Search results

In the “What’s Hot in 2019: Expanded and Interconnected Notions of Literacy” survey (Cassidy, Grote-Garcia, & Ortlieb, 2019), Early Literacy was identified as a “very hot” topic. This chapter addresses how literacy practices in homes and in schools contribute to early literacy achievement; neighborhood realities are acknowledged. A brief list of expectations for early literacy learners is discussed, and competencies not always found in standards lists are described. Examples of current community activism efforts are noted, and there is a call for literacy academics to speak out against inequities in literacy learning.

This chapter discusses findings from a multiple case study of language learning programmes offered to adult migrant learners in Cyprus, Scotland, Malta and Estonia. First, using a cross-comparative policy analysis, the discussion synthesizes indicators of integration embedded in education policies and provisions for adult migrant learners. This analysis brings to light an overall inclusive approach: providers and programmes emerged as comparable in terms of type of programmes (formal, informal and nonformal; academic, vocational and interest-based); options available (academic, vocational and interest-based) and providers (state and civil society). However, policy analysis also illuminates restrictive indicators, such as traits of monocultural, generalizing policymaking that lacks consideration of sociodemographic differences between adult migrant learners. Secondly, the discussion validates the synthesized indicators by means of an analysis of qualitative data concerning the language programmes and related micro classroom-based practices, retrieved using qualitative research with adult migrant learners, their educators and related policy executives. Validated indicators include an inclusive approach to learners' entitlement to educational provision, as testified by educators' and policy executives' values and pedagogical approaches. Indeed, despite traits of monoculturalism and generalizing or homogenizing approaches identified at policy level, micro context data illuminated stakeholders' critical acknowledgement of the need of differentiated teaching and learning. Research-based recommendations include increased cooperation between state entities (e.g., inter-ministerial collaboration) and between state and civil societies, as well as professional development for adult educators that elicits their agency in proactively resisting and changing restrictive aspects of existent policies and practices.

Until the 2008 Crash, the prevailing economic orthodoxy, accepted across the broad political spectrum, was that inequality was a necessary condition for economic health. The evidence of the last four decades is that this trade-off theory – that you can have more equal or more efficient economies but not both – is incorrect. Not only do excessive concentrations of income and wealth bring social dislocation and breed public discontent with democratic institutions, but a number of studies have shown that inequality on today’s scale brings slower growth and greater economic turbulence. Although there is now a broad acceptance amongst global leaders that inequality poses significant risks for social cohesion and economic stability, there has been little or no action to match the high level verbal war against inequality. As a result, inequality has carried on rising within nations since 2008. In the United Kingdom, the gap between the top and bottom has continued to widen, in part because post-2010 governments have weakened the pro-equality role of the state. Tackling inequality is now one of the most pressing issues of the day – an economic as well as a social imperative – while reversing this four decade long trend will require a major restructuring of the pro-market economic models in place across most of the rich world.

The lexicon of corporate governance has ‘transparency’ as a key imperative. Yet transparency as a management principle begs explanation. It also raises several questions: transparent to whom, how and why? Who decides? Is full transparency desirable? What are its merits and benefits? What are the risks of increased transparency? The answers may lie somewhere between the shareholder and stakeholder views of the modern corporation, with the former defending shareholder-owner primacy and firm profit-maximisation, and the latter offering a values-based approach towards balancing the needs and expectations of all stakeholders. While corporate governance broadly addresses the needs of shareholders and investors, driven by the position that companies need to be better governed for stockholder value, the ‘stakeholder’ view of the corporation has gained ground over the past 20 or so years whereby the modern corporation is accountable not only to its owners, but also society.The transparency debate has emerged in parallel, and with it, issues of privacy and/or secrecy on one hand and the notion of ‘sunlight’ on the other. Transparency’s role has been variously described as the promotion of corporate disclosure and protection of the rights of minority shareholders in the information environment (Bushman & Smith, 2003); the promotion of corporate accountability and advancement of the rights of stakeholders (Clarke, 2004; Donaldson & Preston, 1995; Hess, 2007; Mallin, 2002); a tool to limit information asymmetries (Boatright, 2008; Florini, 2007a, 2007b; Hood, 2006; Lev, 1992); a means to create a level playing field through ethics and fairness (Boatright, 2008; Oliver, 2004); the promotion of market efficiency (Bessire, 2005; Heflin, Subramanyam, & Zhang, 2003); and the prevention of abuse through stakeholder activism (Bandsuch, Pate, & Thies, 2008; Roche, 2005). Aspirations aside, there is lack of consensus as to transparency's dimensions, drivers and dilemmas in corporate behaviour. Indeed, its perceived value to stakeholders and corporations alike remains questionable. In this chapter, the author discusses the governance of corporate transparency and argues that clarity and Board policy are needed to manage transparency activism and its resultant risks.

[L]ife has become increasingly dangerous in the erratically moving river. The relatively closed circles of development agents may turn into dangerous vortices. Promises are empty, concrete practices of implementation lose their meaning. All of a sudden everything seems to be in a mess, and any kind of order seems to have been lost. (Quarles van Ufford, 1999, p. 292)

Service-learning implementation in higher education classes provides positive value to the undergraduate students as well as to the community organization being served. Opportunities for personal and professional growth allow students to develop their cognitive, interpersonal, and intrapersonal skills (Barnes, 2016; Myers, 2020). In addition, the curriculum and content connections to real-world situations encourage a deeper understanding of concepts and an application of meaningful critical thinking and problem-solving scenarios. Including the reflection component as part of the service-learning project enriches the experience and authenticates learning connecting theory to practice. The organization benefits with creative and innovative ideas from the volunteers as resources are shared and the student cultivates relationships in a culturally responsive manner (Schneider, 2018; Schvaneveldt & Spencer, 2016). Guidelines for the effective implementation of the service-learning project ensure a successful experience for all parties involved (Lee, Park, & Chun, 2018). The mutual beneficial relationship is healthy for all who are involved. Service-learning is an opportunity to further develop the student in areas of personal growth and teacher efficacy as well as helping the organizations and schools they serve (Barnes, 2016; Moore et al., 2016). In conclusion, service-learning advances many components of an engaging course and fosters experiential learning for the undergraduate student.

At the end of the millennium Mexico faced the double challenge of adjusting to an economic policy based on open markets and the protection of a reinvigorated democratic political system through an increased awareness of civil rights and responsibilities among citizens. Nevertheless, tertiary education reforms shifted the onus on education from the formation of social capital to that of human capital. I consider the background of the introduction of the neo-liberal model in the Mexican economy, and the economists’ critique of the adequacy of that model. I contrast the latter to the educationalists’ debate in response to where it becomes apparent that the neoliberal model had come to dominate the conceptual framework in which the impact of the introduction of the reform model could be analyzed. Finally, I consider a recent text in which the neo-liberal tendencies in tertiary education are more clearly outlined, although an alternative option is not forthcoming. By situating my consideration of the challenges of a knowledge society firmly within the historical, social and economic context of Mexico, I indicate factors which such an alternative would need to take into account.

Purpose – This chapter reflects on my research experiences as a heterosexual man interviewing gay clergy. The chapter focuses on the interviewer/interviewee relationship reflecting on the place of similarity and difference in the research interaction.

Methodology/approach – The chapter reflects on my experiences of undertaking feminist inspired qualitative interviews on sensitive issues.

Findings – The chapter argues for a move beyond a binary understanding of similarity and difference and illustrates interviews as dynamic interactions.

Research limitations/implications – It is hoped that the reflections presented will inform future research in sensitive areas and encourage an open, engaged and reactive approach to interviewing around sensitive topics.