Condom Use and Consistency Among Teen Males

This Child Trends study finds that any type of formal sex education is linked with higher levels of condom use at teen males' first sexual experience. However, one in five teen males (ages 15-19) did not receive formal sex education about either abstinence or contraception before having sex for the first time. The study, published in the October 2008 issue of the Journal of Adolescent Health and summarized in this fact sheet, examines how multiple dimensions of teen males' lives are associated with condom use and consistency. Among the findings: --Having an older partner or a casual partner is linked to less condom use. Nearly one-fourth of teen males had an older recent partner and more than one-third were in a casual relationship with their first sexual partner. --Older teen males and those in longer relationships are less likely to use condoms. This was true even after controlling for whether their partner used a contraceptive method. --Positive attitudes about using condoms are linked to actual use. Teen males who disagree with the ideas that condoms reduce physical pleasure and that it would be embarrassing to discuss condom use with a new partner have higher levels of condom use and consistency. --Seven in ten teen males reported using a condom at their first and at their most recent sexual experience, but fewer reported using condoms consistently. Just one-half of sexually active teen males reported using a condom consistently with their most recent sexual partner

The Crescent Student Newspaper, November 19, 1982

Student newspaper of Pacific College (later George Fox University). 4 pages, black and white.https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/the_crescent/1990/thumbnail.jp

Trump, Populism, Fascism, and the Road Ahead

This review essay offers a discussion of some recent studies that help to explain the election of Donald Trump as president of the USA. The studies examine Trump as “media spectacle,” analyze his support among Tea Partiers, and discuss his backing by the white working class left behind by neoliberalism and global capitalism. Special attention is given to two questions: Is Trump a rightwing populist or closer to a fascist? Relatedly, is Trump a threat to liberal democracy? The essay concludes with some suggestions of how to move beyond Trump

Organisational Responses to Discontinuous Innovation: A Case Study Approach

Research that examines entrant-incumbent dynamics often points to the organisational limitations that constrain incumbents from successfully pursuing new technologies or fending off new entrants. Some incumbents are nevertheless able to successfully implement organisational structures and develop routines that overcome these institutional constraints. We provide a case-study analysis of how three firms - Motorola, IBM and Kodak - responded to discontinuous innovations and the associated structural and organisational limitations that are typical to incumbent organisations. Each firm was able to capture gains from new technologies and develop profitable products in emerging markets, although their abilities to sustain these gains varied due to subsequent organisational changes. Drawing from these case studies, we synthesise how firms can institute organisational strategies to continue to capture gains from disruptive innovations. A schema suggests that particular organisational strategies are comparatively optimal for corresponding points along an innovation lifecycle

Introduction [to Doctrina perpetua: brokering change, promoting innovation and transforming marginalisation in university learning and teaching]

It is arguable that, in addition to brokering change and promoting innovation, contemporary universities have a responsibility to direct their teaching and learning activities at transforming marginalisation. This contention derives from the fundamental and enduring ambivalence attending discussions of the purpose and significance of universities. On the one hand, they can be seen as “ivory towers” and hence as the bastions of privilege and the repositories of “high culture”, overseeing the maintenance of what the elite determines is the best of a nation’s heritage. On the other hand, and by contrast, they can be viewed as the vehicles for progressive social change and as the sites for interrogating current issues in terms of whose voices are heard and whose are silenced in relation to those issues. Given this ambivalence, it is clearly incumbent on universities to find ways of confirming that they contribute to disrupting and subverting sociocultural inequities rather than replicating them. In keeping with the emphasis on diversity and heterogeneity evident throughout this book, the authors of the chapters in this section have been encouraged to deploy a number of conceptual and methodological resources in engaging with the theme of transforming marginalisation in preference to the section editor predetermining a single, fixed definition of “marginalisation” and its “transformation”. At the same time, each chapter identifies particular attributes of groups of learners that might potentially render them at greater risk than other groups of not attaining their educational goals and links those attributes with specific strategies that have been demonstrated through evidencebased practice to reduce that risk—at least for some learners in those groups. What emerges is a picture of considerable complexity, with some strategies proving effective for large numbers of students and conforming to the features of current best practice in university learning and teaching, yet also with some elements of marginalisation remaining remarkably resistant to amelioration and transformation. Understanding this complex and somewhat contradictory picture is crucial to taking up the challenges and opportunities that mark the intersection between doctrina perpetua and transforming marginalisation