Search results

Until relatively recently, the doctorate was generally perceived as preparation for a full‐time permanent academic position. However, this is no longer the case, with many PhD graduates working outside academia or in temporary full‐ and part‐time positions in higher education institutions. Yet, we know little of the ways in which they perceive and then navigate the transition from PhD to initial careers. Thus authors undertook an analysis of longitudinal data from six social sciences PhDs (part of a larger dataset) to document how they transitioned from the PhD and navigated a future.

Different forms of data, collected multiple times over two years, were analysed using emergent coding to capture the experiences of navigating a future.

The results enrich present understanding of this end‐of‐PhD period, in particular, highlighting individuals' growing understanding of academic, hybrid and non‐academic career opportunity structures, and the importance of personal intentions and relationships in defining possible horizons for action.

The conceptual and pedagogical contributions of this study to understanding doctoral and post‐doctoral career decision‐making are described.

The purpose of this paper is to deepen conceptual understanding of the spiritual components of resilience.

A conceptual paper drawing on research the authors have been conducting on resilience within the police community for a combined period of over half-a-century.

A more holistic conceptualisation of resilience and particularly a more detailed and accurate picture of the spiritual aspects to resilience which is applicable to a wide variety of public and private sector leadership situations, not just those within the police.

The paper provides an increased appreciation of resilience which the authors hope will lead to more practical research in this area, with the longer term goal being to impact positively on practical workplace issues of major current concern in a wide variety of workplaces across the world.

The paper's contribution is to promote the importance of resilience, provide a greater theoretical understanding of holistic perspectives of resilience and further develop the spiritual component of resilience. This contribution is important because many leaders currently have a limited appreciation of all the aspects of resilience.

In its passage through the Grand Committee the Food Bill is being amended in a number of important particulars, and it is in the highest degree satisfactory that so much interest has been taken in the measure by members on both sides of the House as to lead to full and free discussion. Sir Charles Cameron, Mr. Kearley, Mr. Strachey, and other members have rendered excellent service by the introduction of various amendments; and Sir Charles Cameron is especially to be congratulated upon the success which has attended his efforts to induce the Committee to accept a number of alterations the wisdom of which cannot be doubted. The provision whereby local authorities will be compelled to appoint Public Analysts, and compelled to put the Acts in force in a proper manner, and the requirement that analysts shall furnish proofs of competence of a satisfactory character to the Local Government Board, will, it cannot be doubted, be productive of good results. The fact that the Local Government Board is to be given joint authority with the Board of Agriculture in insuring that the Acts are enforced is also an amendment of considerable importance, while other amendments upon what may perhaps be regarded as secondary points unquestionably trend in the right direction. It is, however, a matter for regret that the Government have not seen their way to introduce a decisive provision with regard to the use of preservatives, or to accept an effective amendment on this point. Under existing circumstances it should be plain that the right course to follow in regard to preservatives is to insist on full and adequate disclosure of their presence and of the amounts in which they are present. It is also a matter for regret that the Government have declined to give effect to the recommendation of the Food Products Committee as to the formation of an independent and representative Court of Reference. It is true that the Board of Agriculture are to make regulations in reference to standards, after consultation with experts or such inquiry as they think fit, and that such inquiries as the Board may make will be in the nature of consultations of some kind with a committee to be appointed by the Board. There is little doubt, however, that such a committee would probably be controlled by the Somerset House Department; and as we have already pointed out, however conscientious the personnel of this Department may be—and its conscientiousness cannot be doubted—it is not desirable in the public interest that any single purely analytical institution should exercise a controlling influence in the administration of the Acts. What is required is a Court of Reference which shall be so constituted as to command the confidence of the traders who are affected by the law as well as of all those who are concerned in its application. Further comment upon the proposed legislation must be reserved until the amended Bill is laid before the House.

Month after month we bring forward additional evidence of the injury resulting from the use of chemical “preservatives” in food, while the Authorities feebly hesitate to give specific legal effect to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee which made such a complete inquiry into this question. The evidence upon which those recommendations were based has been fully corroborated by a number of different observers. FERE and others have shown that, as regards boric acid and borax, even when administered in the smallest medicinal doses, there is always the risk that these drugs may aggravate, or even produce, renal diseases. These observations have been confirmed by the work of Dr. CHARLES HARRINGTON, an account of which has been recently published. Twelve cats were fed on the same food; six were treated with borax, one had no preservative, and five were given a preservative which had no apparent effect. The experiment extended over a period of 133 days, the quantity of borax given averaging about 0.5 grms, per diem. Three of the borated cats soon became ill, and one died at the end of six weeks. On the termination of the experiment the cats were all killed, and upon examination it was found that the organs of the six cats which had not taken borax were in perfectly sound and healthy condition, while the others, with one exception, were all suffering from nephritis. Of course, instances are recorded in which patients have been treated with borax and boracic acid with apparently no injurious result, but as a general rule these experiments have been of too short duration to allow of the desired information being arrived at, and the results must therefore be regarded as inconclusive and unreliable. It is perfectly evident that the kidneys may be for a short time quite capable of eliminating many objectionable substances, but the long‐continued use of such bodies, as Dr. HARRINGTON'S researches clearly indicate, sets up an inflammatory condition of the kidneys which, of course, interferes with the effective performance of their proper functions, and lays the foundations for complications of the most serious nature.

At a meeting of the Council of the Royal Borough of Kensington on February 29th, ALDERMAN A. G. McARTHUR, Chairman of the Public Health Committee of the Council, brought up a Report as follows— “We have received replies from nineteen City and Borough Councils to the circular letter addressed to them by this Council protesting against the suggestion made by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries that, before proceedings under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts are instituted on analytical evidence in respect of milk there should be a preliminary investigation by an officer of the Local Authority, or that the milk producer should be given an opportunity of offering an explanation.

The question has been recently raised as to how far the operation of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts of 1875, 1879, and 1899, and the Margarine Act, 1887, is affected by the Act 29 Charles II., cap. 7, “for the better observation of the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday.” At first sight it would seem a palpable absurdity to suppose that a man could escape the penalties of one offence because he has committed another breach of the law at the same time, and in this respect law and common‐sense are, broadly speaking, in agreement; yet there are one or two cases in which at least some show of argument can be brought forward in favour of the opposite contention.