Drug addiction in two groups of British addicts: a critical empirical analysis of classical sociological theories of deviance

The main objective of this study is to test whether drug addicts - those addicted to heroin, morphine or methadone - rejected the goals of society and the means of achieving these goals, as suggested by Robert Herton. Other objectives include an examination of the process of addiction and the criminality of addicts. Perspectives are suggested by looking at drug taking in different societies at different times, and by examining the growth of addiction in Britain and America, while terms are defined in the light of the pharmacology of addiction. Mertonian theory is described and criticised with reference to other theories of deviance and of addiction. A critical review is made of the studies of addiction, and the contribution made by other studies to the knowledge of the attributes and characteristics of drug addicts. The hypotheses were operationalised using the semantic differential attitude scales, a paired comparisons attitude questionnaire, and an interview schedule. Sample selection and field work is described, followed by a presentation of a model of the interaction process from which can be derived sources of role conflict and role strain, and conflict resolution. The Mertonian hypothesis is not confirmed, but a pattern of criminality is found which closely resembles a pattern of drug taking which was established earlier in the study. The relationship between preceeding and addictive drugs is also discussed. Finally, data is interpreted in the light of the interaction model, and the sources of role strain and techniques for reduction of this strain are amended to encompass a theoretical framework which appears to account for the anomalies in the data that are not accounted for in other theories. A discussion on the relationship between addiction and society ends the study

Transformation in a changing climate: a research agenda

The concept of transformation in relation to climate and other global change is increasingly receiving attention. The concept provides important opportunities to help examine how rapid and fundamental change to address contemporary global challenges can be facilitated. This paper contributes to discussions about transformation by providing a social science, arts and humanities perspective to open up discussion and set out a research agenda about what it means to transform and the dimensions, limitations and possibilities for transformation. Key focal areas include: (1) change theories, (2) knowing whether transformation has occurred or is occurring; (3) knowledge production and use; (4), governance; (5) how dimensions of social justice inform transformation; (6) the limits of human nature; (7) the role of the utopian impulse; (8) working with the present to create new futures; and (9) human consciousness. In addition to presenting a set of research questions around these themes the paper highlights that much deeper engagement with complex social processes is required; that there are vast opportunities for social science, humanities and the arts to engage more directly with the climate challenge; that there is a need for a massive upscaling of efforts to understand and shape desired forms of change; and that, in addition to helping answer important questions about how to facilitate change, a key role of the social sciences, humanities and the arts in addressing climate change is to critique current societal patterns and to open up new thinking. Through such critique and by being more explicit about what is meant by transformation, greater opportunities will be provided for opening up a dialogue about change, possible futures and about what it means to re-shape the way in which people live

Participatory scenario development for environmental management:A methodological framework illustrated with experience from the UK uplands

A methodological framework is proposed for participatory scenario development on the basis of evidence from the literature, and is tested and refined through the development of scenarios for the future of UK uplands. The paper uses a review of previous work to justify a framework based around the following steps: i) define context and establish whether there is a basis for stakeholder engagement in scenario development; ii) systematically identify and represent relevant stakeholders in the process; iii) define clear objectives for scenario development with stakeholders including spatial and temporal boundaries; iv) select relevant participatory methods for scenario development, during initial scenario construction, evaluation and to support decision-making based on scenarios; and v) integrate local and scientific knowledge throughout the process. The application of this framework in case study research suggests that participatory scenario development has the potential to: i) make scenarios more relevant to stakeholder needs and priorities; ii) extend the range of scenarios developed; iii) develop more detailed and precise scenarios through the integration of local and scientific knowledge; and iv) move beyond scenario development to facilitate adaptation to future change. It is argued that participatory scenario development can empower stakeholders and lead to more consistent and robust scenarios that can help people prepare more effectively for future change

Developing autonomous learning in first year university students using perspectives from positive psychology

Autonomous learning is a commonly occurring learning outcome from university study, and it is argued that students require confidence in their own abilities to achieve this. Using approaches from positive psychology, this study aimed to develop confidence in first‐year university students to facilitate autonomous learning. Psychological character strengths were assessed in 214 students on day one at university. Two weeks later their top three strengths were given to them in study skills modules as part of a psycho‐educational intervention designed to increase their self‐efficacy and self‐esteem. The impact of the intervention was assessed against a control group of 40 students who had not received the intervention. The results suggested that students were more confident after the intervention, and that levels of autonomous learning increased significantly compared to the controls. Character strengths were found to be associated with self‐efficacy, self‐esteem and autonomous learning in ways that were theoretically meaningful

The psychology of dynamic balance and peak performance in sport: correction theory

This article introduces a new approach to understanding peak performance and dysfunctional performance in sport, correction theory. Correction theory, based within a control theory and dynamical systems perspective, assumes that dynamic balance (a state in which a robust complex system will self-correct in response to imbalance) underwrites individual functioning. The central thesis presented in this article is that an interdependent relationship exists between peak performance and dysfunctional performance in sport. Peak performance is, in part, a (corrective) response to dysfunctional performance and vice versa. An overview of correction theory is presented, based on two propositions relating to balance. Implications of correction theory for understanding sporting performance are briefly considered.N/

Professionalism, Golf Coaching and a Master of Science Degree: A commentary

As a point of reference I congratulate Simon Jenkins on tackling the issue of professionalism in coaching. As he points out coaching is not a profession, but this does not mean that coaching would not benefit from going through a professionalization process. As things stand I find that the stimulus article unpacks some critically important issues of professionalism, broadly within the context of golf coaching. However, I am not sure enough is made of understanding what professional (golf) coaching actually is nor how the development of a professional golf coach can be facilitated by a Master of Science Degree (M.Sc.). I will focus my commentary on these two issues

What are shared and social values of ecosystems?

The theoretical framework outlined in this paper was developed initially through a series of expert workshops as part of the Valuing Nature Network — BRIDGE: From Values to Decisions project, funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). It was developed further through the follow-on phase of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (Work Package 6: Shared, Plural and Cultural Values) funded by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), the Welsh Government, NERC, the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Towards a Learning System for University Campuses as Living Labs for Sustainability

Universities, due to their sizeable estates and populations of staff and students, as well as their connections with, and impact within, their local and wider communities, have significant environmental, social and economic impacts. There is a strong movement for universities to become leaders in driving society towards a more sustainable future, through improving the sustainability of the built environment and the universities’ practices and operations, and through their educational, research and wider community engagement missions. Around the globe the concept of ‘Living Labs’ has emerged as an instrument to integrate these different aspects to deliver sustainability improvements, through engaging multiple stakeholders in all of these areas, and through the co-creation of projects to improve the sustainability of the campus environment and operations, and to link these to the education, research, and wider community missions of the institution. This chapter describes a living, shared framework and methodology, the ‘Campus as Living Lab’ learning system, created through global participatory workshops and Living Lab literature, aimed at supporting universities and their Sustainability (Coordinating) Offices in the development and monitoring of Living Lab projects. The framework includes seven categories of supportive data collection and three levels of details to meet different requirements of potential users. The Living Lab framework presented in this chapter, aims to create value and help universities maximise the benefit of Living Lab projects within an institution, support monitoring, reflection and learning from projects, and facilitate communication with stakeholders, and the sharing of practices and learning between peers across the globe. As a living shared, framework and learning system, the framework will adapt and develop over time and within different contexts. To provide feedback and fast (practical) learning from users, the system will be further developed to facilitate transparent peer reviewing