Search results

Using Kunming, the capital of China's southwest Yunnan Province, as an example, this mixed-methods research examines three interacting dimensions of social change in contemporary China: migration, ethnicity, and education. In particular, it sheds light on the issue of educational achievement of migrant children, especially children of ethnic minority background. The quantitative portion of the study is based on data gathered from over 700 sample students, teachers, and principals who participated in the “2008 Kunming Migrant Children's Survey.” A two-level hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) is employed to identify student- and school-level factors and to estimate the impacts of these factors on migrant children's academic achievement. The qualitative portion of the study is based primarily on the data collected through in-depth individual interviews and focus-group discussions with 97 migrant students, teachers, and school principals from 10 government and nongovernment migrant children's schools in Kunming between 2008 and 2009. The qualitative and quantitative results highlight four interrelated groups of educational barriers experienced by migrant students in pursuing compulsory education: institutional, socioeconomic, cultural, and psychological barriers. In particular, cultural and psychological barriers, including difficulty in school adaptation, low self-esteem, lack of family support, and discrimination against ethnic minorities due to their different religious beliefs and ethnic traditions, are found to have exerted particularly significant negative influences on academic achievements of ethnic minority students.

The need for long-term stewardship for hazards is widespread and increasing. Many of the largest and most complex sites requiring stewardship are within the U.S. Department of Energy's nuclear weapons complex, though many “brownfields” and Superfund sites in the private sector have similar needs for long-term care. High cleanup costs and difficult-to-resolve technical challenges are the main reasons why such sites are not being cleaned up to support unrestricted use. EPA policy changes are now redirecting cleanup efforts toward waste isolation and containment-in-place rather than waste removal. This shift is not being matched by a corresponding shift in the conceptual and operational approach to remediation planning. The process logic of cleanup continues to be “single-pass” and linear, via sequential planning and implementation stages that aim to declare sites “cleaned up and closed” once the sought-after degree of waste isolation from the biotic environment is achieved. Instead an iterative and nonlinear process logic is required – one that directs cleanup toward the needs of effective stewardship of the remaining residual contamination rather than toward regulatory standards that support the selected future land use for the site. This redirection of cleanup logic shifts the focus in remediation planning to vulnerabilities and uncertainties associated with long-term stewardship rather than the degree of isolation of wastes from human populations and the environment achieved. Such a shift is needed in recognition that situations of restricted human use of still-contaminated sites are being created that remain vulnerable to failure given the length of time over which stewardship is required.

Over the past 20 years, the European Union has developed a comprehensive policy on gender equality (GE) in the fields of research, innovation and higher education. While North European countries have actively implemented policies in this direction, South and East European countries have been far less active and made limited progress, resulting in widening policy gaps across countries. Drawing from the experience of a capacity-building project (TARGET), this chapter explores the factors that impede the implementation of gender equality plans (GEPs) in research and higher education institutions across five countries – Greece, Cyprus, Romania, Italy and Serbia. It argues that the lack of a coherent GE discourse in research and innovation policies that sheds light on structural barriers and implicit bias is a central impediment: it severely limits the potential of GEPs and the power of change agents in research and higher education organisations in Southeast Europe to stimulate institutional change.

There have been great advances in our understanding of how universities effectively undertake community engagement, with research focused upon understanding community partner perspectives and outcomes (see Andrée et al., 2014; Srinivas et al., 2015; Sweatman & Warner, 2020), and democratic civic engagement (see Hall et al., 2013; Saltmarsh et al., 2009). This chapter builds on these studies to critically examine one university’s capacities to coordinate institutional-level change that supports and advances community-engagement scholarship. A small, rural, undergraduate university in Nova Scotia, Canada, called Acadia University was used as the case study site for this examination. Using an action research case study design, we gathered data from multiple sources within and outside of the University over a three-year period. Through this investigation Acadia’s community-engagement ethos was studied to understand if the University has the assets, resources, knowledge and motivation to create, implement and sustain democratic community engagement initiatives with community partners. From this data, key findings were categorized into three major themes: power and positionality of the University, institutional supports and barriers to engagement, and institutional assessment of community engagement initiatives. This chapter discusses these themes in depth using data from this study and current literature to unpack the practicalities and particularities of an institution committing to a deep, pervasive and integrated community engagement culture. Overall, this study found that Acadia’s community engagement ethos, as it moves towards democratic engagement while navigating systematic internal and external constraints, is diverse and complex. This study contributes to the legitimization of community engagement scholarship more broadly.

The role of implicit provider bias in mental health care is an important issue that continues to be of concern in the twenty-first century for the Black/African American community. Access to mental health and quality care remains elusive as members of this social group lack access to mental health screening, diagnosis, and attention due to institutional and cultural barriers. Supporting the position that implicit and explicit provider bias exists in the mental health profession, this chapter will explore how implicit provider bias is an intractable institutional barrier that prevents Black/African Americans from accessing mental health and quality care. A review of the implications related to mental health outcomes with Black/African American clients will also be explored.

A brief overview of the Black/African American cultural responses to implicit provider bias will be discussed later in this chapter. There will be an exploration of the ways to help identify, address, and eliminate implicit provider bias using evidence-based personal and community engagement strategies that promote mental health wellness within the Black/African American community. Implications for best practices in Black/African American mental health will also be addressed to eradicate the risk of unethical or medical malpractice with Black/African American clients, reduce the mental health disparity experienced by Blacks/African Americans, and create mental health equity for this population.

The purpose of the work is to determine conflicts that may appear in clusters.

The methodology of the research is based on combination of systemic, institutional, and evolutional approaches, including private general scientific methods of subject-object, factor, comparative, functional and structural and descriptive analysis, classification, and modeling.

Comparison of programs of development of territorial innovational clusters is conducted, as well as comparative analysis of methodological approaches to analysis of the institutional basis of regional clusters; a ranking of target directions of regional programs of development of innovational territorial clusters is compiled. The authors’ classification of conflicts of regional clusters is offered.

The performed analysis helped to determine presence of various defects, dysfunctions, and negative effects with clusters that emphasize their high susceptibility to conflicts that have to be taken into account during formation of regional cluster policy, aimed at their conflict-free functioning.

Although there has been considerable growth in the higher education systems of Turkey and China in about the last two decades, there is still a room for development in enabling equity in all regions, increasing opportunities and resources regardless of socio-economic status or gender differences. Students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds do not have enough tools to change their fate for the better due to the accumulated barriers they face. Given this background, the chapter discusses how the barriers to equitable HE admissions relate to each other and which one has a greater negative impact over the Accumulated Conversion Barriers Modal we propose defined by personal, discriminatory, institutional, and geographical barriers. The perspectives of Turkish and Chinese HE stakeholders were examined through 21 in-depth interviews that were subjected to content analysis and interpreted in a comparative style using the lens of Capabilities Approach of Sen. We also offer policy suggestions to increase students’ conversion capacities for better outcomes to serve both the national and the international educational contexts owing to the adaptable nature of our modal to other countries experiencing similar issues in their higher education systems.

The world is currently facing one of the most significant refugee crises in history, posing challenges to policymakers in host countries needing to facilitate socio-economic integration of refugees urgently. Policymakers and scholars have started shedding light on the entrepreneurial potential of refugees. Refugees confront considerable institutional barriers in their new environments. Particularly challenging is that they lose connection to their home country ecosystem through forced displacement and are not yet well-embedded in the local entrepreneurial ecosystem of the host country. The disconnection to the local ecosystem hinders refugees from accessing various resources essential to entrepreneurial activities. Against this background, this chapter illuminates the role of business incubators in integrating refugee entrepreneurs into the local entrepreneurial ecosystem, paying particular attention to relational dynamics within incubators. This study conducts explorative qualitative research with a single case study of a German business incubator for refugees. This study identifies three types of relational dynamics that characterise operation of refugee business incubators and two mechanisms constructive and descriptive to their mission. Finally, this study derives practical implications for refugee business incubators and policymakers in refugee-hosting countries.

Library-related and resource access issues confronting students enrolled in an interinstitutional joint master’s degree program in public health are addressed in this chapter. It details a cross-institutional collaborative effort to identify and provide research resources to interinstitutional joint degree students and faculty and analyzes the program through the lens of literature on collaboration in higher education and in library instruction. Reports on findings from qualitative feedback and quantitative card sort analysis data were gathered to inform development of content for, and organization of, a library research guide. Bureaucratic structures and policies often affect library services to students and faculty in interinstitutional joint degree programs. Therefore, more salient information about library policies, services, and resources was needed in order for the affected libraries to coordinate instruction, collections, and services to best support such programs. One of the limitations of the case study was that limited qualitative and quantitative feedback was received. Also there was no prior formal needs assessment. Nevertheless, the chapter provides insight to challenges facing libraries and librarians supporting interinstitutional joint degree programs. It also points to administrative opportunities to create rich library collaborations. Existing literature does not adequately address obstacles of in-person interinstitutional joint degree programs. The contribution of this chapter is that it identifies the complications of access, library policies, and administrative procedure that will need to be address by two or more libraries that want to support joint degree programs at the college or university level.