Search results

The reading room of the large library was packed to capacity. The Saturday morning rush of harassed students revealed their anxiety to make the most of the short hours of an early closing day. All‐important examinations loomed ahead. It was necessary to be first in the field, to procure the essential books available in the various courses of innumerable subjects. Surging round the entrance desk of the reading room, the work‐weary handed in their quota of white paper slips, then waited with an uneasy patience for the arrival of the books on which their future depended.

Our local Public Library is a Victorian Gothic building with two wings which look like public conveniences, and are. Its windows look out upon the borough mortuary, and a churchyard where, beneath a crumbling sarcophagus long since converted to a flight deck for pigeons, one of the Regicides lies interred. From basement gratings across the way, ambiguous odours, wafting from the canteen in the Town Hall, merge in the petrol‐laden air with reminiscences of carbolic that almost, but not quite, overlay the delectable aroma of printers' ink.

One of the fields of sociology which is experiencing a dramatic explosion is that catch‐all area of Women's Studies. Books and articles touching on women's experiences in the labour market or in the home, the education of girls or images of femininity, the impact of the law on women or sexism in the social sciences have been proliferating in the last decade. Much of the impetus has been provided by the renascent Women's Movement, and the various academic concerns echo the diverse attacks on the status quo being made by politically active women. The one thing which holds all this material together is an explicit concern to bring women to the centre of the stage in the social sciences, instead of leaving them (as they so often have been) in the wings or with mere walk‐on parts. Taking the woman's point of view is seen as a legitimate corrective to the tendency to ignore women altogether. But is this sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a new speciality within sociology, which is what seems to be happening to ‘Women's Studies’ and ‘feminist’ social science? More seriously, should sociological discussions of women be ghettoised into special courses on women in society? As a preliminary attempt to redress the balance maybe such separate development can be justified, but if that is all that happens, the enriching potential of feminist social science may well be lost to mainstream sociology. It is not just that feminist social scientists want women to be brought in to complete the picture. It is not just that they claim that half the picture is being left unexposed. The claims are often much more ambitious than that: what much feminist writing is attempting is a demonstration of the distortion in the half image which is exposed. An injection of feminist thinking into practically any sociological speciality could lead to a profound re‐orientation of that field. More than this, a feminist approach can indicate the ways in which traditional boundaries between sociological specialities can obscure women and their special position in society. Feminist social scientists throw down the gauntlet on the way in which the field of sociology has traditionally been carved up. But if women's studies are kept in their ghetto, this challenge will be lost: to me, the explicitly critical stance which feminist research takes with respect to mainstream sociology is one of its most exciting qualities, and such research has important insights to contribute to the development of the discipline.

One of the fields of sociology which is experiencing a dramatic explosion is that catch‐all area of Women's Studies. Books and articles touching on women's experiences in the labour market or in the home, the education of girls or images of femininity, the impact of the law on women or sexism in the social sciences have been proliferating in the last decade. Much of the impetus has been provided by the renascent Women's Movement, and the various academic concerns echo the diverse attacks on the status quo being made by politically active women. The one thing which holds all this material together is an explicit concern to bring women to the centre of the stage in the social sciences, instead of leaving them (as they so often have been) in the wings or with mere walk‐on parts. Taking the woman's point of view is seen as a legitimate corrective to the tendency to ignore women altogether. But is this sufficient to constitute the nucleus of a new speciality within sociology, which is what seems to be happening to ‘Women's Studies’ and ‘feminist’ social science? More seriously, should sociological discussions of women be ghettoised into special courses on women in society? As a preliminary attempt to redress the balance maybe such separate development can be justified, but if that is all that happens, the enriching potential of feminist social science may well be lost to mainstream sociology. It is not just that feminist social scientists want women to be brought in to complete the picture. It is not just that they claim that half the picture is being left unexposed. The claims are often much more ambitious than that: what much feminist writing is attempting is a demonstration of the distortion in the half image which is exposed. An injection of feminist thinking into practically any sociological speciality could lead to a profound re‐orientation of that field. More than this, a feminist approach can indicate the ways in which traditional boundaries between sociological specialities can obscure women and their special position in society. Feminist social scientists throw down the gauntlet on the way in which the field of sociology has traditionally been carved up. But if women's studies are kept in their ghetto, this challenge will be lost: to me, the explicitly critical stance which feminist research takes with respect to mainstream sociology is one of its most exciting qualities, and such research has important insights to contribute to the development of the discipline.

While corruption has long been recognized as a destructive social problem, the subject has not yet been given much attention in the literature of the management of procurement of infrastructure projects in Ghana. The purpose of this paper is to explore and discuss corruption practices inherent in public procurement of infrastructural projects in Ghana with the aim of identifying corruption related challenges that must be addressed in order to actualize the expected economic gains of infrastructural projects.

Drawing extensively on existing literature and published data, the methodology adopted for the paper consisted of multi‐stage critical review of pertinent literature; review of 2007 Annual Report of the Public Procurement Authority and review of the Public Procurement Act, 2003 (Act 663). The study assumes value‐laden axiological philosophy, where the values and experiences of the authors provided the basis for the discussion.

Conflict of interest, bribery, embezzlement, kickbacks, tender manipulation and fraud are observed corruption practices in the Ghanaian infrastructure projects delivery system. The severity of corruption practices have intensified the search for more innovative means of delivering infrastructure projects that will achieve value for money. In the pursuit to control corruption practices, this would require constitution of a sound procurement system and pro‐social equity policies that would foster good governance, corporate social responsibility, transparency, accountability, judicious public expenditure and national progress. The Public Procurement Act 2003 (Act 663) is observed to proffer solutions for these underlying constructs but not without challenges.

The nature of the research is review and explanatory without any empirical analysis to support the discussions and thus the results cannot be generalized on a broader context of public procurement practice in Ghana.

Implementation of sound procurement performance measurements would be imperative in the bid to curb corruption practices. The paper suggested a number of business approaches to combat corrupt practices in Ghana, which are explained in terms of political, psychological, technical, operational and retaliatory measures. In this paper, it is proposed that knowledge about and debating corruption related issues is just as important to the modern public procurement as are the abilities to creatively and logically introduce monitoring systems when planning, executing and completing projects.

The work is novel providing meaningful insights into conceptual basis for a detailed empirical analysis. Being a pioneering study, further research tailored to compare the extent of corruption practices in various sectors of the economy of Ghana would be novel.