McNamara on ‘Mentoring dyads in higher education: it feels lucky, but it’s more than luck’

 Associate Professor Noeleen McNamara of the USQ School of Law and Justice has co-written (with Angela Fitzgerald) a new article titled 'Mentoring dyads in higher education: it feels lucky, but it's more than luck'.  The article appears in the International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education and can be found here.  Here is the abstract:

"The purpose of this paper is to explore the formation, maintenance and sustenance of a mentoring dyad in higher education. By investigating the reflections of a female mentor and mentee, who both engaged in a formal Mentoring Program, the intention is to inform the design of future programs and expectations of participants, enhance the quality of future practice and understand the benefits mentoring might offer to the academic community."

Patrick on ICLRS Special Topics

Dr Jeremy Patrick, a Lecturer in the USQ School of Law and Justice, has written three invited contributions over the past year to special topic blogs for the International Center for Law and Religion Studies. The posts are part of the following series:

Freedom of Religion or Belief--Creating the Constitution Space for Fundamental Freedoms

Individualization of Religious Beliefs, Secularization and Religion-State Relations

Dignitatis Humanae 2.0: Religious Freedom for the Good of All

Collins on 'Effects of Professional Compromise on Higher Education Employees'

Professor Pauline Collins of the USQ School of Law and Justice has co-written a new article titled 'Effects of Professional Compromise on Higher Education Employees'.  The article, written with Erich Fein, Natalia Sadykova, Lisa Beccaria, Steven Goh and Kate Kauter, appears in Volume 6(3) of the International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology.  Here is the abstract:

"Health outcomes are associated with many work stressors in higher education staff. However, the professional compromise stressor, occurring when an individual’s professional standards conflict with workplace requirements, has not been studied in the higher education context. This pilot study contributes to the understanding of professional compromise among higher education employees and its impact on their well-being. Hair cortisol of university staff was measured across two time points in an academic semester. The study found that cortisol level was associated with role clarity, work demands, and perceived stress. Furthermore, after controlling for perceived stress, professional compromise at the beginning of semester was a significant predictor of hair cortisol at the end of semester. This pilot study is the first to establish an effect between professional compromise and cortisol concentrations and the first to investigate cortisol as a stress biomarker in higher education staff. The cortisol levels are discussed relative to chronic stress. The implications for higher education managers, indicate professional compromise is a factor university must understand in attending to workplace wellness. Future directions for further research are outlined."

Hemming asks 'Do Juries Understand the Criminal Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt?’

 Associate Professor Andrew Hemming of the USQ School of Law and Justice has published a new article titled 'Do Juries Understand the Criminal Standard of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt?'  The article appears in Volume 30(3) of the Journal of Judicial Administration.  Here is the abstract:

"In Green v The Queen and La Fontaine v The Queen, the High Court stated that it is both unnecessary and unwise for a trial judge to seek to explain to the jury the meaning of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, on the ground that the phrase is well understood in the community. This view is not shared in other countries with a common law tradition such as England & Wales, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. This article respectfully disagrees with the High Court’s position, most recently affirmed in The Queen v Dookheea, and argues that Victoria has taken the appropriate course in enacting sections 63-64 of the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). Section 63 sets out the circumstances when the trial judge may explain ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’, and s 64 deals with the situation as to how the explanation may be given in response to jury question. However, it is contended that both s 63 and s 64 can be improved by removing the requirement that an explanation of the phrase ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ may only occur in response to a direct or indirect jury question. The argument will be developed in the context of a number of sexual assault cases where the guilty verdicts have been overturned on appeal, such as Tyrell v The Queen, IW v The Queen, JN v The Queen, Xu v The Queen, and Pell v The Queen."