Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of social movements engendered by the Arab Spring crisis on the relationship between corporate social responsibility disclosure (CSRD) and corporate governance attributes, particularly board composition, considering the importance of governance after the Arab Spring event.

Content analysis was used to examine the extent and nature of CSRD in annual reports of Jordanian companies listed on the Amman Stock Exchange covering the period 2009–2016. A dynamic regression model using panel data is then undertaken for a sample of 114 listed companies over the period to analyse the potential impact of board composition on the level of CSRD.

The results reveal that there was a significant increase in the level of CSRD post-the Arab Spring crisis; and that governance appears to be a key driver. Specifically, board age, directors educated in business and/or accounting-related fields and foreign members are found to have a significant positive relationship with CSRD.

Looking at the Arab region pre- and after the Arab Spring helps to complete the global picture of how company governance can lead to improved CSR performance. Specifically, this region has been behind in developing rules and codes that include CSR. The results show that having a diverse board, with directors with expertise specific to the context, increases the effectiveness of stakeholder management through CSRD. The results, therefore, offer valuable insights for companies, policymakers and for the development of regulations.

This performance autoethnography may or may not be interpreted as a continuation of a conversation regarding the experiences of those with devalued statuses in academic settings. The authors rely on “strange accounting” to consider their experiences in the academy from various standpoints: before and after promotion, before and after leaving academia. While reflecting on our past experiences, we introduce the concept of “everyday precariousness” as a way of explaining the normalization of instability, insecurity, and negative affect that is part of everyday life for those with devalued statuses in academic settings and beyond. Everyday precariousness is an embodied experience for those in vulnerable positions. Normalized exposure to risks, such as discrimination, harassment, bullying, or structural instability, produces an undercurrent of threat that permeates academic culture. Our stories of everyday precariousness span race, ethnicity, class, academic roles, and gender boundaries (among many others). Analyzing these experiences furthers previous work on the uses of strange accounting as well as the dynamics of status silencing. In the final analysis, unresisted and unabated, everyday precariousness and status silencing can lead to institutional failure and resonance disasters.

Gender-diverse people experience unique cultural and interpersonal stigma in mainstream society and sometimes within their own communities; they face allegations of inauthenticity based on their nonconformity to either cisnormative or transnormative gender regimes. Based on 21 in-depth life history interviews, we unveil the intricate interactional process of negotiating identity and authenticity in the biographical work of gender-diverse individuals. In this study, gender-diverse people engaged in a “gender audit” with their gender-diverse interviewer. Gender audits yield verbal performances of gender with oneself and others. Ambiguity was “accounted for” or “embraced and created” in their biographical work to organize their life stories and undermine binary essentialism – a discourse that was “discursively constraining.” Gender audits took place in participants' day-to-day lives, either through self-audits, questioning from others, or both. In the final analysis, we assert that we all engage in gender auditing. Gender audits are intersubjective sites of domination, subordination, resistance, and social change. Gender diversity, then, can be viewed as a product of gender in flux.

The purpose of this article is to examine synergies between a eudaimonic model of psychological well-being (Ryff, 1989) and mental health practice. The model grew out of clinical, developmental, existential and humanistic perspectives that emphasized psychological strengths and capacities, in contrast to the focus on emotional distress and dysfunction in clinical psychology.

Conceptual foundations of the eudaimonic approach are described, along with the six components positive functioning that are used to measure well-being. These qualities may be important in facilitating the recovery experiences, which are of interest in Mental Health and Social Inclusion.

Four categories of empirical evidence about eudaimonia are reviewed: how it changes with aging, how it matters for health, what are its biological and neurological underpinnings and whether it can be promoted. Major contemporary forces against eudaimonia are also considered, including ever-widening inequality, the enduring pandemic and world-wide strife. In contrast, encounters with the arts and nature are put forth as forces for eudaimonia. The relevance of these ideas for mental health research and practice is considered.

Enormous suffering defines our contemporary world. Such realities call for greater attention to factors that undermine as well as nurture the realization of human potential, the core of eudaimonic well-being.

Mental health is often defined as the absence of mental illness. The novelty of the eudaimonic approach is to define mental health as the presence of well-being, assessed with different components of positive functioning.

This paper aims to examine how character strengths have an important dual role in mental health in both promoting well-being and mental wellness and also in reducing symptoms and suffering. While there are many studies that have touched upon variables that character strengths can enhance for mental well-being or reduce for suffering, the author actually knows very little about how character strengths might relate to or impact mental health.

A large-scale study of 12,050 individuals was conducted to explore the self-perceived character strengths that are most helpful for mental health, for handling physical adversity, for handling social adversity and for fostering psychological well-being.

Some character strengths showed a general effect – showing a strong perceived impact across multiple domains – such as love, perspective, kindness, hope, humor and curiosity. Other character strengths showed a specific effect in that there was a strong perceived impact in one domain, such as perseverance and self-regulation for physical health, spirituality and social intelligence for social health and creativity for mental health. A strength-based approach to understanding and managing emotions was substantially more preferred than cognitive or behavioral approaches. Other findings examined the character strengths most desired to be improved upon for mental health.

The research strategy was cross-sectional, thereby causality cannot be determined. Because of the large sample size, researchers are encouraged to consider examining the findings in intervention studies.

This study indicates that character strengths are highly relevant for mental health, all 24 character strengths are possible pathways to impact mental health (some more than others) and individuals can readily connect ways they can use their character strengths to positively improve their well-being and manage their suffering.

Character strengths and their substantial positive potential provide an avenue for public impact on a large scale.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first known study to directly examine multiple intersections among mental health and character strengths in a large sample.

The purpose of this paper is to update the core data set of self-neglect safeguarding adult reviews (SARs) and accompanying thematic analysis. The initial data set was published in this journal in 2015 and has since been updated annually. The complete data set is available from the author. The second purpose is to reflect on the narratives about adult safeguarding and self-neglect by focusing on the stories that are told and untold in the reviews.

Further published reviews are added to the core data set, drawn from the national SAR library and the websites of Safeguarding Adults Boards (SABs). Thematic analysis is updated using the domains used previously, direct work, the team around the person, organisational support and governance. SAR findings and recommendations are also critiqued using three further domains: knowledge production, explanation and aesthetics.

Familiar findings emerge from the thematic analysis and reinforce the evidence-base of good practice with individuals who self-neglect and for policies and procedures with which to support those practitioners working with such cases. SAR findings emphasise the knowledge domain, namely, what is actually found, rather than the explanatory domain that seeks to answer the question “why?” Findings and recommendations appear to assume that learning can be implemented within the existing architecture of services rather than challenging taken-for-granted assumptions about the context within which adult safeguarding is situated.

A national database of reviews completed by SABs has been established (www.nationalnetwork.org.uk), but this data set remains incomplete. Drawing together the findings from the reviews nonetheless reinforces what is known about the components of effective practice, and effective policy and organisational arrangements for practice. Although individual reviews might comment on good practice alongside shortfalls, there is little analysis that seeks to explain rather than just report findings.

Answering the question “why?” remains a significant challenge for SARs, where concerns about how agencies worked together prompted review but also where positive outcomes have been achieved. The findings confirm the relevance of the evidence-base for effective practice, but SARs are limited in their analysis of what enables and what obstructs the components of best practice. The challenge for SAR authors and for partners within SABs is to reflect on the stories that are told and those that remain untold or untellable. This is an exercise of power and of ethical and political decision-making.

The paper extends the thematic analysis of available reviews that focus on work with adults who self-neglect, further reinforcing the evidence base for practice. The paper analyses the degree to which SARs answer the question “why?” as opposed simply to answering the question “what?” It also explores the degree to which SARs appear to accept or challenge the context for adult safeguarding. The paper suggests that SABs and SAR authors should focus explicitly on what enables and what obstructs the realisation of best practice, and on the choices they make about the stories that are told.