Understanding the Escalation of Brain Drain in Nigeria From Poor Leadership Point of View

Migration of people from one place to another in countries of the world in search of better conditions of living predates history. It ignited western societies’ contact with Africa and the rest of the world. Prior the contact, agriculture was the main stay of Africa’s economy. Thus, the movement of farmers from one location to another in search of fertile grounds for cultivation was in vogue. After independence in Nigeria, cattle rearers are known for relocating from the North to South during dry season in search of green grass to sustain their cattle and occupation. In the present day Nigeria, the same scenario still abounds but in a new dimension. It now involves movement of highly skilled manpower from the country to developed societies. Among other things, this paper finds out if there is a relationship between poor leadership of the country and escalation of brain drain. Simple percentage and ranking method was used to analyze the study’s data. Chi-square was used to test its hypothesis. Our result revealed a relationship between poor leadership of the country and brain drain. It equally indicated that students are interested in travelling out of the country to developed societies after their study. Also from the study, twelve causes of brain drain were indentified. Some of them are: mass unemployment, poor salaries and conditions of service, mass poverty, crises-religious, communal, political, education etc. In respect of effects of brain drain on the nation’s economy, eleven factors were identified by the respondents. Some of them are: loss of human capital assets to man various institutions in the country, loss of tax of migrated manpower to foreign countries, loss of capital invested in education of migrated manpower assets etc. Finally, eleven solutions were profiled to the lingering problem of brain drain. The most important ones are: Good leadership, salary and conditions of service as well as rewarding system for diligent staff, mass employment etc

Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate?

It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth-directed and non-truth-directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non-truth-directed, and suggest that in truth-directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted

The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)

Systematic reviews are useful tools for busy decision-makers because they identify, appraise and synthesise the available research evidence on a particular topic. Many thousands of systematic reviews relevant to health care have been published. However, they can be difficult to locate and their quality is variable. DARE (the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects) contains summaries of systematic reviews which have met strict quality criteria. Each summary also provides a critical commentary on the quality of the review. DARE covers a broad range of health care related topics and can be used for answering questions about the effects of health care interventions, as well as for developing clinical guidelines and policy making. DARE is available free of charge on the internet (http://nhscrd.york.ac.uk), and as part of the Cochrane Library. Alternatively, DARE can be searched, on your behalf, by CRD information staff (tel: 01904 433707 or email [email protected])

The case for metadata harvesting

Metadata harvesting is an increasingly popular model of interaction between the mutually autonomous parties of medium, medium-large federations of digital library services. With a harvesting protocol, in particular, resource descriptions locally available at each party can be served to remote applications for the implementation of federated services, such as resource discovery. This article offers a systematic explanation of the success of the model and its standard implementations in the context of current initiatives for national and international federations