Search results

This paper describes the development of a unique prison participatory research project, in which incarcerated women formed a research team, the research activities and the lessons learned. The participatory action research project was conducted in the main short sentence minimum/medium security women’s prison located in a Western Canadian province. An ethnographic multi‐method approach was used for data collection and analysis. Quantitative data was collected by surveys and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data was collected from orientation package entries, audio recordings, and written archives of research team discussions, forums and debriefings, and presentations. These data and ethnographic observations were transcribed and analysed using iterative and interpretative qualitative methods and NVivo 7 software. Up to 15 women worked each day as prison research team members; a total of 190 women participated at some time in the project between November 2005 and August 2007. Incarcerated women peer researchers developed the research processes including opportunities for them to develop leadership and technical skills. Through these processes, including data collection and analysis, nine health goals emerged. Lessons learned from the research processes were confirmed by the common themes that emerged from thematic analysis of the research activity data. Incarceration provides a unique opportunity for engagement of women as expert partners alongside academic researchers and primary care workers in participatory research processes to improve their health.

This paper aims to examine the remedies currently available in Ireland to resolve boundary disputes to assess the importance of the role played by adverse possession in this context. It also examines the potential impact of certain reforms in this area of law.

The research methodology is primarily doctrinal, although a comparative approach is adopted for the purposes of assessing whether certain lessons can be learned from recent reforms to the English law on adverse possession and the Australian approach to resolving boundary disputes, which relies heavily on mistaken improver and building encroachment legislation.

This paper demonstrates how the current law leaves certain mistaken improvers or encroachers on neighbouring land without a remedy, as they cannot rely on the doctrine of proprietary estoppel or adverse possession. If Ireland decides to replicate the English good faith requirement in relation to adverse possession of boundary land, the remedial vacuum facing these mistaken improvers or encroaching builders will become more pronounced. It is submitted that any such reform should be supplemented by the introduction of legislation akin to that operating in Australia which would facilitate the consideration of a broad range of factors and provide for flexible remedies to resolve such difficulties. It is also submitted that the legislation imposing such a good faith requirement should be carefully drafted to avoid the potential interpretative difficulties associated with the English reforms.

Boundary disputes are an unfortunate fact of life. The prevalence of boundary disputes and high costs associated with boundary litigation makes this review and critique of the current law and potential reforms highly relevant.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Index by subjects, compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐18; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐18; Property Management Volumes 8‐18; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐18.

Compiled by K.G.B. Bakewell covering the following journals published by MCB University Press: Facilities Volumes 8‐17; Journal of Property Investment & Finance Volumes 8‐17; Property Management Volumes 8‐17; Structural Survey Volumes 8‐17.