Search results

This chapter provides a review of existing research on learning gain and related topics in higher education. The methodology adopted is a form of systematic review. The origins and meaning of learning gain, and its relation to similar terms, are discussed. The ways in which learning gain has been applied in practice and in research are considered. The issues raised by this practice and research are examined, and the various criticisms made are reviewed. Some conclusions are then drawn.

Japanese organizations have been forced to re-evaluate their management systems in light of recent economic and competitive pressures. Much can be learned about the adjustments of the Japanese management mindset, and a more competitive Japan may emerge as a result of successful adaptation. This study makes a longitudinal examination of the dynamic nature of management practices and thinking in the Japanese banking industry. Pressures on key industries in Japan during this time, e.g. the financial sector, provide insight into how adaptable Japanese institutions might be. The study finds important areas of meaningful change, supporting a crossvergence approach.

The rise of aesthetics within organizational studies has been met with enthusiasm by a growing coterie of scholars. Aesthetics, it is claimed, offers a dimension that has been missing in a discipline that has been dominated by instrumental approaches. It is not surprising, then, that Pierre Guillet de Monthoux, one of the field's champions, asserts that “if the German artist Joseph Beuys … was right in claiming that art is tomorrow's capital, it seems reasonable to consider aesthetics its new organization theory” (Guillet de Monthoux, 2000, p. 35).

This chapter provides a genealogy of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle of special consideration of Indigenous circumstances at sentencing. The principle is codified in the 1996 statutory requirement that “all available sanctions other than imprisonment … should be considered for all offenders, with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders” (s. 718.2e of the Criminal Code of Canada). Using the Foucaultian genealogy method to produce a “history of the present,” this chapter eschews normative questions of how s. 718.2e has “failed” to reduce Indigenous over-incarceration to instead focus on how practices of “special consideration” reproduce settler-state paternalism. This chapter addresses three key components of the Gladue–Ipeelee principle: the collection of circumstances information, the characterization of those circumstances, and finally their consideration at sentencing. Part one focuses on questions of legitimacy and authority and explicates how authority and responsibility to produce Indigenous circumstances knowledge was transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs (DIA) to Indigenous Courtworker organizations in the late 1960s/early 1970s. Part two identifies how authority shapes problematization by examining the characterization of Indigenous circumstances in the two eras, finding that present-day Gladue reports articulate an Indigenous history and critique of colonialism as the root cause of Indigenous criminalization, whereas DIA reports prior to 1970 generally characterized this criminalization as a “failure to assimilate.” Part three focuses on the structural reproduction of power relations by exploring historical continuities in judicial and executive-branch consideration of Indigenous circumstances, suggesting that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle reinscribes a colonial “mercy” framework of diminished responsibility. The author discusses how the principle operates in the shadow of Indigenous over-incarceration as a form of state “recognition” and a technique of governance to encourage Indigenous participation in the settler justice system and suggests that the Gladue–Ipeelee principle produces a governing effect that reinforces settler-state authority by recirculating colonial practices and discourses of settler superiority.