Search

This study is the first attempt to analyze the articles in several journals, in order to disclose the development of academic educational studies in Japan. In this paper, my examination was not limited to one journal, but covered six education journals listed below and all their issues until 2005. I chose, from a methodological viewpoint, four journals that have been most important for the philosophical, historical, sociological and comparative research on education and, from thematic viewpoints, two celebrated Japanese journals for the study of educational method and that of educational administration. The development of educational studies shown in the articles of the journals reviewed was diverse and complex. On the one hand, the home institutions of the authors were not only traditional research universities, but also other types of universities. On the other hand, the former institutions are still the center of training for (graduate) students who make up the largest number of authors of the articles today. The analyzed six journals had such heterogeneous character as to have oriented themselves to different areas (theory, school, society [public]) to a varied extent. The articles targeted several historical periods and countries/areas and their distribution of these factors was relatively balanced. Although the studies were based, methodologically, primarily on the analysis of certain kinds of text, in other words on the philosophical method, the object of the studies was mostly not the ideas of certain persons. The articles referred, topically, to a certain philosopher or education researcher/theorist less often than to secondary/higher education. Furthermore, the research methods, objects and topics of the articles in one journal were far from homogeneous. (Contains 11 figures, 15 tables, and 3 notes.)

Background: In the past two decades, many advances have been made to our understanding of interstitial lung disease (ILD) and the way we approach its treatment. Despite this, many questions remain unanswered, particularly those related to how the disease and its therapies impact outcomes that are most important to patients. There is currently a lack of guidance on how to best define and incorporate these patient-centered outcomes in ILD research. Objectives: To summarize the current state of patient-centered outcomes research in ILD, identify gaps in knowledge and research, and highlight opportunities and methods for future patient-centered research agendas in ILD. Methods: An international interdisciplinary group of experts was assembled. The group identified top patient-centered outcomes in ILD, reviewed available literature for each outcome, highlighted important discoveries and knowledge gaps, and formulated research recommendations. Results: The committee identified seven themes around patient-centered outcomes as the focus of the statement. After a review of the literature and expert committee discussion, we developed 28 research recommendations. Conclusions: Patient-centered outcomes are key to ascertaining whether and how ILD and interventions used to treat it affect the way patients feel and function in their daily lives. Ample opportunities exist to conduct additional work dedicated to elevating and incorporating patient-centered outcomes in ILD research.