Search

Background: Attention has turned in recent years to the broader inclusion of sociology and psychology in medical curricula. Despite this, there is limited published evidence about how best to assess these subjects. This lack of evidence is significant given that most medical schools are likely to include some form of assessment of sociology and psychology, and that sociology and psychology are included in areas examined in admissions tests and in licensing exams. Methods: We ran three one day workshops in the UK (London, Edinburgh and Manchester, June – July 2019), to consult with educators involved in sociology and psychology teaching in medicine on: what methods are being used to assess sociology and psychology in UK undergraduate medical education, and the challenges and opportunities experienced.36 participants attended the workshops, representing 19 of the 33 UK medical schools. Following the workshops, we collated the notes and presentations in order to develop a summary of current assessment practices and synthesis of the main themes identified. Results:There were many examples of good practice and development of innovative assessments, particularly in the early years of the programmes. At the same time, participants raised several challenges and tensions in relation tothe method, timing, and placement of sociology and psychology assessment. Participants reported that many of these issues related to dominant assessment cultures in medical education. As a result, assessing sociology and psychology in medicine can seem like fitting a square peg into a round hole. Solutions to these challenges may require wider changes to assessment practices and cultures. Conclusion: The challenges shared by participants are evident; nonetheless, there are important opportunities. Our participants were unanimous in their desire to become involved in dialogue and consultation about assessment. This article, reporting on the views of UK SBS educators, is a positive step towards creating a more robust evidence base upon which to engage in these conversations and inform best practice in sociology and psychology assessment. &nbsp

Research on sex differences in leadership styles over the past decade (1987-1999) is reviewed and compared with the results of a meta-analysis of studies of the previous period by Eagly and Johnson (1990). Research on transformational or charismatic leadership is included in this review. As was the case in previous overviews, the evidence for sex differences in leadership behavior is still mixed, yet it is clear that these sex differences have not vanished. It is argued that sex differences in leadership styles are largely a consequence of the context in which male and female leaders work. Organizational factors like sex-composition of the immediate working context and hierarchical level are important moderators of leadership styles. We conclude that future research should unravel the impact of structural and organizational features, that are still so confounded with gender, on leadership behavior.

Research on sex differences in leadership styles over the past decade (1987-1999) is reviewed and compared with the results of a meta-analysis of studies of the previous period by Eagly and Johnson (1990). Research on transformational or charismatic leadership is included in this review. As was the case in previous overviews, the evidence for sex differences in leadership behavior is still mixed, yet it is clear that these sex differences have not vanished. It is argued that sex differences in leadership styles are largely a consequence of the context in which male and female leaders work. Organizational factors like sex-composition of the immediate working context and hierarchical level are important moderators of leadership styles. We conclude that future research should unravel the impact of structural and organizational features, that are still so confounded with gender, on leadership behavior.

Research on sex differences in leadership styles over the past decade (1987-1999) is reviewed and compared with the results of a meta-analysis of studies of the previous period by Eagly and Johnson (1990). Research on transformational or charismatic leadership is included in this review. As was the case in previous overviews, the evidence for sex differences in leadership behavior is still mixed, yet it is clear that these sex differences have not vanished. It is argued that sex differences in leadership styles are largely a consequence of the context in which male and female leaders work. Organizational factors like sex-composition of the immediate working context and hierarchical level are important moderators of leadership styles. We conclude that future research should unravel the impact of structural and organizational features, that are still so confounded with gender, on leadership behavior.

Studies on poverty are mainly engaged with the definition and measurement of poverty, while the issue of what people consider reasons for living in need is often neglected. In this article we explore four types of poverty explanations based on a) the distinction between poverty as a matter of fate or not, and b) the question whether poverty is due to individual or collective factors. The four types of poverty explanations are: the individual is to blame (laziness), it is the individual's fate (unluck), society is to blame (injustice), and society's fate (inevitable part of progress). It is investigated if these different types of explanations can be attributed to social-demographic characteristics, perceptions like self-interest and of welfare recipients, as well as to religious and political attitudes and values. Although the analyzes yield some evidence that such characteristics are related with such explanations, the evidence must not be exaggerated. Poverty is a social issue and therefore it is not so strange that social-political orientations, like welfare state attitudes, appear more important attributes than religious orientations. The analyzes seem to substantiate ideas forwarded by theories of secularization stating that religious values have lost their dominance in contemporary Western society. The importance of postmaterialism for both dimensions seems to confirm Inglehart's suggestion that postmaterialism has taken over religion's position. Further, subjective factors appear more important for poverty explanations than objective factors.

Studies on poverty are mainly engaged with the definition and measurement of poverty, while the issue of what people consider reasons for living in need is often neglected. In this article we explore four types of poverty explanations based on a) the distinction between poverty as a matter of fate or not, and b) the question whether poverty is due to individual or collective factors. The four types of poverty explanations are: the individual is to blame (laziness), it is the individual's fate (unluck), society is to blame (injustice), and society's fate (inevitable part of progress). It is investigated if these different types of explanations can be attributed to social-demographic characteristics, perceptions like self-interest and of welfare recipients, as well as to religious and political attitudes and values. Although the analyzes yield some evidence that such characteristics are related with such explanations, the evidence must not be exaggerated. Poverty is a social issue and therefore it is not so strange that social-political orientations, like welfare state attitudes, appear more important attributes than religious orientations. The analyzes seem to substantiate ideas forwarded by theories of secularization stating that religious values have lost their dominance in contemporary Western society. The importance of postmaterialism for both dimensions seems to confirm Inglehart's suggestion that postmaterialism has taken over religion's position. Further, subjective factors appear more important for poverty explanations than objective factors.

Studies on poverty are mainly engaged with the definition and measurement of poverty, while the issue of what people consider reasons for living in need is often neglected. In this article we explore four types of poverty explanations based on a) the distinction between poverty as a matter of fate or not, and b) the question whether poverty is due to individual or collective factors. The four types of poverty explanations are: the individual is to blame (laziness), it is the individual's fate (unluck), society is to blame (injustice), and society's fate (inevitable part of progress). It is investigated if these different types of explanations can be attributed to social-demographic characteristics, perceptions like self-interest and of welfare recipients, as well as to religious and political attitudes and values. Although the analyzes yield some evidence that such characteristics are related with such explanations, the evidence must not be exaggerated. Poverty is a social issue and therefore it is not so strange that social-political orientations, like welfare state attitudes, appear more important attributes than religious orientations. The analyzes seem to substantiate ideas forwarded by theories of secularization stating that religious values have lost their dominance in contemporary Western society. The importance of postmaterialism for both dimensions seems to confirm Inglehart's suggestion that postmaterialism has taken over religion's position. Further, subjective factors appear more important for poverty explanations than objective factors.

Some scholars have argued and found that the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes can be moderated by subordinate or situational characteristics (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1995). Still, there is insufficient evidence on this issue. In this paper we examine need for leadership (De Vries, 1997) as a moderator of the relation between a measure for charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985a; Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen, 1994) and subordinate outcomes. Need for leadership is found to moderate the relation between charismatic leadership and three out of four criteria. Furthermore, we examine the relation between charismatic leadership and need for leadership. While it has been asserted that transformational leaders are able to empower and develop subordinates to become leaders themselves (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Kuhnert, 1994; Yammarino, 1994) we find a positive relationship between charismatic leadership and need for leadership, which suggests that subordinates are more, instead of less, dependent when a charismatic leader is present.

Some scholars have argued and found that the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes can be moderated by subordinate or situational characteristics (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1995). Still, there is insufficient evidence on this issue. In this paper we examine need for leadership (De Vries, 1997) as a moderator of the relation between a measure for charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985a; Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen, 1994) and subordinate outcomes. Need for leadership is found to moderate the relation between charismatic leadership and three out of four criteria. Furthermore, we examine the relation between charismatic leadership and need for leadership. While it has been asserted that transformational leaders are able to empower and develop subordinates to become leaders themselves (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Kuhnert, 1994; Yammarino, 1994) we find a positive relationship between charismatic leadership and need for leadership, which suggests that subordinates are more, instead of less, dependent when a charismatic leader is present.

Some scholars have argued and found that the relationship between transformational leadership and outcomes can be moderated by subordinate or situational characteristics (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer, 1995). Still, there is insufficient evidence on this issue. In this paper we examine need for leadership (De Vries, 1997) as a moderator of the relation between a measure for charismatic leadership (Bass, 1985a; Den Hartog, Koopman & Van Muijen, 1994) and subordinate outcomes. Need for leadership is found to moderate the relation between charismatic leadership and three out of four criteria. Furthermore, we examine the relation between charismatic leadership and need for leadership. While it has been asserted that transformational leaders are able to empower and develop subordinates to become leaders themselves (e.g. Bass and Avolio, 1990; Kuhnert, 1994; Yammarino, 1994) we find a positive relationship between charismatic leadership and need for leadership, which suggests that subordinates are more, instead of less, dependent when a charismatic leader is present.