Search results

This chapter introduces a model for school libraries in Scotland, based on best practices as identified in the literature, and on five case studies undertaken in schools, two in the United States and three in Scotland. The research design was qualitative, and used grounded theory and multiple case study methods. The model represents an ideal set of circumstances for school libraries in Scotland, highlighting the interconnected web of influences that affect the success of a school library in meeting professional standards. These influences primarily fall in three areas: the school librarian, the school environment, and the professional support available to the librarian. The school librarian is the primary leader of the school library program, but factors in these other two areas can provide opportunities and barriers that can help or hinder the success of the library service. For instance, the findings suggest that school-based factors such as curriculum, scheduling, technology facilities, and staffing can have significant influence over the access the librarian has to teachers and students. Our model includes all three areas in describing a set of circumstances that would allow a school library program to thrive and meet the highest professional standards.

This chapter investigates the presence of a difference in the systemic risk level between Islamic and conventional banks in Bangladesh. The authors compare systemic resilience of three types of banks: fully fledged Islamic banks, purely conventional banks (CB), and CB with Islamic windows. The authors use the market-based systemic risk measures of marginal expected shortfall and systemic risk to identify which type is more vulnerable to a systemic event. The authors also use ΔCoVaR to identify which type contributes more to a systemic event. Using a sample of observations on 27 publicly traded banks operating over the 2005–2014 period, the authors find that CB is the least resilient sector to a systemic event, and is the one that has the highest contribution to systemic risk during crisis times.

We argue that aspects of the Luhmannian strand of systems theory could be mobilized in a crypto-normative way for an immanent critique of certain trends in contemporary social development, especially the growing economic determination of different spheres of life and the formation of sectorial industries – such as healthcare, education, crime control, etc. – with the consequent erosion of the autonomy of these spheres and the progressive exhaustion of social conditions for the exercise of freedom and the experience of difference.

A decisive step in this approach to systems theory lies in the indication of certain “elective affinities” between Luhmann and Adorno, reinforcing the plausibility of an internal connection between these different theoretical conceptions – not their mere instrumental appropriation and external juxtaposition. From this point of view, we argue that aspects of Luhmann's conceptual construction – notably the way the system-environment relationship is thought – hold a strong family resemblance with the Adornian mode of conceiving the subject–object relationship in the speculative key of negative dialectics.

Conceived as a critical model that modulates society's real abstractions toward difference and systemic autonomy, and especially as a critical model that underlines possibilities of reciprocal mediation between system and environment, systems theory seems to emphatically put itself in tension with what, at least in part, could be seen as its other: neoliberal governmentality, the generalization of the commodity form and the instrumentalization of the individual by unilateral systemic imperatives in global capitalism.

With the help of financial engineering – and equipped with the modern technique of risk management – securitisation was supposed to identify and evaluate risks and parcel them out to informed parties who could bear them. In hindsight, we can see that this somewhat simplistic thesis – espoused by market participants as well as the academic promoters of modern techniques of risk management – seemed to promise a great deal more than it could ultimately deliver. At this juncture, however, the danger of regulatory over-reaction – which might be throwing the baby (financial innovation) out with the bath-water (overlooking/under-pricing of risk) – is very real and (in my view) calls for policy measures of this sort should be resisted firmly not only by market participants but also by regulators. This is not to say that regulation should be seen as immune from responsibility in the unfolding of the current credit crisis (quite the opposite would more likely be closer to the truth). As we shall see below (Section “Financial Crisis and Credit Ratings Debacle in SF”), the best risk-management practices – and related tools available before the crisis – provided enough ammunition to caution against the uncertainty surrounding risk assessment for some categories of SF products. However, the increasing complexity embedded in an increasing number of deals did provide genuine new challenges even to best risk-management practices.

The background and context of Australian Library and Information Services (LIS) education and the role LIS education plays in constructing the Australian workplace are explored in this chapter. It provides an analysis of the broader historical, social and educational imperatives which have shaped Australian LIS education. It also examines the pedagogical, structural and epistemological construct surrounding the development of education for LIS in that country. Specific questions are raised about divisions in LIS education and training which lay the framework for further research and discussion. The historical context for LIS education is covered and insights into the nature and background of the broader educational frameworks which have influenced it are provided.

This paper deals with competence management from a system's perspective. The authors adopt the meta-model for systems, as introduced by Eric Schwarz, and explain the basic systemic categories (components, relations, whole) of the organisation, in terms of competences. The systemic nature and the interdependencies of competence assets, capabilities and core competences are presented. Subsequently, the authors explore the viability of organisations, from the perspective of competences, and building on the characteristics of viable systems as described by Schwarz. They introduce Systemic Competence Management, a way to manage competence assets, capabilities and core competences in support of the viability of the organisation.

Climate change and the COVID-19 pandemic are complex and have multifaceted effects on countries in an unpredictable and unprecedented manner. While both COVID-19 and the climate crisis share similarities, they also have some notable differences. Being both systemic in nature with knock-on and cascading effects that propagate due to high connectedness of countries, COVID-19, however, presents imminent and directly visible dangers, while the risks from climate change are gradual, cumulative and often distributed dangers. Climate change has more significant medium and long-term impacts which are likely to worsen over time. There is no vaccine for climate change compared to COVID-19. In addition, those most affected by extreme climatic conditions have usually contributed the least to the root causes of the crisis. This is in fact the case of island economies. The chapter thus investigates into the vulnerability and resilience of 38 Small Islands Developing States (SIDs) to both shocks. Adopting a comprehensive conceptual framework and data on various indices from the literature and global databases, we assess the COVID-19 and climate change vulnerabilities of SIDs on multiple fronts. The results first reveal a higher vulnerability across all dimensions for the Pacific islands compared to the other islands in the sample. There is also evidence of a weak correlation between climate change risk and the COVID-19 pandemic confirming our premise that there are marked differences between these two shocks and their impacts on island communities.