Search results

The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists recommend speech and language therapy intervention should be a key feature of approaches aimed at reducing re‐offending. This review seeks to analyse referrals received to speech and language therapy within a forensic support service (FSS) for adults with learning disabilities.

The review involved analysing data from the Forensic Support Service database for two six month periods (pre‐ and post‐introduction of the screen). Percentages of FSS cases referred to the speech and language therapist were analysed. Further data were gathered for service users not referred by asking their lead clinician to complete a retrospective communication screen. The screen also asked if the service user's communication difficulties were thought to be linked to their offending behaviour.

A high percentage (79/80 per cent) of service users referred to the FSS had communication difficulties. These communication difficulties are not always being identified. When completed, the screening tool aids identification of communication difficulties but the limited number of returned screens was a problem. Between 79 per cent and 84 per cent of those service users identified as having a communication difficulty, are thought to have offending behaviours linked to this.

The review informs managers and commissioners of similar services of the importance of speech and language therapy provision and also highlights the perceived link between communication difficulties and offending behaviour.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between stereotypes, in-group favoritism, and in-group bolstering effects across generations.

Based on the trends found in a qualitative study on generational stereotypes, questions on work ethic, work-life balance, and use of technology were administered to 255 participants identified as Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. Hypotheses predicted that with a strong stereotype, traditional in-group favoritism will not be found; however, an in-group bolstering effect will emerge. In the absence of a strong stereotype, traditional in-group favoritism is expected.

Generally, there was a strong stereotype that Baby Boomers are worse at technology than Generation X and Generation X is worse than Millennials. There was also a strong stereotype that Millennials do not do what it takes to get the job done as much as other generations. In the presence of these stereotypes, traditional in-group favoritism was not found, but in-groups bolstered themselves by rating themselves more favorably than other groups rated them. Although these findings did not hold for every item studied, there was moderate support for all three hypotheses.

As employees become aware of their biases, they can collaborate better with employees who are different than they are. Practical recommendations are suggested.

The paper applies theory of in-group favoritism to the perceptions of generational cohorts.

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.

Sovereignty retains considerable currency today insofar as it fuses ordinary understandings of the state, the nation, and democracy. Against widespread expectations, however, the European Union has increasingly harnessed sovereignty as a source of vitality. We are thus witnessing a mainstreaming of populist politics, as the rhetoric of sovereignty no longer disqualifies new EU institutions and policies. This can be better understood if we consider sovereignty, from a constructivist perspective, as an evolving set of practices. First, sovereignty evolves within political and administrative circles, as European officials act to modify longstanding practices of state sovereignty. Second, sovereignty evolves in an increasingly politicized context, as political leaders dramatize EU crises in order to mobilize coalitions around new practices of popular sovereignty. This dual dynamic of state sovereignty and popular sovereignty is demonstrated in the case of the Eurozone and then extrapolated to the current trajectory of the EU polity against the benchmark of US federalism after the Civil War. An open question is whether sovereignty practices in the European Union will continue to evolve without compromising the Union's cosmopolitan and liberal objectives.

How should we make sense of Europe's current malaise? Focused on the great recession, the European Union (EU)'s architecture, or diverging national interests, the literature offers useful economic, institutional, and political explanations. It is our contention that, however diverse, these works share one important limitation: a tendency to focus on rather immediate causes and consequences and not to step back with historical or comparative perspectives to gain a “longer” view of the dynamics at work. In this article, we begin by examining parallels between the EU's current conditions and the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. Then, introducing the articles contained in this special issue, we raise research questions pertaining to long-term historical, social, cultural, economic, and political factors. Are the current challenges unprecedented or do they have roots or connections to past events and developments? Is there a European trajectory into which we can contextualize current events? Are there bright spots, and what do they suggest about Europe's present and future? To engage in such questions, the papers leverage the insights of historical and comparative sociology, as well as comparative politics. In so doing, they offer analyses that see the EU as an instance of state formation. They propose that a key dimension of tension and possible resolution is the classic problem of sovereignty. They grapple with the question of identity and institutions, exploring in that context the extent and limit of citizens' support for more Europe. And they delve into the nature of the nationalist and populist sentiments within and across European countries.

The purpose of this paper is two-fold. Primarily, it examines the relationship between sustainable buildings and occupiers, by summarising the key extant literature. Secondarily, the paper proposes avenues for future research relating to the impact of sustainability on corporate real estate strategy.

The paper reviews over 90 relevant publications related to sustainability, real estate market responses and corporate real estate, focussing on the role and response of occupiers. The approach concentrates on occupier strategies, specifically considering influences such as corporate social responsibility (CSR), landlord–tenant relationships, the changing occupier role and the “circle of blame”.

In recent years, literature has increasingly begun to reflect nuances in occupier responses to sustainable, prime, office real estate, with some conflicting findings as to the importance of sustainability. Location remains the dominant consideration in decision-making for occupiers, but sustainability is key to CSR and “value-add” in certain sectors. More effective use of sustainable buildings requires improved communication between landlord and tenant. The authors’ review demonstrates that challenges still remain in relation to the “circle of blame”. More research needs to be done in relation to the emergence of sustainability in the non-prime and retail sectors.

Through collating key literature in this topical research area, the paper provides a critical review of occupier responses to sustainable real estate, and, therefore, a fuller understanding of emerging market practices. Additionally, it suggests future research directions.