Front Cover

Clockwise from top left: Michael Lindblad ’94, Nathaniel Wight ’99, Tim Love ’07

Executive Summary of the Fact Finding Report of the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations

Executive_Summary_Dunlop_0594.pdf: 1367 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Contact Information for the Members of the Commission on the Future of Worker-Management Relations

Contact_Info_Dunlop_Commission.pdf: 154 downloads, before Oct. 1, 2020

Performance of Smallholder Agriculture Under Limited Mechanization and the Fast Track Land Reform Program in Zimbabwe

agricultural mechanization, fast track land reform, agricultural development, Stochastic Frontier model, technical efficiency, agribusiness management, Agricultural and Food Policy, Community/Rural/Urban Development, International Development, Land Economics/Use, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Efficiency Effects Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Mechanization and Fast Track Land Reform Programme: A Stochastic Frontier Approach

A development goal pursued by the Zimbabwean government even before the much-maligned fast track land reform programme (FTLRP) was expansion of agricultural production through agricultural mechanization. This goal has been pursued through the acquisition and use of tractors by arable crop farmers in communal and resettlement state land delineated during the period following the launch of the FTLRP. This research project investigated the combined impacts of mechanization and an unplanned land reform on agricultural productivity in the Bindura district of Zimbabwe. The existing land policy and the issue of technical efficiency in agricultural productivity are assumed to be the drivers of the programme. It is likely that these issues will be important considerations in determining the sustainability of the mechanization policy. A multistage sampling technique was used to randomly select 90 farmers in the study area and structured questionnaires were used to collect demographic, investment and production data which were subsequently fitted by means of the Stochastic Frontier Model. Results revealed that mechanization was an important factor in the performance of the farmers who participated in the programme. The results also suggest that availability of land and access to production resources are crucial to farm productivity. Despite these, overall production and productivity remain low and the hyperinflationary situation triggered by supply constraints are only beginning to slightly ease. As the national unity government grapples with the huge task to restore growth in the Zimbabwean economy, it is important that these issues are borne in mind.Technical Constraints, Market Access, Agricultural Development, Induced Innovation Model, The Stochastic Frontier model, The Productive Efficiency and Mandate of Extension, Farm Management,

“Miss, Miss, Look at What My Mother Sent Me from Jail”

When I tell people that I teach in a public school, especially when I go on to say that I teach at the Junior High level there is almost aIways snickering sounds and rolling eyes followed by horror stories from the past. They relate memories of crowded, noisy hallways filled with bullies; classrooms that felt like jail, teachers that were bored and lots of hormone driven mis-adventures. I just smile because I know it is all too true. I do not attempt to explain why, as an artist, I choose to return to the classroom after so many years or how I am inspired everyday by the energy and truth of the students I encounter. I have come to learn that this immediate reaction by others is only a small part of the whole experience

Our Future on Earth

This report provides a snapshot of our world at the start of 2020, helping to make sense of the state of this unique biophysical human ecosystem we inhabit as a planetary changing species. It combines up-to-date research with the latest world events, including physical and social science perspectives to explore where we are now, where we hope to go, and how we might get there. It also includes a novel survey of scientists to rank their top concerns for global systemic risks in the coming years. Humans are now the main driver behind planetary change, and human systems must be targeted if we are to do something about it. That means addressing societal systems including populism, finance, and information transmission, alongside the practices and technologies that emit greenhouse gases, from fossil-fuel burning to food production. This is a particularly exciting time to look at these issues: the past year has been one of extraordinary social awakening to the hazards of environmental change, and of demands for action towards a sustainable future. As 2019 unfolded, people began talking of “climate breakdown” and demanding their governments and institutions declare a “climate emergency” (Oxford Dictionaries chose “climate emergency” as its 2019 word of the year)

Logics of marginalisation in health and social care reform:integration, choice, and provider-blind provision

The period 2010–2013 was a time of far-reaching structural reforms of the National Health Service in England. Of particular interest in this paper is the way in which radical critiques of the reform process were marginalised by pragmatic concerns about how to maintain the market-competition thrust of the reforms while avoiding potential fragmentation. We draw on the Essex school of political discourse theory and develop a ‘nodal’ analytical framework to argue that widespread and repeated appeals to a narrative of choice-based integrated care served to take the fragmentation ‘sting’ out of radical critiques of the pro-competition reform process. This served to marginalise alternative visions of health and social care, and to pre-empt the contestation of a key norm in the provision of health care that is closely associated with the notions of ‘any willing provider’ and ‘any qualified provider’: provider-blind provision

Perception of the level of difficulty by post-secondary Maltese students of the biology advanced level practical examination paper

Maltese students sit for the Matriculation and Secondary Education Certificate (MATSEC) Advanced-level biology exam at the end of a two-year ‘sixth form’ course as a requirement to pursue studies related to science at the University of Malta. The exam consists of four papers, where Paper 1 consists of compulsory structured questions, Paper 2 involves essay-writing, Paper 3 is based on practical work related to theory, and Paper 4 consists of a single experimental design question. A questionnaire based on a Likert five-point scale was administered to students (N=102) two months before they sat for the MATSEC examination. The aim was to investigate the level of difficulty that students encounter with each of the exam papers as well when answering ten typical questions presented in Paper 4. No significant difference in the difficulty rating evaluation for males and females for Paper 1, 2 and 3 was found; however females found Paper 4 significantly more difficult than males. When presented with a test at school modelled on Paper 4, males felt more confident than females however they felt equally nervous. On the other hand, females felt more panicky than males. There was no significant difference between the level of difficulty encountered in each paper and the grade obtained at ‘Ordinary’ level biology (the examination taken at the end of secondary school). Students that were repeating their ‘sixth form’ second year encountered the same level of difficulty in each paper as those who were not. The same questionnaire was administered to tutors (N=13) in order to investigate whether student and tutor perceptions differ. Students and tutors rated the level of difficulty of each paper differently. None of the tutors perceived Papers 2, 3 and 4 as ‘easy’ whereas students did. Another difference in perception was noted in Paper 1: students rated Paper 1 as ‘difficult’ while tutors did not. Students and tutors also differed in the rating of level of difficulty in Paper 4 questions. Students found the question about devising an experiment as presenting the highest level of difficulty while for tutors the most difficult was that concerned was stating the sources of error. Writing a null hypothesis presented the least difficulty for students whereas drawing graphs was rated as least difficult by tutors. These differences in perception imply that tutors may be dedicating more time preparing students for papers and questions they (the tutors) perceive as difficult and thus may not be meeting the real needs of the students.peer-reviewe