Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore structural drivers and barriers that distinguish US business school Principles of Responsible Management Education (PRME) signatories from nonsignatory peer institutions, and identify structural drivers of PRME institution strategic integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into their ongoing responsible management education reports.

This study uses a case–control method to compare the US PRME signatory sample to a size-matched random sample of US business management programs/schools. This study uses conditional inference tree and correlation analyses to highlight distinctive structural characteristics associated with US PRME signatories and with their strategies to highlight sustainability through the SDGs.

There are significant and practically meaningful structural differences between US-based PRME signatories and US programs/schools that have not adopted the PRME principles. Further, PRME schools differentially integrate SDGs in their information sharing based on structural characteristics.

Understanding school/program characteristics that align with PRME and different sustainability strategies affords a better comprehension of where targeted resources might be most effective in broadening the appeal and adoption of PRME and subsequent sustainability strategy integration.

While previous work on PRME signatories has depended heavily on case studies of successful implementation and has examined the content of PRME activity by school, the present work compares the population of actual US signatories with a random sample of nonsignatories to determine leverage points for enacting broader PRME adoption. The study also examines the strategies that PRME schools use to integrate the UN SDGs and the structures that support such.

We are in the midst of a refugee crisis, and the ways in which we approach the issue of unprecedented numbers of people crossing borders will shape our world for generations to come. In this chapter, we problematize immunology, capitalism and other lenses through which we construct, label and categorize others and how such constructions and categorizations manifest in educational spheres for migrants, immigrants, refugees and host country nationals. As with access to education, the resources one has also determine one’s ability to migrate and the conditions of one’s resettlement. Therefore, we discuss the ways in which globalization provides greater mobility for those with substantial wealth and how conditions with/in post-modernism serve to create borders between people, their wealth and the social contexts in which they and their wealth reside. We create boxes as labels into which we slot people all too easily. While we critique the discourses and systems that create the socio-political milieu of education for immigrants, migrants and refugees in the US, we also highlight issues abroad, including how language is weaponized in the framing of immigration and those who emigrate.

The Chicago School of Sociology heralded a new age: that of the rise and establishment of sociology as an academic discipline in the US. It also spurred on an intellectual tradition in ethnography that focuses on a wide array of methodological tools and empirical data with a focus on the specificity of place that continues to live on in contemporary urban sociology. Yet, its traditions have also been extensively criticized. Burawoy (2000) is one preeminent scholar, who has denounced the Chicago School as being parochial, ahistorical, and decontextualized from the national and international processes that shape cities. Instead, he calls for a move toward “global ethnography,” one that focuses on “global processes, connections, and imaginations” (Burawoy et al., 2000). Increasingly, US urban sociologists study research sites that are located outside the US and pay attention to how global actors and/or transnational connections influence US dynamics. Given this trend, what, if any lessons can global and urban sociologists take away from the Chicago School? In this chapter, I highlight three such lessons: (1) the global is central to city life; (2) rooting our work in the specificities of place helps extend and build theory; and (3) the School still provides useful conceptual and methodological tools to study the global. In doing so, I argue that scholars should recognize the plurality of approaches to global ethnography and how each approach can further our understanding of how the global shapes social life.

A personal narrative of my escape with my mother and siblings from South Sudan as refugees is presented. The narrative then chronicles the time in Egypt applying for refugee status and eventual resettlement in the United States. In the United States, resettlement began in Newark, New Jersey. I then document my move from Newark to San Diego, California to, eventually, New York City. In New York my life as a model, DJ, actress, and founder of Stand for Education is narrated.

This narrative describes the author’s experience as an artist, author, and a humanitarian. She uses pictures, art, and collage to make connections between her past, present, and future.

In 2007, the authors conducted a case study of 13 teachers across seven elementary schools. We learned that, due to pressures of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) and state mandated testing, these schools were akin to reading academies—focused chiefly on the teaching of reading skills. They promised to share their results with local administrators and teachers, initiating the reconsideration of elementary social studies. To this end, they revisited school sites, revealed their findings, and offered to “fit into” ongoing discussions of curricular change. They attempted to engage teachers in courageous conversations, or honest, frank appraisal of current conditions. Eventually, they talked with approximately 100 K-6 teachers, principals, and district administrators. Framing their inquiry in Giddens (1984) theory of structuration, they present their efforts to build collaborative relationships in three cases of narrative inquiry. They follow it with dilemmas and insights for the field organized into five considerations: courageous conversation, curricular control, integration, social studies advocacy, and courting schools.

The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) and Race to the Top (2009) led to the highest rate of standardized-state testing in the history of the United States of America. As a result, the Every Student Succeeds Act (2015) aims to reevaluate standardized-state testing. Previous research has assessed its impact on schools, educators, and students; yet, youth’s voices are almost absent. Therefore, this qualitative analysis examines how youth of color perceive and experience standardized-state testing.

Seventy-three youth participated in a semistructured interview during the summer of 2015. The sample consists of 34 girls and 39 boys, 13–18 years of age, of African American, Latino/a, Jamaican American, multiracial/ethnic, and other descent. It includes 6–12th graders who attended 61 inter-district and intra-district schools during the 2014–2015 academic year in a Northeastern metropolitan area in the United States that is undergoing a racial/ethnic integration reform.

Youth experienced testing overload under conflicting adult authorities and within an academically stratified peer culture on an ever-shifting policy terrain. While the parent-adult authority remained in the periphery, the state-adult authority intrusively interrupted the teacher-student power dynamics and the disempowered teacher-adult authority held youth accountable through the “attentiveness” rhetoric. However, youth’s perspectives and lived experiences varied across grade levels, school modalities, and school-geographical locations.

In this adult-dominated society, the market approach to education reform ultimately placed the burden of teacher and school evaluation on youth. Most importantly, youth received variegated messages from their conflicting adult authorities that threatened their academic journeys.

This chapter discusses the relationships between researchers and parent participants in a project that aimed to empower parents to support their children's informal mathematics learning. The Everyday Maths project used a parent-centred approach to empower parents in supporting their children's maths learning at home, through a series of workshops that took place in primary schools. In particular, we focus on relational issues between us (as researchers), parents, and schools – specifically, the way in which those relationships enabled both researchers and participants to develop new ways of thinking about their roles and positions, as well as develop their understanding about mathematics and about research. Relational agency (Edwards, 2010, 2017a) is used to understand the way in which these relationships played out. We also consider the way in which schools, as hosts of the project, impacted on this thinking. We reflect on schools' positions in the dynamics: they welcomed and supported our project, but as the project evolved, we questioned the way that schools positioned parents in relation to supporting children's learning, and encouraged parents to rethink their role. The potential for such disruption of relationships will be considered from an ethical stance. As researchers, we explore the ways in which we came to recognise each other's perspectives and develop a set of common understandings that were fundamental to our methodological approaches in this study.