Search results

This chapter argues that Deliberative Dialogues (DDs) are a form of Education for Sustainable Development, whose design, process focus, wide-tent approach, and interdisciplinarity align with best democratic practices. DDs are an effective method for bridging seemingly opposing forces in academia and the larger society: Narrow expertise versus interdisciplinarity, individual orientation versus collaboration, polarization and prioritization of majority/privileged voice versus inclusivity and search for common ground. This chapter will define and describe deliberation and DDs as useful for a wide range of disciplines, offer models, explore basic components, and analyze the author’s participant researcher experience in crafting and facilitating DDs in 35 classes across multiple disciplines in a small private university. The chapter will look at the planning process, the logistics of running the DD, post-DD outcomes, and provide questions and suggestions for future enhancements. A particular kind of DD will be explored, the Syllabus Deliberation method (also known as the negotiated or process syllabus). Finally, the chapter will articulate findings related to the process of preparing for the deliberations, ways in which scaffolded activities improved, relationship between the dialogues and course curriculum, evolution of faculty and researcher-facilitator roles, challenges, and successes. Students’ and faculty’s perceptions of some outcomes are also included.

This chapter provides an overview of the explanations and factors affecting dividend policy. This study employs a systematic literature review approach to review a large sample of studies related to the dividend puzzle. Although the analysis reveals mixed evidence involving the theories and determinants of dividend policy, some determinants appear in numerous studies. However, no consensus exists on an optimal dividend to resolve the dividend puzzle, and the authors propose a model to deal with the same. When examining dividend policy, researchers should consider the firm, market, behavior, and other determinants. When making significant dividend or stock decisions, managers and shareholders should also contemplate the factors, interactions, inadequacies, and consequences. Future researchers should strive to take a more comprehensive view when resolving the dividend puzzle. This study provides a current and complete picture of dividend policy's available theories and empirical determinants. Its significant contribution is identifying some of the more consistently essential determinants of dividend policy while proposing a holistic model to address the prevailing dividend dilemma.

This chapter analyzes the concept of the Center of Government (CoG) and its relevance for the public administration agenda in Latin America. It identifies five key functions of the CoG: strategic management, policy coordination, performance monitoring and improvement, political management, and communications and accountability, and it assesses the region's performance for each of them, citing concrete experiences. The CoG is still an emerging topic for scholars and practitioners in Latin America. Despite the fact that CoGs in Latin America formally recognize most if not all of its five key functions, the region shows a relatively weak performance in practice. Nonetheless, recent innovative experiences show an increased interest in governments to strengthen the CoG and suggest paths that may lead to improved performance.

The CoG may be a relatively new topic in public administration research, but it is not a new phenomenon. It refers to functions that have been performed, and to structures that have existed, for several decades in many countries, including Latin American ones. However, a number of factors have led to an increased relevance of CoG institutions in recent years. The first section of this chapter will attempt to define the concept of “Center of Government”; to enumerate the CoG's main political and technical functions; to describe the typical structures that perform these functions; and to indicate why these institutions play a critical role in current times. Then, Section 2 will discuss how CoG institutions in Latin American countries have been performing their core functions, identifying regional trends and country-level configurations. The political economy of CoG strengthening will also be covered. Section 3 concludes.

This ECEPD project implemented a professional development (PD) protocol within a large public school system. The PD was designed to provide support for both teachers and their instructional partners in implementation of two curricula designed to foster children's language, literacy, math competencies, and overall cognitive development. The specifics of the PD are outlined including its development, coaching strategies, training approaches, and coursework components.

Results of the evaluation of the project are also highlighted and discussed. Analyses indicated that teachers showed significant growth in relation to the implementation of the curriculums and the PD efforts of both the district and the intervention, with less-experienced teachers showing the highest levels of growth. In addition, results indicated a significant difference between the intervention and the control group teachers in their developmentally appropriate beliefs and practices, with intervention teachers indicating higher levels of developmentally appropriate beliefs and practices. The challenges to field work in a large and ever-changing school system are discussed, and recommendations for further PD are made.

If institutions of higher education are to remain at the forefront of the knowledge-generating enterprise, the nature of graduate-level teaching must be critically examined. Exploring the manner in which discussion is facilitated in a seminar-like context offers one avenue for attaining this understanding. This study aims to shed light on the prevalence, purpose, and form of discussion facilitation practices that were observed in a small group setting within a social science academic program at a large Southern California university. An exploratory, embedded case study was conducted over approximately 24 weeks using ethnographic and conversation analytic methods. Data sources consisted of ethnographic field notes, audio recordings of meetings, transcripts from those recordings, and artifacts, including literature used during each session. Results suggest that facilitating small group discussions requires balancing focus on the selected text and participant engagement, a diverse set of facilitation practices, and use of different strategies (or micro-avenues) to arrive at the same end. Study findings emphasize the importance of intersubjectivity and form versus function of speech in an educational environment. What is said and how it is said both have great implications for shared learning and understanding. Adaptability of mixed qualitative methods in this study demonstrates the potential of ethnography and conversation analysis as complementary approaches for understanding the functional nature of talk and interaction. Thus, the criteria for rigorous qualitative research, the view that ethnography and conversation analysis do not mix, and the under-valuing of critical multiplism in research need to be re-examined.

The progressive limits to rights mobilization have become starkly apparent in the past two decades. No new suspect classes have been forthcoming from the Supreme Court since 1977 despite continued demands for legal recognition by lesbians and gays, indigenous peoples and others interested in expanding civil rights doctrine. Public tolerance for civil rights measures has likewise dried up. Since the 1960s, referenda on civil rights have halted affirmative action programs, limited school busing and housing discrimination protections, promoted English-only laws, limited AIDS policies, and ended the judicial recognition of same-sex marriage, among other issues. Nearly 80% of these referenda have had outcomes realizing the Madisonian fear of “majority tyranny”¹ and signaling the Nietzschean dread of a politics of resentment (Brown, 1995, p. 214; Connolly, 1991, p. 64).