Challenge of Advocacy for Sustainability Scientists

abstract: Without scientific expertise, society may make catastrophically poor choices when faced with problems such as climate change. However, scientists who engage society with normative questions face tension between advocacy and the social norms of science that call for objectivity and neutrality. Policy established in 2011 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) required their communication to be objective and neutral and this research comprised a qualitative analysis of IPCC reports to consider how much of their communication is strictly factual (Objective), and value-free (Neutral), and to consider how their communication had changed from 1990 to 2013. Further research comprised a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with scientists and non-scientists who were professionally engaged in climate science communication, to consider practitioner views on advocacy. The literature and the structured interviews revealed a conflicting range of definitions for advocacy versus objectivity and neutrality. The practitioners that were interviewed struggled to separate objective and neutral science from attempts to persuade, and the IPCC reports contained a substantial amount of communication that was not strictly factual and value-free. This research found that science communication often blurred the distinction between facts and values, imbuing the subjective with the authority and credibility of science, and thereby damaging the foundation for scientific credibility. This research proposes a strict definition for factual and value-free as a means to separate science from advocacy, to better protect the credibility of science, and better prepare scientists to negotiate contentious science-based policy issues. The normative dimension of sustainability will likely entangle scientists in advocacy or the appearance of it, and this research may be generalizable to sustainability.Dissertation/ThesisDoctoral Dissertation Sustainability 201

Canadian Child Welfare: System Design Dimensions and Possibilities for Innovation

Ontario child welfare is entering territory where other countries have gone before. A decade earlier, jurisdictions in England, the United States and Australia implemented similar reforms and, not coincidentally, encountered comparable difficulties, creating high levels of dissatisfaction among service users and service providers. Our contention is that such frustrations are inherent consequences of the underpinnings of the “Anglo-American child protection paradigm”. To do better, it is helpful to look for ideas outside of what is familiar and to consider how useful approaches from other jurisdictions might be adapted to a Canadian context. There are two primary focuses for this paper: (1) to extrapolate lessons for reform from the experiences of families and service providers in Ontario’s Children’s Aid Societies; and, (2) to identify opportunities for positive innovations in Canadian child welfare systems drawing upon selected international jurisdictions

Digital economies at global margins

The research presented in this publication was carried out with the financial assistance of Canada’s International Development Research Centre. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent those of IDRC or its Board of Governors.This book brings together new scholarship that addresses what increasing digital connectivity and the digitalization of the economy means for people and places at economic margins. As you read through the book, you might find it useful to think about the roles digital connectivity plays in transforming these economically peripheral areas: whether digital tools and technologies are simply amplifying existing inequalities, barriers, and constraints, or allowing them to be transcended; who is actually benefitting from processes of digitalization and practices of digital engagement; who engages in digital production and where does it occur; whether changes in digital economies at the margins really match up to our expectations for change; and ultimately who are the winners and losers in our new digital and digitally mediated economies

The assessment of juvenile offenders : learning lessons for Saudi Arabia from a contextual comparison with Scotland

The diversity in systems and procedures for treating juvenile offenders who commit similar offences under similar circumstances around the world raises a number of questions. These questions concern the organisational and procedural structures, the value orientation, and the historical, political and legal factors, that determine the works and outcome of a juvenile justice system. While both claiming to uphold a 'welfare' approach, with the best interests of the child at their core, Saudi Arabia and Scotland apply dissimilar procedures when dealing with juvenile offenders.;Employing comparative study techniques, this research aims to unravel the similarities and differences between the juvenile justice systems in both countries, discover strengthens and weaknesses, and learn from the experience of both systems as to how to ultimately strengthen and make more effective a juvenile justice system.;The research question posed is: How does the Saudi juvenile justice system assess young offenders once the juvenile offender is referred to the system, and how does this affect the decisions regarding the response, compared with the Scottish system? This issue was examined and addressed by implementing a qualitative approach which focuses on the meanings and interpretations given to the practice and purpose of assessment. It applies empirical study techniques in the form of in-depth semi-structured interviews with social workers, judges and children's panel members.;The research findings explored the considerations taken into account by juvenile judges and the children's hearing panel when making a decision regarding juveniles who commit offences, and also illustrated how the social worker's report influences the decision made, and its relative importance in each country. It also illustrated the assessment methods applied, to display the strengths and weaknesses in practice in both countries.The diversity in systems and procedures for treating juvenile offenders who commit similar offences under similar circumstances around the world raises a number of questions. These questions concern the organisational and procedural structures, the value orientation, and the historical, political and legal factors, that determine the works and outcome of a juvenile justice system. While both claiming to uphold a 'welfare' approach, with the best interests of the child at their core, Saudi Arabia and Scotland apply dissimilar procedures when dealing with juvenile offenders.;Employing comparative study techniques, this research aims to unravel the similarities and differences between the juvenile justice systems in both countries, discover strengthens and weaknesses, and learn from the experience of both systems as to how to ultimately strengthen and make more effective a juvenile justice system.;The research question posed is: How does the Saudi juvenile justice system assess young offenders once the juvenile offender is referred to the system, and how does this affect the decisions regarding the response, compared with the Scottish system? This issue was examined and addressed by implementing a qualitative approach which focuses on the meanings and interpretations given to the practice and purpose of assessment. It applies empirical study techniques in the form of in-depth semi-structured interviews with social workers, judges and children's panel members.;The research findings explored the considerations taken into account by juvenile judges and the children's hearing panel when making a decision regarding juveniles who commit offences, and also illustrated how the social worker's report influences the decision made, and its relative importance in each country. It also illustrated the assessment methods applied, to display the strengths and weaknesses in practice in both countries

Navigating the Confluence: Sources of Reconciliation Flowing Between the Human Right to Water and Economic Efficiency

The purpose of this research is to identify the confluence of the law and economics disciplines, using these distinct channels of scholarship not as an empirical vessel to determine the “value” or “valueless” nature of water, but rather as a means to reconcile externalities among interested parties and to identify management strategies that embrace sentiments of economic efficiency throughout the arena of global hydrocommerce. The various perspectives on water, particularly with regards to an increasing global population and demand for freshwater, elicits an intricate mosaic of tensions concerning the availability, accessibility, provision, and protection of this fundamental natural resource. Billions of individuals around the world lack access to basic water and sanitation services. Despite the prevalence of these atrocities, access to water is both an individual human right and necessary for human survival. The legal basis for the human right to water, in terms of availability, quality, and accessibility, was adopted by the U.N. in its General Comment No. 15. Despite recognition by the U.N., more than 1.1 billion people do not have sufficient access to clean water, while 2.6 billion people have no provision for sanitation. Against this tragic and inexcusable backdrop, the public sector either lacks the financial resources to provide water or continues to operate water distribution schemes with undesirable inefficiency. From a pragmatic standpoint—and to ensure that citizens have access to clean water—there exist circumstances, both in reality and in the text of the General Comment, whereupon governments should be compelled, or at least be encouraged, to solicit capital investment from the private sector in order to construct adequate water infrastructure and manage water distribution services. Researchers estimate that over the next twenty years almost $22 trillion (USD) will be necessary to fully modernize global water delivery and wastewater systems. Water scarcity, an individual’s lack of access to clean water, arises due to economic and physical constraints, while being influenced by managerial, institutional, and political factors. At its core, the primary challenge for nations concerning their respective water distribution schemes is a lack of adequate financial resources. In developing countries, an estimated ninety-seven percent of all water distribution is managed by public-sector suppliers. The inept realities concerning these water distribution systems in developing countries, and the fact that over a billion people still lack access to this essential resource, suggests that governments retain at least some responsibility in the persistence of the global water crisis. Reconciliation is the next step in the human right to water argument—from its theoretical origins to its pragmatic implementation—and may be realized through a law and economics analysis in support of private-sector participation in the delivery of water and funding for the provision of adequate infrastructure. Much like distinct tributaries to a mighty river, the legal and economic disciplines maintain differences in methodology, scientific approach, and objectives; but as these disciplines converge, their tributaries form the river’s main stem, with potential to influence an entire watershed of jurisprudence

Preferences for Domestic Action Over International Transfers in Global Climate Policy

AbstractCost-effective and equitable climate change mitigation requires the transfer of resources from developed to developing countries. In two behavioral experiments, we demonstrate that American subjects act according to a strong home preference, by making private donations and writing letters in support of public spending more often for mitigation programs located at home versus those overseas. We attempt to overcome the preference to act at home by randomly informing some subjects that foreign programs are more cost-effective than domestic programs. Home preference is mitigated only in the case of private donations. From a separate experimental treatment, we show that the preference against foreign programs is exacerbated when the co-benefits of mitigation programs are made salient. Importantly, home preference crosses party lines, indicating that it is a deep-seeded, affective preference. These findings highlight significant political obstacles to international cooperation on climate change that relies on transfers

Health Equity Promotion, Measurement, and Evaluation in Community-Based Participatory Research Partnerships

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches present meaningful opportunities to promote equity within communities facing social disadvantage. Through empowerment, co-learning, and capacity-building strategies, CBPR approaches aim to reduce health inequities by engaging members of marginalized communities in research, action, and decision-making processes from which they have been historically excluded. Equity promotion goals are embedded within CBPR principles, highlighting the need for evaluation measures and processes for assessing equity promotion efforts within partnerships. To facilitate more explicit consideration of equity in the study and evaluation of CBPR partnerships, I describe a conceptual framework linking equitable group dynamics within partnerships to specific intermediate and long-term indicators of equity promotion. I conducted three studies, grounded in indicators and relationships proposed in this conceptual framework. In Study 1, I use quantitative data to investigate the association between two dimensions of equity defined in the framework: community and partnership capacity for community change and equitable power relations in CBPR research processes. In Study 2, I conducted a qualitative analysis of conceptualizations of equity as a partnership evaluation outcome among members of long-standing CBPR partnerships. In Study 3, I used a mixed methods approach to assess four intermediate indicators of equity defined in the framework, drawing on the larger formative evaluation of a CBPR partnership engaged in efforts to reduce the adverse effects of air pollution in Detroit, Michigan. In Study 1, I found that community and partnership capacity are associated with equitable power relations within partnerships, when controlling for demographics characteristics of partners and other covariates. Findings from Study 2 suggest that conceptualizations of equity among partners align with several constructs as currently defined in the conceptual framework, including a focus on addressing issues of equity, equitable partnership processes, shifts in power that benefit communities facing inequities, and reductions in health disparities. Findings also suggest that equity in group dynamics characteristics of partnerships may help to facilitate intermediate partnership outcomes such as a focus on equitable processes within partnerships. Additional measures of equity not defined in the conceptual framework were also identified, such as a sense of community ownership of a partnership’s efforts, and the degree to which community partner identities are socially marginalized (i.e., by race, class, and other factors). Findings from Study 3 highlight the role that a formative evaluation approach can play in helping partners develop specific strategies to improve ongoing equity promotion efforts. These findings point to further research directions that might inform changes to the conceptual framework. These include linking community capacity and power relations and equitable group dynamics to a focus on equity in partnership processes, as well as the inclusion of additional equity measures identified in the qualitative data. Finally, results highlight potential strategies for evaluating and promoting equity within existing partnerships, including capacity building and community engagement approaches. Collectively, this work highlights the importance of establishing equity as an explicit goal within CBPR partnerships, and equitably engaging the knowledge and experiences of communities facing inequities. As members of academic institutions continue to study disparities rooted in systemic racism and institutionalized oppression, and seek partnership in research with community members, it is critical that all partners critically interrogate their efforts to challenge existing power dynamics and social processes that produce inequities both within partnerships in broader communities.PHDHealth Behavior & Health EducationUniversity of Michigan, Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studieshttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163217/1/melaward_1.pd

Blocks, liquidity and corporate control

corporate ownership;control;liquidity;free riding

Fall 2012

Contents: Expansion of the library is vital to CSUSB\u27s future by Brent Singleton Forecast: continued progress with scattered accolades by Cesar Caballero People in the news Laptop lending by Jonathan M. Smith Watch us grow! by Risa Lumley Critical information literacy by Barbara Quarton Popcorn, Anyone? by Les Kong Kindred spirits by Lisa Bartle Marginalia by Bonnie Petr