A qualitative study of stakeholders' perspectives on the social network service environment

Over two billion people are using the Internet at present, assisted by the mediating activities of software agents which deal with the diversity and complexity of information. There are, however, ethical issues due to the monitoring-and-surveillance, data mining and autonomous nature of software agents. Considering the context, this study aims to comprehend stakeholders' perspectives on the social network service environment in order to identify the main considerations for the design of software agents in social network services in the near future. Twenty-one stakeholders, belonging to three key stakeholder groups, were recruited using a purposive sampling strategy for unstandardised semi-structured e-mail interviews. The interview data were analysed using a qualitative content analysis method. It was possible to identify three main considerations for the design of software agents in social network services, which were classified into the following categories: comprehensive understanding of users' perception of privacy, user type recognition algorithms for software agent development and existing software agents enhancement

The role of nominating committees and director reputation in shaping the labor market for directors: an empirical assessment

Research Question/Issue: Do the presence and independence of nominating committees within boards of directors affect the extent of rewards and sanctions provided by the labor market to directors with a reputation for being active in monitoring management? Research Findings/Insights: Results drawn from a longitudinal sample of directors sitting on the board of 200 public French firms suggest that the stronger a director's reputation for being active in increasing control over management, the larger the number of his/her subsequent appointments to (1) boards with a nominating committee, (2) to boards with a nominating committee which excludes the CEO and (3) to boards with a nominating committee dominated by non-executive directors. In contrast, we found that a director's reputation of being active in increasing control over management does not impact the number of his/her subsequent appointments (1) to boards without a nominating committee, (2) to boards with a nominating committee which includes the CEO and (3) to boards with a nominating committee dominated by executive directors. Theoretical/Academic Implications: This study shows that the outcome of the power struggle between the CEO and incumbent directors during the candidate selection process determines the profile of directors who will ultimately obtain the board appointment. On the one hand, independent nominating committees are likely to reduce the influence of CEOs over the process of a director's appointment, and therefore are likely to increase the recruitment of directors with reputations for being active in exercising control over managers. On the other hand, nonexistence of nominating committees or presence of weak nominating committees under the influence of the CEO decouple directors' reputations for being active in controlling management from the likelihood of obtaining new appointments. Practitioner/Policy Implications: This study offers insights to policy makers interested in increasing the efficiency of the labor market for directors. More specifically, it highlights the conditions under which directors with a reputation of being active in increasing control over management are likely to be rewarded by the labor market for directors. These conditions include (1) the creation of a nominating committee; (2) exclusion of the CEO from this committee and (3) domination of this committee by outside directors

EarthCube Governance Framework: A Proposal to the Community - Documentation, Research, and Recommendations

EarthCube, established by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is envisioned to transform the conduct of research through the development of community-guided cyberinfrastructure for the Geosciences. EarthCube is intended to create a networked, knowledge management system that integrates Earth system and human dimensions data in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. In order to achieve this vision, EarthCube requires broad community participation in concept, framework, and implementation, and must not be hindered by rigid preconceptions such as assuming one particular management or organizational structure. If successful, EarthCube may be a prototype for development of similar systems across other domain sciences as part of the NSF Cyberinfrastructure for the 21st Century (CIF21) initiative and related efforts nationally and internationally. During the spring of 2012, NSF merged several governance-related Expressions of Interest into a single Governance Working Group, led by the Governance Steering Committee, with connections to a broad network forum of individuals and organizations known as the Governance Forum. The governance research review and community engagement efforts by this group culminated in a Governance Roadmap delivered to the NSF-sponsored June charrette (community event). The Governance Roadmap was the product of six months of research on governance theory and models, historical infrastructure case studies, and community feedback and engagement. Based on our findings from the research review and from community engagement, we the crafted following definition of governance: “Governance refers to the processes, structure and organizational elements that determine, within an organization or system of organizations, how power is exercised, how stakeholders have their say, how decisions are made, and how decision makers are held accountable.”Documents in the AZGS Documents Repository collection are made available by the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact [email protected]

EarthCube Governance Roadmap Documentation, Research, and Recommendations v. 2.0

EarthCube is a process established to transform the conduct of research through the development of community-guided cyberinfrastructure. Specifically, EarthCube is attempting to integrate data and information knowledge management across the Geosciences; providing capabilities that permit scientists to conduct research in a more productive way, integrating their work with data from other agencies as well as international partners. Thus, EarthCube aims to create a knowledge management system and infrastructure that integrates all Earth system and human dimensions data in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. EarthCube requires broad community participation in concept, framework, and implementation, and must not be hindered by rigid preconceptions. We were tasked with creating a roadmap for the future governance of EarthCube. This paper provides three complete units for accomplishing this. Part 1 – the Roadmap – provides action items and a timeline for developing and implementing a governance framework. Part 2 – the Roadmap Documentation – provides insight into the ten guidance points presented by the National Science Foundation (NSF) at the onset of this project. Part 3 – provides a complete summary of the research and community outreach conducted to produce parts 1 and 2.Documents in the AZGS Documents Repository collection are made available by the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact [email protected])

EarthCube Governance Roadmap Documentation, Research, and Recommendations v. 2.0

EarthCube is a process established to transform the conduct of research through the development of community-guided cyberinfrastructure. Specifically, EarthCube is attempting to integrate data and information knowledge management across the Geosciences; providing capabilities that permit scientists to conduct research in a more productive way, integrating their work with data from other agencies as well as international partners. Thus, EarthCube aims to create a knowledge management system and infrastructure that integrates all Earth system and human dimensions data in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. EarthCube requires broad community participation in concept, framework, and implementation, and must not be hindered by rigid preconceptions. We were tasked with creating a roadmap for the future governance of EarthCube. This paper provides three complete units for accomplishing this. Part 1 – the Roadmap – provides action items and a timeline for developing and implementing a governance framework. Part 2 – the Roadmap Documentation – provides insight into the ten guidance points presented by the National Science Foundation (NSF) at the onset of this project. Part 3 – provides a complete summary of the research and community outreach conducted to produce parts 1 and 2.Documents in the AZGS Document Repository collection are made available by the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact [email protected]

EarthCube Governance Framework: A Proposal to the Community - Documentation, Research, and Recommendations

EarthCube, established by the National Science Foundation (NSF), is envisioned to transform the conduct of research through the development of community-guided cyberinfrastructure for the Geosciences. EarthCube is intended to create a networked, knowledge management system that integrates Earth system and human dimensions data in an open, transparent, and inclusive manner. In order to achieve this vision, EarthCube requires broad community participation in concept, framework, and implementation, and must not be hindered by rigid preconceptions such as assuming one particular management or organizational structure. If successful, EarthCube may be a prototype for development of similar systems across other domain sciences as part of the NSF Cyberinfrastructure for the 21st Century (CIF21) initiative and related efforts nationally and internationally. During the spring of 2012, NSF merged several governance-related Expressions of Interest into a single Governance Working Group, led by the Governance Steering Committee, with connections to a broad network forum of individuals and organizations known as the Governance Forum. The governance research review and community engagement efforts by this group culminated in a Governance Roadmap delivered to the NSF-sponsored June charrette (community event). The Governance Roadmap was the product of six months of research on governance theory and models, historical infrastructure case studies, and community feedback and engagement. Based on our findings from the research review and from community engagement, we the crafted following definition of governance: “Governance refers to the processes, structure and organizational elements that determine, within an organization or system of organizations, how power is exercised, how stakeholders have their say, how decisions are made, and how decision makers are held accountable.”Documents in the AZGS Document Repository collection are made available by the Arizona Geological Survey (AZGS) and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact [email protected]

Report of the Working Group on Curriculum Governance

At the outset of the Implementation Phase of the MD Undergraduate Curriculum Renewal process, it was felt that the implementation of a renewed curriculum would be constrained without systematic reform, which included an adaptable governance framework that could accommodate transformational change. To this effect, the Implementation Task Force for Curriculum Renewal (ITFCR) established the Curriculum Governance Working Group, and commissioned it to: review the current system of curriculum governance in the University of British Columbia (UBC) Faculty of Medicine (FoM) MD Undergraduate program (MDUP), identify its strengths and weaknesses, and suggest changes for future implementation that were aligned with the LCME/CACMS accreditation standards. The ultimate goal of the group was to propose a renewed governance framework that would identify the policies, procedures and organizational structures to guide and direct how people and committees should interact and make decisions. The group undertook an extensive methodology, and found that, overall, there is no one model that medical schools adopt to govern decisions within their curriculum, and that it is more important to adhere to principles of good governance, rather than structure, to facilitate decision making. In keeping with the benchmarks of excellence espoused by UBC and the FoM, the group adopted the United Nations framework of good governance as a guideline for making recommendations. The United Nations defines good governance as a framework that contains the following eight characteristics: participation, rule of law, transparency, responsiveness, consensus‐oriented, equity and inclusiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, and accountability.(1) Through its methodology, the group identified a number of strengths in the current governance of the MDUP. These include: a participatory, consensus‐oriented and inclusive system; a willingness of faculty and staff to cooperate; an appreciation for an organizational structure that is reasonably well‐aligned with university policies and accreditation standards. Weaknesses were also identified, which included: a lack of transparency around some decision‐making processes; insufficient flexibility in decision‐making; a lack of communication about how decisions are made; committees sizes as too large, which can hamper effectiveness and efficiency; a process of program evaluation is not systematically followed by planning and improvement; and an overall sense that there is a need for a more effective curriculum management system. In light of its research and findings, the Curriculum Governance Working Group has proposed recommendations to address weaknesses in the current MD Undergraduate governance structure and coupled them with a renewed governance model. The recommendations are, in summary form, as follows (please refer to Chapter 5 for further context and details): Recommendation 1: Principles and Values That the Faculty of Medicine adopt the eight characteristics of good governance defined by the United Nations (1) to guide the development of new policies and that existing structures and processes of decision‐making (both formal and informal) be revisited to determine how well they align with these characteristics. Recommendation 2: Organizational Structure That the MD Undergraduate Program’s governance structure undergoes reform to enable more effective leadership, encourage transparency and clarity of roles and decision‐making processes, and accountability. Five committees that should be the first to undergo modifications in order to improve the effectiveness, efficacy and accountability of the governance system: Council of Undergraduate Associate Deans, MD Undergraduate Program Committee, Curriculum Committee, Program Evaluation Committee and the Student Assessment Committees. 2.1 Dissolve the Council of Undergraduate Associate Deans (CUAD) and replace it with a Regional Executive for the MDUP (MDU‐REX). 2.2 Change the Terms of Reference of the MD Undergraduate Program Committee (MDUPC) to become a more focused education committee and rename it the MD Undergraduate Education Committee (MDUEC). 2.3 Revise the Terms of Reference of the Program Evaluation Committee (PEC) to support an iterative process of planning, evaluation, and program improvement, and rename it to “Program Evaluation, Planning and Improvement Committee.” This committee will report to the MDU‐REX. Create a sub‐committee to oversee the Undergraduate Curriculum quality improvement that will report to the Program Evaluation and Planning Committee. 2.4 Redesign the Curriculum Committee (CC). 2.5 Create a Student Assessment committee as recommended by the Curriculum Renewal Working Group on Student Assessment. 2.6 Revise the original organizational structure and function of the MD Undergraduate Program to reflect the aforementioned recommendations. Recommendation 3: Decision‐making Process That the MDUEC develop a guide to curricular changes and a decision‐making tree to show where responsibilities lie and who is accountable for what, and that these are communicated widely. Recommendation 4: Representation Model/Committee Size That committees in the MD Undergraduate Program be downsized to a more manageable level. Overall, the model would have individuals from both central and regional campuses at any given time. Recommendation 5: Committee Terms of Reference (TOR) Format That in order to ensure clarity of purpose, accountability, responsibilities and consistency of message, the Terms of Reference (ToR) of all committees in the MDUP be revised to comply with a standardized template. Recommendation 6: Decision‐making Framework That the Faculty of Medicine revisits the concept of where decision making takes place in the MDUP. The Faculty should explore changes to the governance framework that will result in the most optimal delegation and distribution of authority that will promote timely and effective decision making and will help to preserve sustainability in a model that is growing in size and complexity. Recommendation 7: Communications That the MD Undergraduate Program develop and implement a communication strategy to ensure all the stakeholders have easy and timely access to pertinent information on governance. This strategy must recognize and ensure that communication flows in more than one direction.Medicine, Faculty ofPediatrics, Department ofUnreviewedFacult

Power dynamics in multi–stakeholder policy processes and intra–civil society networking

The Handbook of Global Media and Communication Policy offers insights into the boundaries of this field of study, assesses why it is important, who is affected, and with what political, economic, social and cultural consequences. Contributors draw on theory and empirical research to offer multiple perspectives on the local, national, regional and global forums in which policy debate occurs. Policy is understood as an emergent process, informed by historical context, power dynamics, and local/global interdependencies