Search results

E-learning has become a polarizing issue. Some say that it enhances accessibility to education and some say that it hinders it. While the literature on the subject underscores the effectiveness of the pedagogical frameworks, strategies and distance learning technologies, the firsthand accounts of students, parents and practitioners challenge the validity of experts’ assessments. There is a gap between theory and practice and between the perceptions of providers and consumers of online learning. Following a period of lockdowns and a transition to online learning during the recent pandemic, the prevailing sentiment toward a distance mode of instruction became one of strong skepticism and negative bias. The aim of the study was to examine why e-learning has struggled to meet stakeholder expectations. Specifically, the study posed two research questions: 1. What are the reasons for dissatisfaction with online learning? 2. What are the implications for future research and practice?

The study used a mixed methods approach to examine the reasons behind negative perceptions of online learning by comparing the firsthand accounts posted on social media with the literature. To this end, n = 62,874 social media comments of secondary and postsecondary students, as well as parents, teachings staff and working professionals, covering the span of over 14 years (2008–2022), were collected and analyzed.

The study identified 28 themes that explain the stakeholder’s discontent with the online learning process and highlighted the importance of user-centric design. The analysis revealed that the perceived ineffectiveness of distance education stems from the failure to identify and address stakeholders’ needs and, more particularly, from the incongruence of instructional strategies, blindness to the cost of decisions related to instructional design, technology selection and insufficient levels of support. The findings also highlight the importance of user-centric design.

To address dissatisfaction with e-learning, it is imperative to remove barriers to learning and ensure alignment between technology and learners’ needs. In other words, the learning experience should be personalized to account for individual differences. Despite its cost-effectiveness, the one-size-fits-all approach hinders the learning process and experience and is likely to be met with resistance.

Drawing from the extensive literature, the study offers an explanation for stakeholders’ discontent with e-learning. Unlike survey research that is prone to social desirability bias, the sample provides a rare opportunity to observe and measure the visceral reactions that provide a more authentic sense of stakeholders’ perceptions toward online learning. The authors offer recommendations and identify areas for future research.

In this article, we offer a contribution to the ongoing study of food by advancing a conceptual framework and interdisciplinary research agenda – what we term “food system resilience”. In recent years, the concept of resilience has been extensively used in a variety of fields, but not always consistently or holistically. Here we aim to theorise systematically resilience as an analytical concept as it applies to food systems research. To do this, we engage with and seek to extend current understandings of resilience across different disciplines. Accordingly, we begin by exploring the different ways in which the concept of resilience is understood and used in current academic and practitioner literatures – both as a general concept and as applied specifically to food systems research. We show that the social-ecological perspective, rooted in an appreciation of the complexity of systems, carries significant analytical potential. We first underline what we mean by the food system and relate our understanding of this term to those commonly found in the extant food studies literature. We then apply our conception to the specific case of the UK. Here we distinguish between four subsystems at which our “resilient food systems” can be applied. These are, namely, the agro-food system; the value chain; the retail-consumption nexus; and the governance and regulatory framework. On the basis of this conceptualisation we provide an interdisciplinary research agenda, using the case of the UK to illustrate the sorts of research questions and innovative methodologies that our food systems resilience approach is designed to promote.

This chapter explores the concept of identity-conscious advising and coaching to support the development of First-Generation Black Male College Students during their undergraduate experience. Advising and coaching represent foundational practices colleges and universities use to support student success. Much like other aspects of education, institutions implement advising and coaching practices without consideration for how the identity of the student or the professional delivering the service influences student outcomes. First-Generation Black Male College Students' interactions within the college context are often framed by their visible, racial, and gender identities as opposed to their first-generation experience. First-Generation Black Male College Students experience microaggressions, discrimination, deficit perspectives, or negative stereotypes. By exploring an identity-conscious approach to relevant advising theories and coaching approaches, the chapter highlights the importance of building trusting, affirming relationships that lean into the lived experiences of First-Generation Black Male College Students without subjecting them to false, harmful stereotypes. This approach requires self-awareness on the part of educators and an understanding of the racialized dynamics that are inherent in the experience. Without addressing anti-Blackness, the impact of advising and coaching on First-Generation Black Male College Students is likely to have diminished or limited effects for this vital student population.

The transcript provides an overview of the development of the field and changing paradigms in this regard.

The transcript was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the history of disaster risk reduction (DRR).

The transcript traces the initial discussions of how the At Risk book was conceived and presents new dimensions and challenges within the field.

The interview highlights the importance of the need to document the transitions, developments and paradigm changes in the field over time.

The interview traces the early discussions in the context of disasters as developmental failures.

The transcript and video was developed in the context of a United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR) project on the history of DRR.

The interview traces the development of disaster risk reduction discussions in different contexts such as “LA RED” network in Latin America.

The interview clearly highlights the need to not forget the early thoughts on vulnerability and disaster risk.

The aim of this paper is to explore the stakeholder exclusion practices of responsible leaders.

An interpretive multiple case analyses of seven responsibly led organisations was employed. Twenty-two qualitative interviews were undertaken to investigate and understand perceptions and practice of responsible leaders and their approach to stakeholder inclusion and exclusion.

The findings revealed new and surprising insights where responsible leaders compromised their espoused values of inclusivity through the application of a personal bias, resulting in the exclusion of certain stakeholders. This exclusivity practice focused on the informal evaluation of potential stakeholders’ values, and where they did not align with those of the responsible leader, these stakeholders were excluded from participation with the organisation. This resulted in the creation and continuity of a culture of shared moral purpose across the organisation.

This study focussed on responsible leader-led organisations, so the next stage of the research will include mainstream organisations (i.e. without explicit responsible leadership) to examine how personal values bias affects stakeholder selection in a wider setting.

The findings suggest that reflexive practice and critically appraising management methods in normative leadership approaches may lead to improvements in diversity management.

This paper presents original empirical data challenging current perceptions of responsible leader inclusivity practices and indicates areas of leadership development that may need to be addressed.