Search results

Universities expose higher education professionals to complex organisational environments, expecting them to comply with structures, policies and practices. A university is not so different in this respect from other Communities of Practice (Wenger, 1998), in which the pressures to conform are often greater than the inducement to be original, and in which being different may be implicitly discouraged. The relationship between the individual and the established power structures becomes even more complicated when a university is going through the transitions and challenges that are inherent to internationalisation. This chapter examines the challenges and opportunities experienced by academics who are cultural and linguistic outliers within the setting of a European university, showing how the assumptions, values and expectations of the university environment can affect individuals’ ability to perform agentically. We consider how these academic outliers make meaning of being professional within the context of internationalisation and consider how such efforts can contribute to new understandings of interculturality. We further examine how alternative ways of being can result in new modes of engagement with colleagues. Drawing on interviews with six academics within a single institution, this chapter offers a version of the truth that is ‘woven from an amalgam of raw data’ (Clough, 2002), resulting in an exploratory narrative in the voices of fictionalised protagonists.

Kevin McRider, the COO of a fledging research facility, needed to foster an environment where scientists explored the boundaries of the metals, chemicals, polymers and tools used to create innovating medical devices. The freshly-minted PhDs he hired were enthusiastic to design and conduct research projects that bridged their scientific disciplines, in a collaborative workplace, with time allocated to individual projects as well. Effectively managed, their research would help the parent corporation leapfrog over existing or near-future technology.

The problem for McRider was how to get Lintell to realize his vision of a collaborative organizational culture that promoted revolutionary scientific discoveries. His challenges included managerial behaviors that prohibited critical interaction and information sharing, as well as disruptive organizational dynamics he himself had set in motion including pressures to focus only on certain research goals and projects at the expense of creative exploration, and the violation of the psychological contracts McRider himself had created with the scientists during recruitment.

This study aims to investigate the crossover of workplace aggression experienced by members of dual‐earner couples on alcohol intake of the partner

Cross‐sectional community data come from the 1998 Quebec Health and Social Survey containing a sub‐sample of 5,778 individuals nested in 2,889 dual‐earner couples. Data on alcohol intake, workplace aggression (physical, psychological, sexual), decision authority, working hours, irregular work schedule, marital strains, gender and age are gathered from self‐report questionnaires. Each member of the couple will answer the questionnaire.

The results show that being the target of workplace aggression is associated with low‐risk (OR=1.27, 95%CI=1.10‐1.46) and high‐risk drinking (OR=1.78, 95%CI=1.44‐2.20). Indicative of a crossover effect, partner workplace aggression victimization (OR=1.30, 95%CI=1.05‐1.62) is associated with high‐risk drinking

Victims of workplace aggression and their immediate relatives might be supported to avoid adverse alcohol‐related problems. Organizations need to pay more attention to the problem of workplace aggression in their occupational health and safety programs

Using multilevel multinomial regression models, this study highlights the complexities of work‐family dynamics and of the crossover effect of workplace aggression into the lives and alcohol intake behavior of dual‐earner partners.

Donald Trump portrayed himself as a crusader against corrupt elites, claiming he would “drain the swamp.” Corporate elites generally depicted themselves as either trying to work with him or as directly opposed to him. Yet a closer analysis of Trump's policies and their outcomes in key issue areas, from taxes to immigration to the environment, shows continuity with previous pro-corporate policies. Furthermore, by positioning Trump as opposed to the elite, Trump and commentators on his presidency created a “radical flank” effect that made status quo, pro-corporate policies appear as progressive victories. This analysis suggests that a focus on the personal characteristics of politicians is misleading, and that the focus of political discourse needs to be on the power structure that shapes policy outcomes.

Situated within a context where high-skilled migration is increasingly being featured in policy debates around the world as part of strategies to foster innovation, this chapter examines the ways highly skilled entrepreneurs in tech traverse their entrepreneurship and their subsequent migration via business accelerators. Business accelerators, which are not just promoted as pre-seed funds in financial circles, but also by migration policy as sponsors of migrant innovation, play an important role in the lives of young migrant ventures. However, based on interviews with entrepreneurs that used policy-endorsed accelerators in the United Kingdom, this chapter emphasises that both finance and migration policy considerations are just tiny specks in a larger picture. This chapter shows the boundary-fluid lives entrepreneurs in tech lead, and puts forth that it is the symbolic capital that they amass through their active use of accelerators, that they then convert to economic value. Consequently, it is argued that discussions around social integration of migrants into ‘mainstream’ society need to be viewed with a new lens, as the symbolic capital thus accrued, is at a truly transnational level.

Legislative action was historically the means by which U.S. states abolished capital punishment, but such action ceased for decades following the Supreme Court's 1976 Gregg decision that reaffirmed the constitutionality of the death penalty. Despite the fact that several legislatures have considered abolition bills in the modern era, only three states successfully enacted such legislation. It is my purpose in this study to analyze why states are currently struggling to pass abolition legislation and to determine which factors contribute to success. I conduct a comparative, qualitative case study of New Jersey, the first state to legislatively abolish since 1976, and Maryland, a similar state whose abolition effort recently failed. I analyze the content of legislators’ debates about the abolition bills in committee and on the legislature floor, as well as news coverage of the abolition efforts in each state's largest newspapers. I reach two primary conclusions. First, an abolition bill is more likely to be passed by Democrats than Republicans, but unified Democratic control of the government is not a sufficient condition for abolition. Second, arguments about the risk of wrongful executions and the deleterious collateral consequences of the death penalty process on the family members of murder victims are powerful sources of political support for abolition, especially where doubts about the deterrent effect of the death penalty are widespread. This study reaffirms the central importance of the innocence frame in the modern death penalty debate, and it presents the first scholarly analysis of the collateral consequences frame. These findings may help activists in the abolition movement more effectively frame their arguments to appeal to legislators.