Search results

This study aims to test whether faculty and students who have developed the most pro-environmental values and concerns are also the most likely to reduce the on-campus waste stream. It does so by using the theory of ecological modernization.

Questionnaires were created and disseminated to a representative sample of 590 undergraduate students and faculty on one college campus. This research took place after widespread efforts were made to increase faculty and student knowledge of the college’s recycling guidelines.

Among the measures of environmental orientation (values, concern about pollution and green consumption), only environmental values were associated with claiming to know guidelines and self-reporting higher levels of recycling effort. None was associated with knowledge about local recycling guidelines.

Research on recycling programs at other campuses would help move beyond this specific case. The use of longitudinal surveys would help establish time-order.

This research makes an important contribution by measuring the impact well-intentioned people have on the waste stream. Without thorough knowledge of local recycling guidelines, even the most environmentally oriented people with the best of intentions may contribute to the waste stream by throwing away things that can be recycled and contaminating recycling bins with non-recyclable materials. The authors conclude that activist interventions are necessary to teach about campus recycling guidelines to reduce the waste produced on campus.

Although there are more primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs) than research-oriented institutions (ROIs) in the United States and more professors work at PUIs than ROIs, most research on gender inequality among faculty has focused on ROIs. Do patterns of women’s numeric scarcity, gender-hostile work climates, and difficulties with work-life balance found at ROIs hold true for PUIs? This chapter examines one PUI to address this question.

We analyze data from four sources: an archival database of all professors at the institution, interviews with full and associate professors, and two surveys.

Similar to ROIs, our study found women were less likely to achieve higher ranks, and take longer than men to do so. However, we find greater numbers of women and few gender differences in perception of climate, so numeric scarcity and gender-hostile climate cannot explain persistent lags in women’s advancement. Instead, we find women struggle with work-life balance more than men, especially in science disciplines. Thus, gender parity in advancement has yet to fully emerge, despite more women in the faculty and a more equitable climate than at ROIs.

Differences between faculty cohorts are intensified at the PUI because of changes to the institution’s mission, but our research demonstrates that not all gendered patterns found at ROIs apply to PUIs.

PUIs that increasingly emphasize scholarly output should enact family-friendly policies to support all professors, including on-campus or subsidized childcare, flexible scheduling, family leave, and dual-career hiring policies.

This chapter demonstrates that there are important differences between ROIs and PUIs that must be taken into account if we are to understand and remedy gender inequality in academia.

This introduction sets forth the main themes of the volume, reviews the methods employed by the contributors, and demonstrates the relationships among the chapters.

Each of the chapters demonstrates the gendered nature of the academy and some of the ways in which women, especially women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines, are disadvantaged. None of them provides complete catalogues of the issues confronting women and none reach definitive conclusions regarding the ways and means of transforming the academy. Additional research and experimentation will be required.

The gender transformation of the academy holds the promise of more opportunities for women, especially but not only in STEM disciplines and higher administration, and greater probability of balance between work and personal life for all.

The chapter serves as an overall introduction to the volume and the subject matter more generally.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe a method for priority setting that can be used to identify options for disinvestment, and is also meant to serve as a tool for re-allocation of resources to achieve better outcomes with a given pot of resources.

This chapter draws on findings from the application of a priority setting and resource allocation framework known as Program Budgeting and Marginal Analysis (PBMA). Case studies are used to illustrate key points around implementation including factors for success and guidelines for improving priority setting in practice.

PBMA has been applied in over 150 settings over the last 30 years. Purposes varied from focusing strictly on disinvestment to examining opportunities for re-allocation. Many organizations report continued use of the framework and decision makers typically express a desire to not revert to historical allocation or political negotiation in deciding on the funding for programs.

Practical implications of this body of work on priority setting abound in that there are significant opportunities to improve resource allocation practice including better engagement of staff, clinicians and public members, greater use of evidence in decision making and improving process transparency.

As healthcare resources are limited, particularly in predominantly publicly funded health systems, prudent use of resources is critical. Actually applying the appropriate tools to ensure that funding aligns with organizational and system objectives is paramount.

Although there is a large body of literature on priority setting particularly in countries like the United Kingdom and Canada, this chapter serves to highlight key messages specifically in the context of fiscal constraint and in relation to the concept of disinvestment or service reduction.

Communications regarding this column should be addressed to Mrs. Cheney, Peabody Library School, Nashville, Tenn. 37203. Mrs. Cheney does not sell the books listed here. They are available through normal trade sources. Mrs. Cheney, being a member of the editorial board of Pierian Press, will not review Pierian Press reference books in this column. Descriptions of Pierian Press reference books will be included elsewhere in this publication.

Few issues in recent times have so provoked debate and dissention within the library field as has the concept of fees for user services. The issue has aroused the passions of our profession precisely because its roots and implications extend far beyond the confines of just one service discipline. Its reflection is mirrored in national debates about the proper spheres of the public and private sectors—in matters of information generation and distribution, certainly, but in a host of other social ramifications as well, amounting virtually to a debate about the most basic values which we have long assumed to constitute the very framework of our democratic and humanistic society.

This paper reports on the evaluation of a scheme to promote service user involvement in the care delivered by a mental health trust. A case study methodology was employed to describe the particularity of the scheme in context as experienced by service users and staff involved in its delivery. Mixed methods of semi‐structured interviews and focus groups created the opportunity for all stakeholders to engage in action research through a mutual learning process about the scheme in operation with a view to making changes to improve and develop it in the future. The qualitative data collected was content analysed and grouped according to key themes, which included the benefits of the scheme, the conditions for it to work successfully, suggested changes, limitations of the scheme, and service user involvement generally in a hospital setting. The role of service users as both paid scheme co‐ordinators and volunteer representatives highlights the contribution that people who use mental health services can play in influencing service delivery when employed in relevant and appropriate roles within a mental health organisation.