High power switching transistor Final report

Design theory and fabrication procedure for n-p-n 100 ampere silicon switching transisto

Market and Society: How do they relate, and contribute to welfare?

This paper discusses how markets and society relate to each other. We present and discuss three views: markets as separate, markets as embedded, and markets as impure. One’s stance on the contribution of markets to welfare hinges on the conceptualization of market and other spheres in society. If, for instance, one perceives of the economy (the economic domain) as an all-encompassing sphere or as a sphere totally separate from others, then one would believe markets necessarily contribute to welfare. Markets are presumed to be ubiquitous in mainstream economics; the orthodox view is that of the ‘market as separate’. Indeed, Frank Hahn notably conceded that neoclassical economics does not describe markets, but ‘conjures’ them up. Mainstream conceptions of the market are functionalist – in the appropriate conditions the market is an efficiency conduit, and hence wealth and welfare generating. Creating these appropriate conditions then drives policy, such as the provision of health care, and tends to produce a one size fits all approach. This paper argues that this is an overly restrictive conceptualization of markets, and is an inadequate basis for conceptualizing the potential effects of markets. Conceptualizing the market as impure and embedded must be added. We contribute to this discussion by developing the concepts of ‘boundaries’ separating spheres. Such an approach broadens the notion of welfare and well-being beyond the monetized parameters of economic orthodoxy

A survey of evidence-based practice, training, supervision and clinician confidence relating to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) therapies in UK child and adolescent mental health professionals

Background: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents has received increasing recognition in recent decades. Despite development of treatments and improved dissemination efforts, research has identified a number of barriers to implementing these approaches. Objective: This study sought to understand what interventions mental health professionals working with children and adolescents utilised to treat PTSD, their training and supervision, their confidence in assessing and treating PTSD, and how these factors relate to clinicians characteristics (e.g. age, gender, professional background). Method: The study comprised an internet-delivered survey of clinicians working in child and adolescent mental health services in the UK (N = 716). Results: Many clinicians (>40%) had not received training in working with PTSD, with considerable variation between professional background. Lack of training and supervision was associated with reduced clinician confidence in treating children with PTSD (possible range 0–10; training M = 7.54, SD = 1.65, no training M = 5.49, SD = 2.29; supervision M = 7.53, SD = 1.63, no supervision M = 5.98, SD = 2.35). Evidence-based therapies for PTSD such as Trauma-Focused Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy and Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing were only endorsed modestly by clinicians (58.4% and 37.5%, respectively). Regression analyses identified that lack of training and supervision were significant barriers to the use of evidence-based interventions. Other predictors of clinician confidence and use of evidence-based interventions included profession and years of experience. Participants almost universally wanted more training in working with PTSD. Conclusions: Evidence-based treatments are not currently universally delivered by mental health professionals in the UK, with certain professions particularly lacking training and confidence with this condition. Training around trauma and PTSD may be an ongoing need to boost and maintain confidence in working with PTSD in youth

Institutions, Institutional Change, Language, and Searle

This paper endeavours to contribute to the growing institutionalist literature on the conception of the institution. We draw from John Davis’ (2003) analysis of the individual in posing the questions: what differentiates institutions, and how can changing institutions be identified through time and space? Our analysis develops Searle’s (2005) argument that language is the fundamental institution. Searle’s argument is rather functionalist, however, and does not convey the ambiguity of language. Moreover, language and understanding, surely when related to most institutions in real life, delineate and circumscribe a community. A community cannot function without a common language, as Searle argued, but language also constitutes a community’s boundaries, and excludes unsavoury outsiders or alien topics for discussion. This is how institutions both constrain and enable. By drawing upon Luhmann’s (1995) systems analysis and notions of discourse, communication, and text we aim to augment the existing analytical role ascribe