Search results1 – 5 of 5
As the 1960s drew to a close, Congress found itself grappling with an increasing array of complex technological issues that it was ill equipped to analyze and that could…
As the 1960s drew to a close, Congress found itself grappling with an increasing array of complex technological issues that it was ill equipped to analyze and that could be the cause of costly blunders if acted upon incorrectly. To alleviate this situation, the U.S. Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) was created in 1972 under Public Law 92–484 in order to advise Congress on issues in science and technology so that relevant information would be available when pertinent legislation was being developed. Under the leadership of its director John Gibbons, OTA has earned the distinction of providing Congress, that most political of bodies, with timely and objective information without becoming mired in political skirmishes. Despite this distinction, OTA is one of the smallest government agencies, with a budget of twenty million dollars and a staff of 140. Its organization is remarkable for its simplicity. A bipartisan congressional Technology Assessment Board governs the agency overall but appoints the director who has full responsibility for running it. The nine agency divisions are organized according to scientific disciplines and report to the director with little or no intervening bureaucracy. Outside expert advice is available from the Technology Assessment Advisory Council. The result is an organization that is equally balanced politically and scientifically, that is streamlined and efficient, and that allows input from its governing members. This structure also allows great flexibility in the research and production of assessment reports. To do an assessment, OTA deploys its experts to go out and gather the information needed on the wide‐ranging topics it has been commissioned to research. The topics are chosen according to the need and interest of both houses and both political parties. Outside experts are sometimes called upon to do research but OTA exercises the final responsibility over their reports. Factual conclusions and options are presented but opinions are never given. The manner in which the information is acted upon is always left to Congress, a major reason for OTA's success.
Since the 2008 financial crisis, state retrenchment has added to the harshness of life for marginalised groups globally. This UK study suggests community activism may…
Since the 2008 financial crisis, state retrenchment has added to the harshness of life for marginalised groups globally. This UK study suggests community activism may promote human capacity and resilience in innovative ways. The purpose of this paper is to address the relationship between non-normative understandings of time and resilience.
This research paper is based on qualitative study of the work of a third sector organisation based in an urban area in the UK which provides training in mediation skills for community mediators (CMs). These CMs (often former “gang members”) work with young people in order to prevent conflict within and between groups of white British, South Asian and Roma heritage.
CMs are reflexively developing temporalities which replace hegemonic linear time with a situationally “open time” praxis. The time “anomalies” which characterise the CMs’ engagement appear related to aesthetic rationality, a form of rationality which opens up new ways of thinking about resilience. Whether CMs’ understandings and enactments of resilience can point to broader changes of approach in the delivery of social care is considered.
This paper contributes to critical understandings of resilience that challenge traditional service delivery by pointing to an alternative approach that focusses on processes and relationships over pre-defined outcomes.
Hegemonic understandings of time (as a linear process) can delegitimise potentially valuable understandings of resilience developed by members of marginalised communities.
This paper is original in developing a critical analysis of the relationship between resilience and time.
In this chapter, we have proposed that an important approach to understanding occupational stress and well-being among racial and ethnic minority workers is to integrate…
In this chapter, we have proposed that an important approach to understanding occupational stress and well-being among racial and ethnic minority workers is to integrate the occupational health disparities paradigm into work stress research. As such, the current chapter provides a state-of-the-art review of the existing literature on occupational health disparities for Latinos, Asian Americans, and African Americans. Each of the three sections has highlighted the unique occupational health problems encountered by the specific racial and ethnic group as well as the research and policy gaps. We end with a series of recommendations for future research.
Collective efficacy and teacher leadership, two constructs central to school reform, were examined in this quantitative study of three school districts. The purpose of…
Collective efficacy and teacher leadership, two constructs central to school reform, were examined in this quantitative study of three school districts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between teacher perceptions of the extent of teacher leadership and the extent of collective efficacy. Research was guided by the following questions: Do teachers who perceive a strong sense of collective efficacy also perceive a greater extent of teacher leadership in their schools? Are there differences in perceptions of collective efficacy and the factors of teacher leadership, specifically, sharing expertise, shared leadership, supra-practitioner, and principal selection?
Data were collected utilizing two instruments, the Teacher Leadership Inventory (TLI) (Angelle and DeHart, 2010) and the Teacher Efficacy Belief Scale – Collective Form (Olivier, 2001). Descriptive statistics and ANOVA were run to examine mean differences by district in teacher collective efficacy and the extent of teacher leadership in the school (n=363). In addition, ANOVA were run to examine district differences in the four factors on the TLI. A one-way ANOVA contrasted the overall collective efficacy mean scores of Districts A, B, and C. Demographic data were also collected from participants.
Findings indicate a clear and strong relationship between collective efficacy and teacher leadership. District B was markedly stronger in teacher leadership and collective efficacy than the other two districts. The highest percentage of participants indicating they have a leadership role were from District B. Findings from this study also indicate that teachers perceive the informal aspects of teacher leadership as a greater indicator of collective efficacy. District B, which reported significantly higher collective efficacy than did District A or C, also reported a significantly lower extent of principal selected teacher leadership. Formal roles such as department heads and grade level chairs were not perceived as extensive indicators of teacher leadership as were teacher roles in collaboration or extra role behaviours.
This study took place in three small districts in a southeastern US state. Generalizability to larger school districts should be approached with caution. This study may be limited in that teacher leaders may have a greater tendency to complete a survey on teacher leadership than teachers who do not take on leadership roles.
This study provides support for developing shared leadership which can impact the collective beliefs of the faculty in a positive manner. Results from this study affirms those leaders who believe in the power of professional learning communities, shared decision making, and other indicators of teacher leadership. Success of teacher leaders depends, in large part, on the principal's philosophy of power sharing in the context in which they work. Teachers can be given the power to lead but they must also be willing to accept the roles this power brings.
While several studies have been conducted on collective efficacy in schools, most of these studies have been quantitative. Studies of teacher leadership have tended to focus on the formal roles of teacher leaders with a qualitative. Using quantitative methodology for collective efficacy and teacher leadership, this study approaches teacher leadership from an organizational perspective, examining the extent to which both informal and formal, or principal selected, teacher leadership exists across the school. The authors also argue that teacher leadership is a construct greater than administrative roles assigned to teachers but also includes informal leadership, primarily through their influence on organizational effectiveness.