Search results

This study aims to examine why students choose to or choose not to take and their perspectives of online courses, by obtaining responses from both students who have and have not taken online classes.

A survey methodology is used, including both open‐ended qualitative questions as well as a quantitative question.

Support for past research was found through students indicating the importance of flexibility and convenience in online courses. Countering past research was the high level of consistency between the two populations’ perspectives of online courses. Two key distinctions were found between the populations: the amount of focus on the cost of courses by those choosing not to take online classes, and the awareness of the need of self‐motivation needed in online courses by those who had taken them.

This research was conducted at just one organization, so generalizability across institutions would need to be confirmed.

Institutions need to be aware of what constitutes students’ choices and perspectives between the various methods of taking courses.

Students may need additional preparation and realistic expectations in order to increase the likelihood of being successful in an online course. Institutions also need to maintain the rigor of their online courses to maintain an overall positive social perception of online education.

This study made a distinction between perspectives of students having had an online course and those who had not, as well as a distinction between choice in selecting online courses and student perceptions of online courses. These perceptions were explored through both quantitative and qualitative responses.

Drawing on empirical research which incorporated biographical interviews with two older male perpetrators, this chapter develops theoretical conceptualisations of the histories, experiences and motives of these men. Four key areas are highlighted, which will be subject to closer scrutiny in relation to extant literature: (i) gender, particularly notions of masculinity, power and entitlement; (ii) attitudes relating to the use of violence both within intimate relationships and generally (iii) critical junctures in the life course which triggered attempts to desist; and (iv) an exploration of maturation and completion of treatment programmes in relation to their use of violence, future risks and efforts towards desistance.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the dramatically changed role of Russia in the global economy since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, as the Soviet institutions collapsed and were either reformed or replaced in a new Russian institutional landscape. The paper presents a fact-based and balanced view of Russia’s evolving role in the global economy, as distinguished from the sometimes one-sided view presented by some Western commentators. The authors establish that the two countervailing views are fundamentally based on different cultural perspectives about institutions, primarily the roles of business and government.

This paper is developed as a perspectives article drawing upon the decades of academic and business experience of all three authors with Russian business, management and the economy. The paper focuses on the structure of Russian institutional change and places it within the historical context of the challenges of various periods of time from the late 1980s to the present. The authors posit that cultural foundations complicate that institutional evolution.

Russia will remain a major player in world markets for energy, raw materials and armaments for the near future at least. Principal institutional questions facing Russia have to do with how to reduce the country’s overall dependence on raw material exports, with its vulnerability to world market fluctuations, and how to modernize Russian economic and political institutions. The degree of success in addressing these questions will depend largely upon the ability of the new and reformed economic institutions to show the flexibility to respond to changes in the global order, on whether political considerations will continue to supersede economic issues, and how markedly cultural traditions will continue to impede positive changes.

The entire system of international trade is under question, disrupted by the growing nationalism that is threatening the globalization that became institutionalized over decades in the wake of the Second World War. Russia’s future role is partially dependent upon how new patterns of international trade develop in response to the current disruption of established trade regimes, and by how political conflicts are expressed economically. The authors observe that Russia’s historical and cultural traditions, especially acquiescence to a highly centralized government with a strong autocratic leader, limit the country’s options. The authors explore how Russia’s reactions to Western sanctions have led to a new strategic approach, moving away from full engagement in the global economy to selective economic, and sometimes political, alliances with primarily non-Western countries, most notably China. The authors contrast Russia’s situation with that of China, which has been able to make substantial economic progress while still embracing a strong, centralized political institutional structure.

Many Western analysts have viewed Russian institutional evolution very critically through the lens of Western politics and sanctions, while Russia has continued along its own path of economic and institutional development. Each view, the authors argue, is based upon differing cultural perspectives of the roles of business and government. As a result, a distinct difference exists between the Western and Russian perspectives on Russia’s role in the world. This paper presents both points of view and explores the future of Russia’s position in the world economy based upon its evolving strategy for national economic policy. The authors contrast the situations of Russia and China, highlighting how Western-centric cultural views have affected perceptions of each country, sometimes similarly and at times with decided differences.

This chapter is concerned with the varied legitimizing discourses used by midwives to frame their identities in relation to their work. This sociological issue is particularly important in the context of an occupation, such as this one, that exists at the border of competing service claims. Drawing on 26 in-depth interviews, I use narrative analysis to examine the stories that midwives tell about their work. Through these women’s work narratives, I show the complex intersection of narrative, culture, institution, and biography (Chase, 1995, 2001; DeVault, 1999).

Over the last two decades, women's issues such as education, employment, pay equity, sexuality, lifestyle, housing, economics, environmental safety, health, child‐rearing practices, reproductive rights, military service, and criminal justice have become a major focus of public policy at every level. There has been equal interest about women of various ethnic backgrounds, women in other countries, and women's writing. There have been burgeoning social and political demands for research, scholarship, and activism on women‐related topics. To meet these demands, universities and colleges started interdisciplinary women's studies programs. Sheila Tobias, a leading scholar in the field of women's studies, defines it this way:

It's no surprise that the early 1980s have witnessed a resurgence of interest in etiquette books, since that's that usual reaction after a period of loose morals. The current vogue features the New Right, short haircuts, and proper behavior, a predictable backlash after the “Age of Aquarius,” the hedonistic 1960s: the age of love‐ins, be‐ins, and smoke‐ins. Two bestselling etiquette books in particular have parlayed this social milieu into commercial success: Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior (1982), and Eve Drobot's Class Acts (1982). Ms. Drobot, a Canadian journalist, realizes that those of the tribal 1960s have “shucked blue‐jeans in favor of 3‐piece suits: we are junior members of law firms…we have to take clients out to lunch, attend cocktail parties, and travel on business.”

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the experiences of conducting focus groups amongst acquaintances in naturally occurring settings, where participants were known to each other and participation was less about being recruited, and more about being there when the focus group took place.

This was a qualitative study of multi-generational experiences of teenage parenting, and used interviews and focus groups. The study took an ethnographic approach, using case studies with a small number (4) of families, plus supplementary interviews, and focus groups with teenage parents and parents-to-be.

Using focus groups in naturally occurring settings alongside other qualitative data collection affords insights into the research topic that would not otherwise be available.

The paper discusses the challenges and benefits of using naturally occurring groups, and reflects on the way the findings from these groups illuminated aspects of the study concerning relationships. It argues that naturally occurring groups have advantages over conventionally organised focus groups that contribute to a deeper understanding of relationships between members.

Family members provide the bulk of care to persons in later life, representing the vast majority of caregivers. However, studies confirm that men with a history of divorce are less likely than married men to view family members as potential caregivers. This chapter presents findings from a qualitative study on the experiences of 21 ex-wives who chose to provide mostly end-of-life care to their ex-husbands in mid- and late-life. We examine questions about the situational and motivating factors behind ex-wife caregivers’ decisions, and provide, as background, findings about their pre- and post-divorce relationships. Relational outcomes of the caregiving situation also are considered. Several themes emerge, including patterns of proximity and continued contact post-divorce, despite often chaotic former marital relationships; a desire to spare children from the burdens of care; and an opportunity to renew communication or connections with family through the process of caregiving. Implications of our findings include the need to acknowledge ex-spouses as potential caregivers and better understand the enduring bonds between ex-spouses.

The research is directed toward the prediction of operating income within the MetLife Insurance Company. The operating income of the firm is the amount of profit realized from a firm’s own operation, as opposed to net income. The econometric model is based on 10 years of quarterly data (2004–2014). The explanatory variables used in this modeling effort are (1) stock price, (2) long-term borrowing, (3) capital surplus, (4) free cash flow, (5), S&P average, (6) GDP, and (7) CPI.

The definition of the term “family” around the Western world is more heterogeneous than ever before and so are its roles and the social expectations of it. However, prisoners’ families (specifically parents and siblings) are expected to support their incarcerated son/brother as they are perceived responsible for his choices and as having the closest relationship with him. Based on a study of parents and siblings of incarcerated men in Israel, this chapter’s goal is to shed light on families’ choice to support their incarcerated son or brother and the struggles this choice entails. A thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews with 17 parents and 10 siblings of incarcerated men in Israel showed that nuclear family members may experience various struggles throughout the legal proceedings, including family hardships, negative social experiences, and negative experiences with formal institutions – all leading to social self-exclusion. Looking through the intersectionality lens, the findings show that when accumulating hardships that prisoners’ families experience encounter perceived harsh institutional systems of oppression, preordained marginalization can be deepened as families operate in opposition.