Search results

The article aims to present an overview of how the conflicts related to economic and social agency within particular public sector performance measurement arrangements can work for and against the application of balanced scorecard style systems. It highlights some of the dilemmas that are caused when performance measurement and productivity enhancement are required within broad areas of public service, especially where market behaviour is relevant.

Using a case study approach based on literature review and field research, this article focuses on the gondoliers (gondolieri) of Venice, Italy. The analytical basis is historical record, Aristotelian ideas of ethical responsibility and contemporary literature on performance measurement and productivity.

The research, so far, has found that performance is not necessarily determined by formal standards and technical measurements. It can be, but performance is also situational and opportunistic and mediated by more subjective and basic concerns. The findings confirm that performance management systems are largely socially rather than technically constructed and operated. As such they will continue to pose dilemmas for public sector managers that will be difficult to resolve.

This is an unusual case study as the gondolieri do not fit neatly into the usual paradigm of public service. Yet they have existed in a similar form for nearly 1,000 years and have operated within performance measurement systems during that time. Thus, it is possible to track the kinds of individual and organisational conflicts, which arise and impact on performance measurement systems, and have done for many centuries up until the present day.

The Enterprise Education Experience Manual was developed by Durham University Business School. It gives practical help and advice to those within schools whose task it is to organise in‐service training for their staff. The manual was produced in order to disseminate nationally successful work in partnership with northern schools

Both the government and local service providers in the UK are becoming increasingly aware of the possibility of improving child outcomes through the delivery of parenting programmes. Government initiatives, such as Sure Start, Pathfinders and Flying Start are a positive step forward, yet programmes sometimes fail to work in service settings. This article describes the components necessary to deliver effective interventions, exploring the need to choose an evidence‐based parent programme, implement it with fidelity and evaluate the outcome. It describes the steps taken in North and Mid Wales to do this and reports briefly on the successful outcomes achieved by delivering the Incredible Years Basic Parenting Programme to the parents of high‐risk children in Sure Start areas.

The evidence‐based Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (TCM) Programme was developed to meet demands from teachers for strategies to manage disruptive behaviours in the classroom (Webster‐Stratton, 1999). This article describes the programme and reports on its first use in the UK. In the first study 23 teachers attended the five‐day classroom management programme, 20 completed the final satisfaction questionnaire and 21 participated in a semi‐structured follow‐up interview. Teachers who implemented the training in their classrooms reported satisfaction with the programme and believed that the strategies taught were effective and improved pupils' conduct. In the second study, blind observation of teacher classroom behaviour was undertaken in 21 classes: 10 teachers had received the TCM training and 11 had not. Teachers who received TCM training gave clearer instructions to children and allowed more time for compliance before repeating instructions. The children in their classes were more compliant than children in the classes of untrained teachers. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Identifies key activities that network users can perform in order to use the network effectively. Offers recommended reading, from beginner to expert user status. Explains some commonly used terms (e.g. Turbo Gopher with Veronica!). Lists useful Internet resources.

To understand how parents make the decision to implant their deaf young children with cochlear implants, focusing specifically on the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma.

I conducted 33 semi-structured interviews with the hearing parents or parent of children with cochlear implants. In all but two families I interviewed the primary caretaker which in all cases was a mother. In the remaining two interviews, I interviewed both parents together. Because of the relative scarcity of families with children with cochlear implants, and the difficulty in connecting with these families, I used a convenience sample, and I did not stratify it in any way. The only requirement for parents to be interviewed is that they had at least one deaf child who had been implanted with at least one cochlear implant. Although this is a small sample, the findings are transferable to other families with the same sociodemographic characteristics as those in my study.

Parents in the study focused on three key concepts: normality, risk analysis, and being a good parent. Dispositional factors such as the need to be “normal” and the desire for material success for one's children appeared to moderate the cost-benefit calculus.

This interview project concentrated on hearing families who had implanted their deaf children with cochlear implants; it does not include culturally Deaf parents who choose to use American Sign Language (ASL) with their Deaf children. Understanding how Deaf families understand the concepts of normality, medicalization, and stigma would shed light on how a distinctly “abnormal” group (by a statistical conception of normal) – ASL-using Deaf people-explain normality in the face of using a non-typical communication method. One can learn a lot by studying the absence of a phenomena, in this case, not implanting children with cochlear implants. It is possible that the existential threat felt by some Deaf people, specifically the demographic problem presented by cochlear implants, led Deaf educators or parents to resist being the subject of research.

Overwhelmingly the sample was female, and white. Only two participants were male, and none of the participants were non-white. The lack of diversity in the sample does not necessarily reflect a lack of diversity of children receiving cochlear implants. Medicaid, which disproportionately covers families of color, covers cochlear implants in most cases, so low SES/racial intersectionality should not have affected the lack of diversity in the sample. However, the oral schools are all private pay, with few scholarships available, so low SES/racial intersectionality in the sampling universe (all children who attend oral schools), may have played a part in the lack of racial diversity within the sample.

Parents in this study were very specific about the fact that they believed cochlear implants would lead to academic, professional, and personal success. They weaved narratives of normality, medicalization, and stigma through their stories. Normality is an important lens from which to see stories about disability and ability, as well as medical correction. As medical science continues to advance, more and more conditions will become medicalized, leading to more and more people taking advanced medical treatments to address problems that were previously considered “problems with living” that are now considered “medical problems” that can be treated with advanced science.

This chapter's contribution to the sociological cochlear implant literature is it's weaving of narratives about normality, stigma, and medicalization into parental stories about the cochlear implant decision-making process. Most literature about the cochlear implant decision-making process focus on cost-benefit analysis, and logical decision-making processes, whereas this paper focuses on decision-making factors stemming from bias, emotions, and values.

Organizational learning in inter‐firm exchange relationships poses a double‐edged sword. On one hand, inter‐firm learning is a desirable extension of organizational learning, developing a firm’s knowledge base, and providing fresh insights into strategies, markets, and relationships. On the other hand, inter‐firm learning can lead to unintended and undesirable skills transfer, resulting in the potential dilution of competitive advantage. This risk can be exacerbated by disparities in inter‐firm learning, resulting in uneven distribution of benefits and risks in the collaborative relationship. This paper articulates these two different views on inter‐firm learning, and second, develops a framework for the role of governance in regulating knowledge transfer. In particular, appropriate governance mechanisms must be crafted which match the learning intentions of the partners, the type of knowledge sought, and the designed duration for the collaboration, so as to maximize the benefits of learning while minimizing the risks. Implications for strategy and future research are offered.

On April 2, 1987, IBM unveiled a series of long‐awaited new hardware and software products. The new computer line, dubbed the Personal Systems 30, 50, 60, and 80, seems destined to replace the XT and AT models that are the mainstay of the firm's current personal computer offerings. The numerous changes in hardware and software, while representing improvements on previous IBM technology, will require users purchasing additional computers to make difficult choices as to which of the two IBM architectures to adopt.