports on a segment of Ph.D. research which was undertaken to develop participatory pedagogy working specifically within a praxeological paradigm [Oliveira-Formosinho, J., and J. Formosinho. 2012a. “Praxeological Research in Early Childhood: a Contribution to a Social Science of the Social.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 20 (4): 471–476; Pascal, C., and T. Bertram. 2012. “Praxis, Ethics and Power: Developing Praxeology as a Participatory Paradigm for Early Childhood Research.” European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 20 (4): 477–492]. It focuses on the development of listening practices through a process of pedagogic mediation [Oliveira-Formosinho, J., and J. Formosinho. 2012b. Pedagogy-in Participation: Childhood Association Educational Perspective. Porto: Childhood association and Porto Editoria]. The research was carried over two academic years in a private day care setting in England and aimed to enhance pedagogic practice with three and four-year olds. This qualitative methodology encompassed ethnographic techniques to develop a case study [Stake, R. 1995. The Art of Case Study Research. London: Sage]. It researched the development of participatory practice through pedagogic mediation, as developed by the Childhood Association, Portugal (Oliveira-Formosinho and Formosinho 2012b). This paper reports on two listening methods which were developed between researcher, practitioner and the children in the setting. These methods demonstrate the co-constructed participatory pedagogy and the isomorphic nature of learning [Formosinho, J., and J. Formosinho. 2016. “The Search for a Holistic Approach.” In Assessment and Evaluation for Transformation in Early Childhood, edited by J. Formosinho, and C. Pascal, 93–106. London: Routledge].
Can we trust “Magnitude-based inference”?Nevill, AM; Williams, AM; Boreham, C; Wallace, ES; Davison, GW; Abt, G; Lane, AM; Winter, EM (Informa UK Limited, 2018-11-04)Since the times and works of William Sealy Gosset (1876-1937) and Ronald Aylmer Fisher (1890-1962), imperfections of conventional null-hypothesis significance testing and in particular, use of P-values to evaluate such testing (invariably referred to as inferential statistics), have been well recognised (Wilkinson, 1999; Wasserstein and Lazar, 2016). Attempts have been made to identify alternatives. For example, Cohen's effect sizes (Cohen 1988) and region of practical equivalence procedure (ROPE) (Kruschke, 2014). A more recent alternative is magnitude-based inference (MBI) (Hopkins and Baterham, 2016) although unlike others, MBI has created considerable controversy when reporting the results of studies (almost exclusively used in the field of sport and exercise science). Instead of defining research effects as “significant” based on P-values (using traditional hypothesis testing), MBI uses terms such as “implementable” and “substantial” based on two constraints called the “risk of harm” and the “chance of benefit”. However, concerns have been raised about the MBI approach. Stanford statistician Kristin Sainani was so concerned about the consequences of using MBI that she wrote a formal analysis of the MBI method. Published in MSSE (Sainani, 2018) her paper showed that, depending on sample size and thresholds for harm/benefit, MBI produces false positive rates that can be two to six times greater than those using traditional hypothesis testing. A finding, she claims, that makes MBI less reliable.