Search results

The California State University Library successfully improved its library’s hours, including introducing 24-hour access, thanks in part to an assessment process that helped the University Library to develop a partnership with the students. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

In order to understand the need for expanded operational hours, students’ were surveyed on their satisfaction with current library hours, suggestions on how best to meet their actual hour needs, and interest in 24-hour access. Efforts to solicit student input included involving the student government in promoting the survey and reviewing its results, a decision that later had a major impact on the success of the project.

The survey identified days with problematic hours and which hours student suggested changes to that would best fit most students’ needs. In response to the findings, the library immediately implemented incremental changes that fit within current library resources. The survey’s most significant finding was that 94 percent of students wanted 24-hour study in the library.

An unexpected benefit of the library making immediate, incremental changes was that students could see the results of their input and feel a sense of ownership. The findings also led to the library making 24-hour access a top priority. When university funding was not available, the university’s student government approached the library with a unique proposal to include funding for 24-hour library access in their proposed student fee increase. The student body showed its willingness to invest in the library by passing the fee increase. California State University San Marco’s library began 24/5 hours in Fall 2017.

The authors provide three personal perspectives on personality disorder, based on their involvement in writing, directing and acting in a Resurgence Theatre Company production, Differentia, which provided a dramatic representation of personality disorder. The production was shown at the First National Personality Disorder Congress.

This chapter, together with those that follow, builds upon the ideas presented in the previous volume in this series (Maginn, Thompson, & Tonts, 2008). There we outlined our vision for a ‘pragmatic renaissance’ in contemporary qualitative research in urban studies. We argued that to survive as an effective and frequently used tool for policy development, a more systematic approach is needed in the way that qualitative-informed applied urban research is conceptualised and undertaken. In opening this volume we build on these initial ideas using housing as a meta-case study to progress the case for a systematic approach to qualitative research methods. We do this to both stimulate broad debate about the ways, in which qualitative research in urban/housing scholarship might be of greater use to policymakers and practitioners, as well as to suggest a way forward in realising the ‘pragmatic renaissance’.

The end of the twentieth century was filled with an ironic mix of panic and fatalism; together with optimism and hope. ‘Digital armageddon’ in the form of the Y2K bug was reportedly on the horizon (Vulliamy, 2000), but as we know, never transpired. If, however, Y2K had materialised and affected technology as predicted, the consequences would have had profound macro and micro impacts – economically, politically, socially and spatially. Cities – with their super-concentration of technological infrastructure, hardware and software – would arguably have endured the brunt of this catastrophe. Had this disaster occurred, its reach would have been well beyond the city, spiralling out from the CBD to the suburbs, rural settlements, jumping national boundaries, and ultimately bringing economic, transport and communication systems to a near halt, rendering day-to-day living experiences unbearable, if not virtually impossible.

The authors used Sue’s (2010) microaggression process model and Freeman et al.’s (2010) stakeholder theory as a theoretical basis for this case.

Information for the case was gathered from publicly available sources. No formal data collection efforts were undertaken.

Guess Who’s Coming to Deliver is a case that examines an event that occurred at Lowe’s Home Improvement Warehouse in late July and early August of 2015. A customer who had purchased some products from Lowe’s requested that only White delivery people were dispatched to her home because she did not allow African–American people in her house. The case is factual and was written from information that was publicly available in the media. The case is designed to help instructors facilitate a meaningful classroom discussion about microaggressions from the different stakeholder perspectives.

The case is relevant for undergraduate and graduate organizational behavior and human resource management courses.

In Western liberal democracies over the last decade or so, community development, housing policy and neighbourhood renewal have been increasingly underscored by a philosophy of participatory decision-making (see Imre & Raco, 2003; Lo Piccolo & Thomas, 2003; Maginn, 2004). At one level, it appears that central and local governments have experienced a policy and democratic epiphany. This is reflected in a ‘new’ acknowledgment that ‘when citizens themselves are the key to the quality of neighbourhoods, a new avenue of policy intervention is opened up’ (Lelieveldt, 2004, p. 534; see also Crenson, 1983). In this context, participatory models of decision-making are seen as having the potential to ‘empower’ local residents who were previously the subject of ‘top-down’ or command and control forms of planning (Healey, 1999; Meredyth, Ewing, & Thomas, 2004; Barry, Osborne, & Rose, 1996; Rose, 1996; Dean, 2002). On another level, however, there is caution, suspicion even, about this paradigm shift. A perception exists that governments are essentially displacing, redistributing and/or retreating from their historical welfare responsibilities (Chaskin, 2003, 2001; Fraser, Lepofsky, Lick, & Williams, 2003; Pierre, 1999).