Language’s intentional nature has been highlighted as a crucial feature distinguishing it from other communication systems. Specifically, language is often thought to depend on highly structured intentional action and mutual mindreading by a communicator and recipient. Whilst similar abilities in animals can shed light on the evolution of intentionality, they remain challenging to detect unambiguously. We revisit animal intentional communication and suggest that progress in identifying analogous capacities has been complicated by (i) the assumption that intentional (that is, voluntary) production (...) of communicative acts requires mental-state attribution, and (ii) variation in approaches investigating communication across sensory modalities. To move forward, we argue that a framework fusing research across modalities and species is required. We structure intentional communication into a series of requirements, each of which can be operationalised, investigated empirically, and must be met for purposive, intentionally communicative acts to be demonstrated. Our unified approach helps elucidate the distribution of animal intentional communication and subsequently serves to clarify what is meant by attributions of intentional communication in animals and humans. (shrink)

This is the first of four papers to be published in Research Ethics Review in 2009 that address methodological issues of relevance to research ethics committees. These will be practical papers, intended to assist ethics committee members to determine whether a research method is both ethically justified and likely to lead to high quality research. This paper prepares the way for the series through a consideration of the relationship between research ethics and methodology.

This is the final paper in a four-part series which addresses the methodology of research studies under ethical review. The focus is on study conduct, governance and peer review. The nature and adequacy of peer review as a mechanism for assessing the study design and analysis are discussed. The paper argues that a properly constituted and functioning research team is crucial to the ethical conduct of a study and that an ethical review of methodology should extend beyond study design and (...) analysis to a concern with data collection, storage and availability, and publication. While ethical review committees cannot monitor study conduct, they can ensure that the protocol pays sufficient attention to appropriate monitoring structures and personnel. (shrink)

This is the third of four papers to be published in Research Ethics Review in 2009, that address methodological issues of relevance to research ethics committees. It focuses on three issues: the representativeness of study participants, the size of the study and data analysis. Differences between best practices in qualitative and quantitative research are highlighted. The paper argues that, while lack of representativeness may not be unethical, the ethical implications of unnecessary restrictions on eligibility should be considered by committees. Studies (...) that are either too small or too big can pose problems. Research teams need to have the necessary competence to enable an appropriate analysis focused on the main objectives and interpreted in the context of the limitations of the study design. (shrink)

This is the second of four papers to be published in Research Ethics Review in 2009 that address methodological issues of relevance to research ethics committees. It focuses on three issues: the appropriateness of the research question, the different types of study design available, including both qualitative and quantitative, and the need for, and choice of, a control group. The paper argues that these issues are key to ethical consideration since inappropriate design may not be salvageable and can lead to (...) unusable data, in which case the risks and burdens to participants would be unjustified. (shrink)