Search results

1 – 4 of 4
Article
Publication date: 13 December 2022

Aaron Payne, Helen Proctor and Ilektra Spandagou

This article examines the educational decision-making of hearing parents for their deaf children born during a period (1970–1990s) before the introduction of new-born hearing…

Abstract

Purpose

This article examines the educational decision-making of hearing parents for their deaf children born during a period (1970–1990s) before the introduction of new-born hearing screening in New South Wales, where the study was conducted, and prior to the now near-universal adoption of cochlear implants in Australia.

Design/methodology/approach

We present findings from an oral history study in which parents were invited to recall how they planned for the education of their deaf children.

Findings

We propose that these oral histories shed light on how the concept, early intervention – a child development principle that became axiomatic from about the 1960s – significantly shaped the conduct of parents of deaf children, constituting both hope and burden, and intensifying a focus on early decision-making. They also illustrate ways in which parenting was shaped by two key structural shifts, one, being the increasing enrolment of deaf children in mainstream rather than separate classrooms and the other being the transformation of deafness itself by developments in hearing assistance technology.

Originality/value

The paper contributes to a sociological/historical literature of “parenting for education” that almost entirely lacks deaf perspectives and a specialist literature of parental decision-making for deaf children that is almost entirely focussed on the post cochlear implant generation. The paper is distinctive in its treatment of the concept of “early intervention” as a historical phenomenon rather than a “common sense” truth, and proposes that parents of deaf children were at the leading edge of late-20th and early-21st century parenting intensification.

Details

History of Education Review, vol. 52 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0819-8691

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 11 October 2022

Sijia Xue and Helen Crompton

This systematic review paper aims to examine extant empirical research involving educational technology during COVID-19 to provide an aggregated analysis of how the pandemic has…

303

Abstract

Purpose

This systematic review paper aims to examine extant empirical research involving educational technology during COVID-19 to provide an aggregated analysis of how the pandemic has influenced educational technology research.

Design/methodology/approach

Using a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis systematic review and an integrative review methodology, 50 primary research studies were selected from ten top-ranked educational research journals. These studies were reviewed regarding research purposes, methodologies, instruments, educational level, geographical distribution, and findings of the studies.

Findings

The findings reveal four emerging themes: influencing factors, effectiveness, challenges and teachers. The majority of the studies focused on higher education. Quantitative research design based on a questionnaire was the most adopted method of investigation by researchers.

Research limitations/implications

Search parameters focused on the top 10 journals in the field of educational technology. Although this provides a level of quality, it narrowed the search.

Practical implications

For practitioners and researchers, this study provides a summary of the field to better understand what knowledge we have gained on the use of educational technology to enable a more agile, knowledgeable response to education in future emergencies.

Originality/value

This systematic review is unique in examining how the pandemic has influenced educational technology research. It also provides insight into gaps in the research that future researchers can use as a springboard to enable a more knowledge and a more agile approach to future emergencies.

Details

Interactive Technology and Smart Education, vol. 21 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 1741-5659

Keywords

Article
Publication date: 9 June 2023

Helen Abnett

This paper explores how INGOs communicate their activities and achievements. In doing so, the study seeks to increase our understanding of INGOs' accountability practices.

Abstract

Purpose

This paper explores how INGOs communicate their activities and achievements. In doing so, the study seeks to increase our understanding of INGOs' accountability practices.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper uses thematic analysis to analyse 90 ‘leaders’ letters' (the letters that many charities include at the beginning of their Annual Reports and Accounts), published by 39 INGOs between 2015 and 2018.

Findings

This paper argues that within the Annual Report letters under consideration, INGOs' accountability practices focus on quantitative, process-driven, output reporting. In doing so, it is the actions and agency of INGOs that are primarily emphasised. INGO constituents are largely excluded from representation. Donors are presented only as contributors of financial capital. Drawing on field theory, the paper argues that this representational practice means INGO constituents are almost irrelevant to INGOs' representational and accountability communication practices.

Originality/value

This paper is indebted to previous important work and, building on such scholarship, seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversation about INGO accountability. While reinforcing some prior knowledge, the findings here also differ in the understanding of how donors are portrayed. The paper extends previous analyses by using field theory to show that the INGO field as considered here is a space in which representations of accountability are based on organisational and transactional factors, and does not value the humanity of INGOs' constituents. This connects to operations of power, between donors, INGOs, and constituents, and reinforces inequitable power within the development system.

Details

Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, vol. 37 no. 1
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 0951-3574

Keywords

Open Access
Article
Publication date: 13 May 2020

Maddy Power, Bob Doherty, Katie J. Pybus and Kate E. Pickett

This article draws upon our perspective as academic-practitioners working in the fields of food insecurity, food systems, and inequality to comment, in the early stages of the…

2584

Abstract

This article draws upon our perspective as academic-practitioners working in the fields of food insecurity, food systems, and inequality to comment, in the early stages of the pandemic and associated lockdown, on the empirical and ethical implications of COVID-19 for socio-economic inequalities in access to food in the UK. The COVID-19 pandemic has sharpened the profound insecurity of large segments of the UK population, an insecurity itself the product of a decade of “austerity” policies. Increased unemployment, reduced hours, and enforced self-isolation for multiple vulnerable groups is likely to lead to an increase in UK food insecurity, exacerbating diet-related health inequalities. The social and economic crisis associated with the pandemic has exposed the fragility of the system of food charity which, at present, is a key response to growing poverty. A vulnerable food system, with just-in-time supply chains, has been challenged by stockpiling. Resultant food supply issues at food banks, alongside rapidly increasing demand and reduced volunteer numbers, has undermined many food charities, especially independent food banks. In the light of this analysis, we make a series of recommendations. We call for an immediate end to the five week wait for Universal Credit and cash grants for low income households. We ask central and local government to recognise that many food aid providers are already at capacity and unable to adopt additional responsibilities. The government's – significant – response to the economic crisis associated with COVID-19 has underscored a key principle: it is the government's responsibility to protect population health, to guarantee household incomes, and to safeguard the economy. Millions of households were in poverty before the pandemic, and millions more will be so unless the government continues to protect household incomes through policy change.

Details

Emerald Open Research, vol. 1 no. 10
Type: Research Article
ISSN: 2631-3952

Keywords

Access

Year

Last 12 months (4)

Content type

1 – 4 of 4