Search results

In recent decades, significant advances have been made at both the grassroots and professional levels of women's ice hockey in North America. Yet, despite recent achievements, such as the establishment of ‘professional’ leagues, and compelling narratives of progress, athletes and league organisers still face significant challenges. The barriers women face, such as reduced access to resources and opportunity, lack of legitimacy, and league instability, and a continued reliance on relationships with men's sporting leagues, such as the National Hockey League, suggest that women's ice hockey is accommodated into the game in ways that reinforce and perpetuate systems of gender, reproducing a neoliberal notion of failure. Using Halberstam's (2011) notion of failure as the place from which reform and transformation can take place, we offer a critical reading of the (re)formation of the National Women's Hockey League and the developments in women's (semi)professional ice hockey in North America.

The purpose of this chapter is to examine community relations as corporate social responsibility (CSR) engagements by sport organizations through the lens of social anchor theory. Specifically, this work explores whether and how sport organizations serve as social anchors in community, and what community relations approaches have the potential to facilitate professional sport organizations as social anchors. Findings are based on textual analysis of CSR reports and community relating websites of nine professional sport organizations in the United States. Findings suggest that sport organizations act as social anchors by identifying with social issues, celebrating diversity, equality, and inclusion (DEI), and incorporating the margins into sports. Overall, partnerships, community events, and players' community engagements are the community relations approaches with potential to establish sport organizations as social anchors. The proposed best practices illustrate the intersection of sport CSR initiatives, community relations, and DEI social programs.

This research explores how gender influences the experience of cancer care and proposes a new explanation for gender differences in posttraumatic growth among individuals who received blood or marrow transplantation as treatment for lymphoma.

We use mixed methods, combining quantitative examination of surveys with 180 survivors with qualitative findings from semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 50 survivors. Participants were 2–25 years after transplantation. Quantitative data were analyzed using statistical modeling; qualitative data were analyzed using thematic coding.

A quantitative examination indicates that compared to men, women report greater posttraumatic growth and more positive impacts of cancer despite having lower physical health. These gender differences are robust even after controlling for physical and emotional well-being, life satisfaction, and social support. Qualitative findings from in-depth interviews show that gender norms and expectations about masculinity and femininity shape how individuals experience illness and perform the role of patient and survivor. Expectations about being a good patient and survivor are more aligned with expectations about femininity and tend to conflict with expectations about masculinity. Gender norms discourage men from reporting personal growth from cancer and encourage women to overemphasize the positive aspects of having had cancer.

This study was conducted two or more years after treatment had ended; therefore, potential for recall bias existed. Nevertheless, the findings suggest that viewing cancer as transformative is part of a gender performance that limits opportunities for individuals to experience and express a diverse range of reactions which, at times, increases the emotional burden on individuals.

By combining survey data with in-depth interviews, the study offers new insights into the causes of gender differences in the reporting of patient outcomes after illness.

This study contributes to the understanding of the health effects of pesticides exposure and of how pesticides have been and should be regulated.

This study presents literature reviews for the period 2000–2013 on (i) the health effects of pesticides and on (ii) preference valuation of health risks related to pesticides, as well as a discussion of the role of benefit-cost analysis applied to pesticide regulatory measures.

This study indicates that the health literature has focused on individuals with direct exposure to pesticides, i.e. farmers, while the literature on preference valuation has focused on those with indirect exposure, i.e. consumers. The discussion highlights the need to clarify the rationale for regulating pesticides, the role of risk perceptions in benefit-cost analysis, and the importance of inter-disciplinary research in this area.

This study relates findings of different disciplines (health, economics, public policy) regarding pesticides, and identifies gaps for future research.

In this paper, we review the literature on pay variation (e.g., pay dispersion, pay compression, pay range) in organizations. Pay variation research has increased markedly in the past two decades and much progress has been made in terms of understanding its consequences for individual, team, and organizational outcomes. Our review of this research exposes several levels-related assumptions that have limited theoretical and empirical progress. We isolate the issues that deserve attention, develop an illustrative multilevel model, and offer a number of testable propositions to guide future research on pay structures.