Search results

The increasing rate of imprisonment of women in the United States and the over‐representation of women victims of violence in the corrections system confirms that there are long‐term, often substantially debilitating consequences to women victims of intimate partner violence, sexual violence and youth maltreatment and injury, including incarceration. As part of a study funded by the National Institute of Justice, the authors pursued an exploration of the personal risks, resiliencies and life opportunities that make a difference in the lives of women who have ended up incarcerated. The findings of this study about the prevalence and consequences of youth maltreatment and adult victimization and the mitigating factors, which may have had an impact on the life trajectories of adult incarcerated women will be reviewed. Recommendations will be given for preventive and interventive policy and practice measures that stand to reduce the negative consequences of victimization, particularly those that can prevent incarceration.

Early paradox research in organization theory contained a remarkable breadth of inspirations from outside disciplines. We wanted to know more about where early scholarship found inspiration to create what has since become paradox theory. To shed light on this, we engaged seminal paradox scholars in conversations: asking about their past experiences drawing from outside disciplines and their views on the future of paradox theory. These conversations surfaced several themes of past and future inspirations: (1) understanding complex phenomena; (2) drawing from related disciplines; (3) combining interdisciplinary insights; and (4) bridging discourses in organization theory. We end the piece with suggestions for future paradox research inspired by these conversations.

At the Royal Society of Health annual conference, no less a person than the editor of the B.M.A.'s “Family Doctor” publications, speaking of the failure of the anti‐smoking campaign, said we “had to accept that health education did not work”; viewing the difficulties in food hygiene, there are many enthusiasts in public health who must be thinking the same thing. Dr Trevor Weston said people read and believed what the health educationists propounded, but this did not make them change their behaviour. In the early days of its conception, too much was undoubtedly expected from health education. It was one of those plans and schemes, part of the bright, new world which emerged in the heady period which followed the carnage of the Great War; perhaps one form of expressing relief that at long last it was all over. It was a time for rebuilding—housing, nutritional and living standards; as the politicians of the day were saying, you cannot build democracy—hadn't the world just been made “safe for democracy?”—on an empty belly and life in a hovel. People knew little or nothing about health or how to safeguard it; health education seemed right and proper at this time. There were few such conceptions in France which had suffered appalling losses; the poilu who had survived wanted only to return to his fields and womenfolk, satisfied that Marianne would take revenge and exact massive retribution from the Boche!