Search results

This paper aims to discuss the challenges of conducting research with homelessness services frontline workers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Between 2015 and 2019, the research team surveyed frontline staff in three cities about their psychosocial stressors and needs. In 2020, the authors replicated the previous study and expanded data collection to seven cities across Canada to determine the extent to which the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the well-being of frontline staff. This report describes how the authors adapted the research methodologies to continue work throughout the pandemic, despite various restrictions.

The original studies had very high participation rates because of several methodological approaches that minimized barriers, especially in-person data collection. During the pandemic, distancing requirements precluded replication of these same methods. Research strategies that enabled staff participation during working hours, with designated time allotted for participation, was key for ensuring high participation rates, as access to technology, availability of free time and other factors frequently make online survey research a hardship for these staff. Restrictive interpretation and regional variations of COVID-19 guidelines by some research ethics boards were also a challenge to rapid and responsive data collection.

Few studies describe the experiences of frontline workers in the homelessness sector, and quantitative reports of their experiences are particularly scant. Consequently, little is known about specific methodologies that facilitate large-scale data collection in the homelessness services sector. The present research advances the field by providing lessons learned about best practice approaches in pre and post COVID-19 front line worker contexts. A strength of this research is the well-controlled design. The authors collected data within several of the organizations that had previously participated. This fortunate baseline provided opportunity for comparison before and during the pandemic; the authors can highlight factors that might have had influence during the pandemic.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Term. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

Interrelated conflict and transformation are associated with post World War II U.S. military. Conflicts within the command structure are depicted by military officers in their writings. Transformation, characterised by military sociologists as a process of “civilianisation,” has informed understanding over the past few decades. However, neither the officer‐writers‘ “close‐up” perspective nor, in retrospect, the sociologists’ sanguine formulations effectively interrelate structural transformation and conflicts in command. In this respect, these literatures suggest relevant analogies: officer‐writers reflect existential crisis not unlike many traditional peoples experiencing consequences of externally induced economic change; sociological characterisations of “civilianisation,” like those of “modernisation,” fail to account for adverse and conflictual consequences of such “development”. Both the “crisis in command” and sociological failures to explicate it may be related to political economy's transformation of the military. That is the argument entailed in this article.

Recently, American social behavior during the 1980s has been compared, both favorably and unfavorably, with the attitudes and culture of the United States during the years 1950–1959. The past two decades of rebellion, student protest, liberal sexual practices, radical politics, and strong civil and women's rights movements have all passed.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.