Search results

What do children think about their participation in competitive activities? This paper argues that children have a different view of what participation in competitive activities means in their lives, and how they should interpret and deal with competitive situations, than their parents. Using data from interviews with 37 elementary school-age children, and 16 months of fieldwork, I highlight 3 main themes that emerged from interactions with children: trophies, tears, and triumphs. Trophies, and other rewards like ribbons and medals, are a great motivation for many children; these rewards are also physical embodiments that winning is prioritized in participation in these activities. Tears, along with nerves, and other feelings associated with being judged are described, in addition to a coping mechanism these children have devised to deal with these more negative feelings – friendships. Through friendships, boys and girls create bonds and have peers with whom to share their triumphs. However, these friendships are usually same-sex, and children's quite strong and divisive ideas about gender are also discussed.

EPetitioning has been emerging as arguably the most important eParticipation institutional activity. This paper aims to provide some insights into how ePetitions are perceived and supported by social networking sites.

The paper investigated the connection between the UK Government's ePetitioning system and social networking groups linking to governmental petitions. Online data from Facebook were collected and analysed with respect to numbers of supporters compared to official signatures.

The results indicate that although the process of signing an official petition is not more complex than joining a Facebook group, the membership of respective Facebook groups can be much higher. In particular, certain topics experienced very high support on Facebook which did not convert to signatures.

The paper's added value lies in the questions raised about the potential uptake of citizen‐government interactions in policy‐making mechanisms.

This chapter outlines and applies criteria for evaluating the validity of the process for establishing standards that identify what accomplished teachers in a given field should know and do. The argument defended in this chapter is that when individuals use tests and assessments for various purposes, they need to be concerned not only with the distributive validity issues relating to the adequacy of content or consequences of the assessment. They also need to evaluate the validity of the procedures used to specify the content domains that lead ultimately to decisions recommended as part of the test instrument. The procedural and the distributive fairness of tests both need to be considered when deciding on the validity of tests and assessments.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the role honor and shame play in honor killings and anti-LGBTQ homicides by identifying similarities and differences across these two homicide types.

This study uses data from the US Extremist Crime Database (ECDB). Data for each of the incidents included in the ECDB are gathered from various open sources through a multi-stage process. A total of 16 honor killings and 21 anti-LGBTQ cases (i.e. the universe for both groups) are examined in this analysis. A closed-coded analysis technique is utilized to assess each case for evidence of shame and honor as well as an iterative coding process to identify sub-categories within these broader themes.

Results indicate that shame and honor play important roles in both honor killings and anti-LGBTQ homicides, although their influence manifests differently across these two types of homicide. Perceived shame to the family is most closely related to honor killings, while suppressing homosexual urges underlines anti-LGBTQ homicides. Violations of religious tenets, protection of masculinity, and protection of honor are evidenced in both types of homicide.

This study uses a unique database to examine the ideological motivations of individuals who perpetrate extremist crimes in comparison to those who commit honor killings. Findings may inform forensic practices, including rehabilitation and prevention programs.

The CW’s long-running horror-drama series Supernatural (2005–) has been accused of undoing progressive advances for women made by Buffy the Vampire Slayer (1996–2003). While it’s hard to deny the truth in that claim, Supernatural also problematizes conventional gender roles from a very different approach, one that plays with perceptions of masculinity and social class.

Buffy Summers may initially seem to have more in common with Supernatural’s Sam Winchester, a chosen one with special powers who wants a normal life away from the supernatural. However, Buffy shares more in common with Dean Winchester. Embodying popular gendered stereotypes in their introductions, it’s gradually revealed that there is more complexity to each. Both form alliances with Others; both recognize elements of the Other in themselves. Both transgress conventional gender boundaries, complicating the notion of a binary gender system. Both series introduce the seemingly familiar only to alter it into the uncanny. See the little cute blonde virginal cheerleader? She can kick your ass. See the stupid cocky womanizing jock? All he wants is family and a home. This chapter explores the increasingly gender-blended, social-class-crossing behaviours of Supernatural’s Dean Winchester as an heir to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Sport match-fixing has emerged as a complex global problem. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, it critically reviews how match-fixing is typified as a policy problem. Second, it advances an analysis of the legal framework and regulatory system for sports betting as a causal source for “routinized” match-fixing.

This study extracts and synthesises (cross-national) materials from policies, media releases and scholarly works on the subject of match-fixing and sports betting. The analysis is framed by the contrasts between rational choice and sociological institutionalist approaches.

Match-fixing is typically attributed to: criminal organisations and illegal sports betting; vulnerable individuals; and failure of governance on the part of sports organisations. Each cause holds assumptions of utility-maximising actors and it is argued that due consideration be given to the fundamental risks inherent in legal sports betting regimes.

Match-fixing in sport is a recurrent social problem, transcending national boundaries and involving a wide range of actors and, sporting disciplines and levels of competition. Within such an environment, it may matter little how strong the incentive structures and education programmes are, when betting on human beings is both normatively and cognitively advanced as a value and institutionally permitted as a practice.

This paper argues that legal betting regimes paradoxically contribute to routinised match-fixing because: for betting customers there is no qualitative, ethical difference between legal and illegal operators; and legalisation serves to normalise and legitimate the view of athletes as objects for betting (like cards or dice).