Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how a mentor training intervention affected research scientists’ perceptions of diversity and their subsequent behaviors.

Data were originally collected as part of a randomized controlled trial measuring the effectiveness of a research mentor training intervention that covered six mentoring competencies, including addressing diversity. Here, the results of a secondary qualitative analysis of interviews with trained mentors, 135 faculty from 16 institutions from across the USA and Puerto Rico, are reported.

Analyses provide insights into how the diversity content of a mentoring intervention is interpreted, internalized, and acted upon. Mentors reported increased awareness, an expanded understanding of diversity and the implications of human differences, as well as a greater recognition of personal biases. While some were able to act on that increased awareness and make changes to their mentoring practice, most did not report doing so.

Well-designed mentor training incorporating culturally aware practices could better prepare mentors to work successfully with mentees from diverse backgrounds. Cultivating a more culturally diverse scientific community is of benefit to science as well as society.

Little is known about how faculty perceive diversity or internalize training content on the topic, either within the context of mentoring or more broadly. This exploratory study provides unique insights into these phenomena and invites further research. Implications for mentoring relationships, mentor training initiatives, and efforts to address diversity are discussed.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

Mentoring plays a key role in supporting early-career researchers, especially those from underrepresented groups. However, many mentors have not received formal training. This study looks at one training programme and evaluates whether the participants reported any change in awareness of behavior, and what this change looks like in practice.

The briefing saves busy executives and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

Taken in its entirety, this edited volume presents broad, sweeping perspectives on race culture, society, socialization and education. The topics are expansive and the analyses incisive. Various contributors to the volume earned doctoral degrees in education, human development, psychology, social work and sociology across four decades (1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s). Despite the variety of disciplines, theoretical perspectives, methodological approaches and conclusions, there is an underlying coherence. This coherence derives in part from the authors' shared commitment to an holistic approach, which examines questions around educational achievement in relation to ecological, cultural, historical, political, economic, social and psychological contexts. In a word, these chapters embody an holistic approach to educational research, theory, practice and policy that is very much consistent with the Chicago School Tradition.To be sure, the studies in this volume raise far more questions than provide definitive answers concerning the perplexing problems of race, culture, inequality and education in America. The central importance of these studies and this volume may reside in their very ability to challenge established orthodoxies. By doing so, the studies published here provide a vital heuristic function. Certainly, there continues to be a pressing need for concerted efforts on research, theory, teaching/learning and policy fronts in order to achieve educational equity for African Americans and for other disenfranchised groups. To the extent that this volume fuels the dialogue and continues the quest, then our purpose of honoring Professor Edgar G. Epps, consummate scholar and important contributor to the Chicago School Tradition, has been well served.

This chapter explains how special education is an integral part of the US system of public education; detailing the critical rationale for distinctions and specializations as well as how both general and special education might improve in the future delivery of an evidence-based educational system. Particular attention will be given to the importance of maintaining a structure that protects special education's particular purpose for a specific population, with the conceptual framework that preserving and enhancing special education's special and specialized identity are critical to adequate service delivery for the most vulnerable populations of students, families, and communities.

In years past, when life seemed simpler and the Law much less complicated, jurists were fond of quoting the age‐old saying: “All men are equal before the Law.” It was never completely true; there were important exemptions when strict legal enforcement would have been against the public interests. A classic example was Crown immunity, evolved from the historical principle that “The King can do no wrong”. With the growth of government, the multiplicity of government agencies and the enormous amount of secondary legislation, the statutes being merely enabling Acts, this immunity revealed itself as being used largely against public interests. Statutory instruments were being drafted within Ministerial departments largely by as many as 300 officers of those departments authorized to sign such measures, affecting the rights of the people without any real Parliamentary control. Those who suffered and lost in their enforcement had no remedy; Crown immunity protected all those acting as servants of the Crown and the principle came to be an officials' charter with no connection whatever with the Crown. Parliament, custodian of the national conscience, removed much of this socially unacceptable privilege in the Crown Proceedings Act, 1947, which enabled injured parties within limit to sue central departments and their officers. The more recent system of Commissioners—Parliamentary, Local Authority, Health Service—with power to enquire into allegations of injustice, maladministration, malpractice to individuals extra‐legally, has extended the rights of the suffering citizen.

The topic of organizational culture has attracted the attention of numerous researchers from both quantitative and qualitative perspectives. A review of the literature shows that the quantitative assessment of organizational culture has been dominated by studies adopting the competing values framework developed by Quinn and his colleagues. The use of this model embraces the notion that the 4 cultural types depicted by the framework can be used not only to represent the culture of an organization but also to serve as a basis upon which one organization can be differentiated from others. Various attempts have been reported to support the validity of the framework for describing the culture of an organization; however, the claim that one organization can be differentiated from another on the basis of the 4 cultural types is yet to be empirically supported. The study reported here set out to show that the competing values model can be used to differentiate organizations from one another. Based on a survey administered to all academic staff in 7 out of the 8 government‐funded higher education institutions in Hong Kong, the study successfully confirmed the validity of the competing values model as a tool in differentiating organizations.

Purpose: We analyze how medical providers use accountability processes or the regulatory means through which individuals hold themselves or others accountable to social norms, to uphold their medical authority. We use the case of trans medicine because in this medical domain, providers often have little to no expertise and few are trained specifically in delivering trans medicine or working with trans patients. As a result, providers experience uncertainty and are left without the typical tools and expertise on which they depend in most other areas of medical decision-making.

Design/methodology/approach: We conducted in-depth interviews with 23 medical providers and observations of transgender healthcare conferences in the United States between 2012 and 2015.

Findings: Our work offers insight into the provider side of patient-provider encounters and medical decision-making in gender minority health. The first accountability strategy providers employed was to invoke the language of evidence as a method to maintain their authority, in spite of the paucity of scientific evidence that undergirds this emergent medical domain. The second strategy was to mandate compliance by holding trans people accountable to the expectation of acquiescing to medical authority.

Originality/value: We contribute to the scholarship on gender minority health by examining how high power actors use accountability processes to restore order in interactions with trans and nonbinary patients. We demonstrate how enforcement to expectations through accountability processes is a plausible, though oft-overlooked, dimension of health inequalities.

The management literature has extensively discussed innovation diffusion as an essential part of corporate and economic competitiveness. However, most work centers on diffusion external to the organization. The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for understanding post adoption innovation implementation.

Research concerning diffusion inside the firm has focused almost exclusively on innovation creation as opposed to implementation. Although current definitions of innovation often make clear the internal/external distinction, the authors propose that it could be made more meaningful by further delineating the components of internal innovation diffusion. To that end, prominent innovation research is synthesized to explore innovation implementation.

A systematic review of the literature suggests three main types of influences on implementation: organizational, innovation, and human. Each represents unique challenges for innovation implementation.

The model presented here can serve as a useful organizing rubric for leaders attempting to facilitate change.

This paper fulfils a need for greater understanding of internal innovation implementation.