Search results

Being embedded in family has proven to bring opportunities and facilitate resources for a firm. However, it has its dark side, where too much family involvement may hamper the entrepreneur’s ability to develop psychological ownership of the firm. By focusing on the role that family plays in entrepreneurship, this paper aims to explore how embeddedness and agency interact during the entrepreneurial process. The research questions are as follows: how does family interact in the entrepreneurial process? How does embeddedness inform this process?

The paper builds on a longitudinal case study of a small firm that is part of a local community of family-controlled firms. The narrative was created through in-depth interviews with the business owner covering a period of eight years from the opening to the closure of the firm. Departing from theories of family embeddedness, the family is viewed as part of the context.

The findings show how agency operates in a community of family-controlled firms and how entrepreneurship is thus partly executed outside the firm’s legal boundaries. The metaphor of a marionette illustrates how family may tie up and restrain an entrepreneur. This hampers the entrepreneur in developing psychological ownership of the firm and thereby restrains the firm’s development. This shows a downside to having too much positive influence from embeddedness.

The paper stresses the social role of family by emphasising the value that a family can bring to an entrepreneurial process and thereby to society at large. Practitioners need to reflect on the effects of embeddedness. By recognising the downsides of too much help from outsiders, they may instead strive for a balance. By introducing the theory of psychological ownership to the literature on embeddedness, this paper opens the space for future developments of this cross-section.

The paper contributes to the entrepreneurship literature by unfolding the mechanisms of family embeddedness and illustrating how embeddedness informs the entrepreneurial process in different ways. Even though over-embeddedness has been investigated before, this has primarily focused on the negative control from outside the firm. This paper uses the notion of psychological ownership to shed light on the previously hidden problem of too much positive influence from family.

This article highlights the links between housing and health and suggests that the health sector has much to benefit from joined‐up working with the housing and support sector. There are advantages to both sectors of working in this way, particularly in the area of commissioning services. By working creatively together at key points along the care pathway, local partners can support each other in the delivery of services. Many housing associations are uniquely placed to deliver services that offer key solutions to person‐centred working and can help to build healthier communities.

This article considers the effects of UK government cuts across the housing, care and support sector on vulnerable people. The article urges that the human and financial costs of savings are fully considered, as these could outweigh the short‐term financial savings. The article also sets out what the National Housing Federation is doing to urge the government to consider the impact of the cuts on vulnerable people in particular.

When the first edition of Poems by Emily Dickinson was published in 1890, Samuel G. Ward, a writer for the Dial, commented, “I am with all the world intensely interested in Emily Dickinson. She may become world famous or she may never get out of New England” (Sewall 1974, 26). A century after Emily Dickinson's death, all the world is intensely interested in the full nature of her poetic genius and her commanding presence in American literature. Indeed, if fame belonged to her she could not escape it (JL 265). She was concerned about becoming “great.” Fame intrigued her, but it did not consume her. She preferred “To earn it by disdaining it—”(JP 1427). Critics say that she sensed her genius but could never have envisioned the extent to which others would recognize it. She wrote, “Fame is a bee./It has a song—/It has a sting—/Ah, too, it has a wing” (JP 1763). On 7 May 1984 the names of Emily Dickinson and Walt Whitman were inscribed on stone tablets and set into the floor of the newly founded United States Poets' Corner of the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in New York City, “the first poets elected to this pantheon of American writers” (New York Times 1985). Celebrations in her honor draw a distinguished assemblage of international scholars, renowned authors and poets, biographers, critics, literary historians, and admirers‐at‐large. In May 1986 devoted followers came from places as distant as Germany, Poland, Scandinavia, and Japan to Washington, DC, to participate in the Folger Shakespeare Library's conference, “Emily Dickinson, Letter to the World.”

Effective discussion is inextricably linked to democracy. Social studies curriculum and instruction should engage students in practicing democratic skills and habits of mind. This case study provides a microanalysis of one U.S. History teacher’s commitment to fostering discussion in her classroom as a theorized pedagogical practice. A better understanding of what motivates teachers to engage students in classroom discussions paralleled with rich descriptions of how this teacher plans and implements discussion could encourage others to try this approach to teaching and learning.

The millennia long struggles of various oppressed groups have over time illuminated widespread social injustices, organically leading to the recognition of yet further injustices captured by the umbrella of discriminatory isms, such as racism, sexism, classism, ableism, anti-Semitism, ageism, heterosexism and many others. In recent years, the debate has become increasingly fierce, polarized and even physically violent.

One of the premises of the present work is that in part, the aforementioned unconstructive behaviors are a result of the different understandings of what constitutes an ism and the lack of a thoughtful consideration of this issue in the mainstream social debate as much as in the academic literature.

The author presents evidence for this and critiques the dominant lines of thought in this realm, showing all the dominant lines of thought to fall short of both the fundamental philosophical as well practical desiderata in how isms ought to be understood.

The author proposes an alternative which does not suffer from the weakness of the existing one: one based on the denial of equivalence of sentience. The author shows how the adoption of this understanding leads to constructive ways of addressing isms effected injustice.

THE activity of librarianship during September was almost breathless. Visitors to Chaucer House in the third week of the month had possibly the most cosmopolitan experience of their lives. It was, as our readers know, the assembly time of the International Federation of Librarians, which divided its London meetings between Chaucer House and the equally hospitable University College. The members, coming from a score or more of countries east and west, had, many of them, been present at the successful and crowded conference of Aslib at Ashorne, and were now conferring further, and being entertained by the Library Association, together with members of the Unesco Library School. That school spent its first week in Manchester, with a tour of Derby County libraries; its second week was in London. Amongst the guests at the reception given by the British Council at Portland Place, and at the L.A's own reception at Chaucer House three days later, many distinguished librarians were met, including Dr. Munthe, Dr. Sevensma, Dr. Ranganathan, the state librarian of Ankara, the University Librarians of Istanbul, Copenhagen, Trondhjem, of Alexandria; and many others, including those of England and Scotland, the Chief Keeper of the Printed Books, Bodley's Librarian, and the Librarian of the National Central Library. Moreover, as these gatherings coincided with the meeting of the Library Association Council, the official leaders of the profession were present, including the President (Mr. Nowell).

Annual performance evaluations of faculty are a routine, yet essential, task in higher education. Creating (or revising) performance criteria presents an opportunity for leaders to work with their teams to co-create evaluation metrics that broaden participation and minimise inequity. The purpose of this study was to support organisational leaders in developing equitable performance criteria.

We adopted the “dual-agenda” dialogues training that draws on concepts of collective self-efficacy and intersectionality for department leaders to co-create annual review criteria with their faculty members at one university. We used qualitative and quantitative data to assess the training and conducted an equity audit of the resulting annual review criteria.

Survey results from faculty members and departmental leaders (n = 166) demonstrated general satisfaction with the process used to create new criteria, perceptions that their criteria were inclusive and optimism about future reviews. Those with greater familiarity with the dialogues process had more positive perceptions of the inclusivity of their department’s criteria and more positive expectations of future reviews. The examination of eight indicators of equity illustrated that the resultant criteria were transparent and holistic.

This study builds on the relatively little research on faculty members’ annual performance evaluations, focussing on inclusive dialogues that centre equity and diversity. Results highlight the value of providing department leaders with evidence-based tools to foster system-level change through equitable evaluation policies. A toolkit is available for adaptation of the “dual-agenda” leadership training to both co-create annual review criteria and improve equity and inclusion.

THE other day my attention was arrested by a statement from one of our younger critics. “Mr. Auden,” he said, “makes Mr. Yeats's isolation guilty as a trance.” Not a particularly earth‐shaking statement, perhaps; but, when one thinks of it, a startling and significant one. I had not thought to live to see Mr. Yeats receiving the public sneer. Only a year or two ago Mr. Yeats was the doyen, the inerrable loadstar, of the young poets. Of all the older school of living poets, him alone they delighted to honour. They guffawed at Sir William Watson; spoke with amused irony of Laurence Binyon's epics; and the very mention of Alfred Noyes's name was enough to send them off into explosions of fierce anger. But Mr. Yeats was—Mr. Yeats. They found in him profundity, marvellous technical skill, flexibility of outlook, nobleness of aspiration. His reputation appeared to be solid and deep‐founded. And then came his anthology of modern verse, in which Mr. Yeats, with more enthusiasm than discretion, admitted a host of the young poets to the O.U.P.'s pantheon of fame. The book was a bad one—inexplicably bad for a man of Mr. Yeats's eminence. Even his reputation could not stand the strain of such a performance. “If,” argued the young, “Mr. Yeats's judgment is so ludicrously bad, how can it be that he is a good poet?” A strange dualism, they remarked: fine creativeness, weak critical sense. Then there were whispers. Was Mr. Yeats really so—? Could it be possible that—? The doubts grew. The young critics took courage from each other. The loadstar was dimming a little. And now Mr. Dylan Thomas has come into the open. Mr. Yeats's isolation is as guilty as a trance. The meaning is not very clear, but the implication is. “Isolation” is a bogey to the younger school. Once let Mr. Yeats be labelled with that dreadful word and he is as good as damned. Mr. Thomas will be listened to, for the intestinal raptures of his poetry are much admired. I foresee that in a year or so Mr. Yeats's prestige among the young will lose much of its impressiveness.