Search results

This paper aims to raise awareness of the vulnerability of some refugees to various forms of abuse. It will relate the forms of abuse described in No Secrets to the situation of refugees and asylum seekers in general and will then focus on three groups of refugees who may be especially vulnerable. Recommendations to reduce the vulnerability of refugees are included.

This paper presents a framework for assessing alignment between corporate strategy, procurement strategy and purchasing tools. The framework is built on generation of rents as its common denominator for assessing alignment between the levels. Three types of rents are identified: monopoly rents; Ricardian rents and entrepreneurial rents. The framework is then used for assessing the strategic origin of the following e‐procurement applications: e‐sourcing, e‐tendering, e‐informing, e‐reversed auctions, e‐MRO, Web‐based enterprise resource planning and e‐collaboration. The results indicate that the e‐procurement tools are fully viable for creating monopoly rents, moderately viable for creating Ricardian rents and only somewhat viable for creating entrepreneurial rents. Therefore, it is necessary to first understand how the firm generates rents before procurement strategy and e‐procurement tools are implemented in order to avoid misalignment.

This article examines current issues in the use of interpreting services, as experienced by refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. The paper begins with a review of relevant literature on interpreting services and relates it to the service context and the specific needs of refugees and asylum seekers. There follows a discussion of a small‐scale research project carried out with interpreters working in these services. Recommendations are made which include the need to educate all three parties (the professional employing the interpreter, the interpreter and the client) in not only best practice and practical techniques of working with interpreters, but also broader issues such as the complexity of the interpreting process, the importance of establishing trust, competing agendas and negotiation of meaning that are implicit in the interpretation process.

THE Annual Meeting proper was preceded by the Honors Dinner at which several awards were given for distinguished achievements in aeronautics. The Daniel Guggenheim Medal itself was presented to Glenn L. Martin, an early aviation pioneer, whose Baltimore plant is turning out patrol bombers, the B‐26, an advanced medium bomber, and the Baltimore's medium bomber specially designed for British needs. Mr. Martin is the last survivor of the American aeroplane pioneers to head an aircraft manufacturing company bearing his own name. William J. Knudsen was among the distinguished guests. The guest of honour was Griffith Brewer, President of the Royal Aeronautical Society of Great Britain, who called for speedy help to Britain in its hour of need. If the enthusiastic greeting given to Mr. Brewer is any criterion, then it may be taken for granted that the aviation fraternity of the United States is heart and soul with the British stand.

This chapter focuses on the authentication of wilderness and the mechanisms of power and agency through which the wilderness has come to assume its patina of authenticity, often associated with masculinity, challenge, self-(re)creation, pristine landscapes, and, perhaps above all, authenticity. Rather than examining the concept of authenticity, this chapter focuses on its process; using notions of “hot” and “cool” authentication, it attends to the ways individuals and groups navigate social terrain through discourse and performance to construct authenticity in wilderness landscapes. It examines the various mechanisms through which authenticity in wilderness is constructed, measured, and assessed, attending to the “hot” and “cool” authentication of the American wilderness.

The legal framework for extending innovation beyond the corporate boundary is the Strategic Alliance (or partnership) Agreement. Before entering into any type of alliance involving a joint development arrangement, every company whose core assets are comprised of intellectual property should conduct an internal Intellectual Property Audit. Make certain what you own (or control through licenses) it may be more or less than you think. The second phase of the Intellectual Property Audit is to make sure your Intellectual Property Assets are protected. Begin drafting the Alliance Agreement by articulating the goals of the alliance as specifically as possible. Define the product to be developed or area to be explored in detail. The Alliance Agreement should define the what technology is proprietary to each party. Determine in advance who collects the money, how is the money split, and who does the accounting. Each party should be individually responsible for the cost of defending any claims of infringement. Options can be tied to the development and testing milestones that allow you to get out of the deal entirely or reduce it from an exclusive to a non‐exclusive arrangement.