Search results

It can be argued that toleration is an essential component of an ethnographic orientation. But is this a matter of principled commitment, or simply a practical requirement for doing ethnographic work? And what does it entail? In its standard sense ‘toleration’ means not challenging – perhaps not even openly evaluating – actions or attitudes of which one disapproves, or views with which one disagrees. It is important to underline that this is very different from celebrating diversity or difference. Even so, it might be argued that ethnographers should not need to be tolerant, since as a matter of principle they ought to be open to the other, rather than disapproving of it. I will argue that this is false, that they do often need to be tolerant, both in the course of fieldwork and when analysing data and writing up their research. During data collection, toleration may be required when witnessing things that one believes to be morally wrong, finds physically disgusting, or judges culturally damaging; or when hearing views with which one fundamentally disagrees. In analysis and writing up, toleration means portraying beliefs or activities in a way that is unaffected by one's own attitude towards them, and writing about them in a manner that does not communicate any evaluation (and thereby necessarily runs the risk that readers will infer one approves of them when one does not). I will argue that the particular grounds on which the requirement of toleration can be based have implications for decisions about what should be its limits, but that a commitment to ethnography demands that those limits be broad. Finally, I consider what the implications of adherence to the principle of tolerance are for the ethnographer as a person. Does it condemn one to ethical inauthenticity? Or is research an ethical way of life that is of value in itself?

This study examines post-conflict Georgian youth attitude toward conflict and tolerance. It is described in detail how post-conflict young people (14–24 years old) define conflict and tolerance and what association do they have with the terminology. The outcome of the qualitative research made in the conflict areas in Georgia, Samegrelo, and Abkhazia shows that even though young people participating in the research were growing up and still have been living in these conflict zones, their views/understanding of conflict and tolerance are not distorted.

Considering the widespread focus on the academic achievement and social behavior of Black boys, there has been a limited focus on Black girls. Recent data from the US Department of Education Office for Civil Rights show disproportionate suspension and expulsion rates for girls with Black girls suspended at higher rates (12%) than girls from other racial groups, and boys, of any other race/ethnicity. However, there has been limited discourse and attention about this disproportionality in suspension and expulsion, and other exclusionary practices experienced by Black girls. We frame this chapter through the lens of the bio-ecological systems and Integrative Model for the Study of Developmental Competences in Minority Children, and more importantly Critical Race Theory and FemCrit framework. We seek to make visible how the multiple systems that directly and indirectly influence and impact young Black girls' development, learning, and school and life success must be examined through the intersectionality of race and gender. Using national data we present some descriptive information on Black girls' home and early education environments, as well as their academic, socio-emotional, and health development in the early years. We also explore extant literature to connect how young Black girls' educational experiences must be intentionally attended to as it is damaging for their educational and life success. We provide practice, policy, and research implications and the importance of examining and addressing the unique experiences of Black girls and the pernicious impact of disparities and inequities in education.

The service sector is a major segment of the economy and contributes to the gross national product in a significant manner. It complements the manufacturing sector as organizations become global in nature. Sources of raw material may be quite dispersed from the manufacturing site. Further, not all manufacturing may take place in one particular location. Based on the availability of expertise and the required operations to produce the product, components, subassemblies, or assemblies could be produced in different geographical locations. This creates the necessity to transport raw material, components, or assemblies in a timely manner from one location to another based on the needs of the supply chain. All customers prefer not only an efficient delivery system but also one that is damage-free. In this chapter, we consider a model whereby service organizations offer a contract for damage protection based on product value. The objective is to determine the premium to be charged by the service organization so as to at least break even or accomplish a desired profit margin.

The school-to-prison pipeline is a booming pipeline that is the cause for alarm. Increasingly, this pipeline includes more of Chicano males, and this dynamic is reflected in low rates of high school graduates going to college contrasted with the growing number of Chicanos in the juvenile justice and court systems. This study focuses on the impacts of the school-to-prison pipeline on Chicano students. Furthermore, utilizing a CRT and LatCrit framework, this study centers the experiential knowledge that Chicano students contribute to conceptualizing ways of disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. Themes of this study include the following: (1) Chicano student experiences with the school-to-prison pipeline, (2) innovation of discipline policy and practice, and (3) effective alternative practices to a zero tolerance framework. Through this, Chicano students point to a praxis grounded in community to clear educational pathways and interrupt the school-to-prison pipeline.

Purpose: Risk is a multifaceted concept, and its identification requires complex approaches that are often misunderstood. The consequence is that decisions are based on limited perception rather than the full value and meaning of what risk is, as a result, the way it is being tackled is incorrect. The individuals are often limited in their perceptions and ideas and do not embrace the full multifaceted nature of risk. Regulators and individuals want to follow norms and checklists or overuse models, simulations, and templates, thereby reducing responsibility for decision-making. At the same time, the wider use of technology and rules reduces the critical thinking of individuals. We advance the automation process by building robots that follow protocols and forget about the part of risk assessment that cannot be programed. Therefore, with this study, the objective of this study was to discover how people define risk, the influencing factors of risk perception and how they behave toward this perception. The authors also determine how the perception differed with age, gender, marital status, education level and region. The novelty of the research is related to individual risk perception during COVID-19, as this is a new and unknown phenomenon. Methodology: The research is based on the analysis of the self-administered purposely designed questionnaires we distributed across different social media platforms between February and June 2020 in Europe and in some cases was carried out as a interview over communication platforms such as “Skype,” “Zoom” and “Microsoft Teams.” The questionnaire was divided into four parts: Section 1 was designed to collect demographic information from the participants; Section 2 included risk definition statements obtained from literature and a preliminary discussion with peers; Section 3 included risk behavior statements; and Section 4 included statements on risk perception experiences. A five-point Likert Scale was provided, and participants were required to answer along a scale of “1” for “Strongly Agree” to “5” for “Strongly Disagree.” Participants also had the option to elaborate further and provide additional comments in an open-ended box provided at the end of the section. 466 valid responses were received. Thematic analysis was carried out to analyze the interviews and the open-ended questions, while the questionnaire responses were analyzed using various quantitative methods on IBM SPSS (version 23). Findings: The results of the analysis indicate that individuals evaluate the risk before making a decision and view risk as both a loss and opportunity. The study identifies nine factors influencing risk perception. Nevertheless, it must be emphasized that we can continue to develop models and rules, but as long as the risk is not understood, we will never achieve anything.

As we saw in Chapter 3, there are two aspects of individualism and “personhood.” In the first instance, “personhood” gives individuals more options in negotiating their identities in society. But “individualism” also means that persons are also held individually liable for the achievement of societal goals. Displaying civic responsibility is after all part of the modern definition of proper citizens.

Purpose – This chapter explores the problem of school shootings as a source of anxiety and fear in schools. Such fear has generated calls for security in schools and has been a catalyst for the development and deployment of antiviolence policies in schools.

Methodology/approach – The chapter begins by examining the development of the Columbine Effect, which is a set of emotions surrounding youth social problems, particularly violence in schools. This Columbine Effect is then explored in relation to its role in the development of policies to mitigate the problem of school violence. These purposes are linked using a multilevel typology of school violence and their sources, created by Henry (2009).

Findings – The chapter explores the levels of violence addressed by six antiviolence policies: crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), zero tolerance, anti-bullying programming, emergency management planning, peer mediation, and school climate programming. The analysis indicates the level(s) of violence each type of policy is designed to address and identifies research evidence regarding the efficacy of each policy. The analysis also focuses on the unintended consequences of school antiviolence policies, especially those which reduce violence on one or more levels, while exacerbating the problem on other levels.

Research limitations/implications – The analytical approach was selective, rather than exhaustive. Nonetheless, the analysis has suggested a number of ironies concerning the unintended consequences of antiviolence programming in schools. This suggests the need for broader analysis in this area.

Practical implications – The analysis identifies a number of detrimental effects that have resulted from school violence policy initiatives ranging from the socialization of youth toward a society of control and authority. In addition, the chapter helps to clarify the (often negative) effects of hype about violence in schools.

Originality/value of chapter – Although not often connected, this chapter explores the intersection between the discourse of school violence (typically, a social problems framing concern) and the development of school antiviolence policies (typically, an applied social scientific concern).