Search results

There is a peculiar problem in the US that is proving to challenge core values that undergird our laws, interpersonal interactions, and challenge the civil rights of many. American society believes in harsh sentences for committing crimes without a system for rehabilitation from crime and absent from resources from a community level to prevent crimes. As crime has declined since the 1990s, policing behavior has grown to a level that reflects a disregard for humanity resulting in police-involved shootings, also known as “justifiable homicides” or deaths by legal intervention. This peculiar problem reifies old notions of racial inferiority and racial profiling that stem from a long history of lynchings in America, and highlights a broken legal system that shows bias toward poor communities and communities not of the racial and ethnic majority. When laws support one racial or ethnic group and those with resources, other communities become invisible and subjected to state-sanctioned violence that allows some police agencies and police officers to engage in behaviors that do not reflect their training foster an overwhelming sense of fear in these communities. We have observed that when communities fear the police and the larger society disbelieves the negative interactions with police, residents have begun to capture police encounters with community members on social media. Despite the video footage that has been collected documenting abuse of power, some police have been granted impunity for their actions, which further fuels fear in these communities. What we propose are ways to frame and solve negative police encounters with communities through an understanding of: (1) racial biases; (2) racial and gender consciousness; (3) ways to provide more equitable policing practices; (4) the enforcement of legal remedies for those who abuse power; and (5) the prevention of acts of discrimination by holding individuals culpable who informally police Black males. We believe these strategies aid in addressing the historical legacy of these behaviors and moves multiple systems and disciplines toward integrated solutions to eliminate “justifiable homicides.”

From 1782 to 1834, the English social legislation shifted from a safety net devised to deal with emergencies to a social security system implemented to cope with the threat of unemployment and poverty. In the attempt to explain this shift, this chapter concentrates on the changed attitudes toward poverty and power relationships in eighteenth-century British society. Especially, it looks at the role played by eighteenth-century British economic thinkers in elaborating arguments in favor of reducing the most evident asymmetries of power characterizing the period of transition from Mercantilism to the Classical era. To what extent did economic thinkers contribute to creating an environment within which a social legislation aimed at improving the living conditions of the poor as the one established in 1795 could be not only envisaged but also implemented? In doing so, this chapter deals with an aspect often undervalued and/or overlooked by historians of economic thought: namely, the relationship between economic theory and social legislation. If the latter is the institutional framework by which both individual and collective well-being can be achieved the former cannot but assume a fundamental role as a useful abstraction which sheds light on the multifaceted reality in which social policies are proposed, forged, and eventually implemented.

Based on a single and innovative case study (Siggelkow, 2007; Yin, 2014), this research aims to identify the main issues of non-financial reporting. They are related to:

the complexity of the corporate social responsibility (Alcouffe, Berland, Dreveton, & Essid, 2010; Ancori, 2008; Antheaume, 2007; Brichard, 1996; Buritt, 2004; Chan, 2005; Gray & Bebbington, 2001; Herborn, 2005; Savall & Zardet, 2013; Vatn, 2009);

the legislator’s and stakeholders’ expectations (Ancori, 2005; Batifoulier, 2001; Caillaud & Tirole, 2007; Lewis, 1969); and

the company’s expectations (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Chiapello & Gilbert, 2013; David 1998; Grimand, 2012; Moisdon, 1997; Senge, 1992; Wood, 1991).

Symmetrically, it reveals possible pitfalls. Through the study of the way the Rémy Cointreau Group developed its reporting tool, the authors analyze how a company can take the opportunity of a legal obligation to deploy a strategy of non-financial reporting that comes to support and structure a responsible approach. Of course, these results are only replicable under certain conditions related to this singular case.

This chapter describes how conversational computer agents have been used in collaborative problem-solving environments. These agent-based systems are designed to (a) assess the students’ knowledge, skills, actions, and various other psychological states on the basis of the students’ actions and the conversational interactions, (b) generate discourse moves that are sensitive to the psychological states and the problem states, and (c) advance a solution to the problem. We describe how this was accomplished in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) for Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) in 2015. In the PISA CPS 2015 assessment, a single human test taker (15-year-old student) interacts with one, two, or three agents that stage a series of assessment episodes. This chapter proposes that this PISA framework could be extended to accommodate more open-ended natural language interaction for those languages that have developed technologies for automated computational linguistics and discourse. Two examples support this suggestion, with associated relevant empirical support. First, there is AutoTutor, an agent that collaboratively helps the student answer difficult questions and solve problems. Second, there is CPS in the context of a multi-party simulation called Land Science in which the system tracks progress and knowledge states of small groups of 3–4 students. Human mentors or computer agents prompt them to perform actions and exchange open-ended chat in a collaborative learning and problem-solving environment.