Search results

As the means and harms of technology-facilitated violence have become more evident, some governments have taken steps to create or empower centralized bodies with statutory mandates as part of an effort to combat it. This chapter argues that these bodies have the potential to meaningfully further a survivor-centered approach to combatting technology-facilitated violence against women – one that places their experiences, rights, wishes, and needs at its core. It further argues that governments should consider integrating them into a broader holistic response to this conduct.

An overview is provided of the operations of New Zealand's Netsafe, the eSafety Commissioner in Australia, Nova Scotia's Cyberscan Unit, and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection in Manitoba. These types of centralized bodies have demonstrated an ability to advance survivor-centered approaches to technology-facilitated violence against women through direct involvement in resolving instances of violence, education, and research. However, these bodies are not a panacea. This chapter outlines critiques of their operations and the challenges they face in maximizing their effectiveness.

Notwithstanding these challenges and critiques, governments should consider creating such bodies or empowering existing bodies with a statutory mandate as one aspect of a broader response to combatting technology-facilitated violence against women. Some proposed best practices to maximize their effectiveness are identified.

Students often complain about doing group work, which may lead them to be less engaged as a group and to seek shortcuts in developing their presentations. The purpose of his essay is identify and preferentially rectify student behavioral errors arising from placing too much trust in technology that can lead to too little personal interaction and engagement. The authors present their viewpoint on the classroom presentation outcome of a student group that used Google Docs to “prepare” for their presentation.

In a recent organizational behavior course, the authors had one such group arrive for their in-class presentation, only to discover that one group member was absent. The group had used Google Docs to share their research, yet no member read what the others had submitted. As a result, none of the group members could present the missing student’s material, with the obvious negative grading and finger-pointing outcomes.

The authors recognized that students needed more management direction than simply being proficient with technology. They lacked engagement behaviors leading to project responsibility. Engagement behaviors would include voice/face-to-face communication and content-related discussions questioning assumptions while strategically planning and operationalizing their topic of presentation.

The educational implications suggest an expanded role for the instructor to emphasize the role of student engagement behavior and the over-reliance on technology. Practical implications suggest making stronger connections to workplace expectations, making the student experience more transferable to their incipient workplaces and promoting the concept of team over group in terms of responsibility and conscientiousness and ultimately justifying their participation in providing value for their employer.