Suchergebnisse

This article is in response to Jake Phillips' article 'The architecture of a probation office: A reflection of policy and an impact on practice' ( Phillips, 2014 ). The author addresses a topic which has had little attention in probation. Working environments are much talked about by probation staff but this operates mainly at a local and immediate level: noise, decoration, location, mobility, technology, ergonomics, etc. Phillips broadens out the discussion to look at how changes to probation's physical environment may be contributing to a 'them and us' attitude in staff towards their clients which runs counter to the current trend towards greater professional judgement and offender engagement. This article seeks to contribute to that debate by offering a practitioner's view and exploring the use of other perspectives to gain a greater understanding of the impact of our working environments on probation practice.

AbstractIn this article I use a case study of the relationship between an international non‐government development organisation (NGO) and one of its local partner NGOs to question the desirability of basing NGO partnerships on the principle of subsidiarity. I argue that devolving maximum control to the local NGO in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity would have conflicted with the interests and expectations of both the international NGO and its local partner. As a result, there was occasional but significant contestation between these organisations about what sort of relationship was most compatible with the principle of partnership and what role each party should play within that relationship. I argue that such contestation over what constitutes partnership has the potential to contribute to the realisation of this value‐laden term by involving all parties in defining the nature of their relationship. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The internet presents not just opportunities but also risks that range, to name a few, from online abuse and misinformation to the polarisation of public debate. Given the increasingly digital nature of our societies, these risks make it essential for users to learn how to wisely use digital technologies as part of a more holistic approach to promoting human flourishing. However, insofar as they are exacerbated by both the affordances and the political economy of the internet, this article argues that a new understanding of wisdom that is germane to the digital age is needed. As a result, we propose a framework for conceptualising what we call cyber-wisdom, and how this can be cultivated via formal education, in ways that are grounded in neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics and that build on three prominent existing models of wisdom. The framework, according to which cyber-wisdom is crucial to navigating online risks and opportunities through the deployment of character virtues necessary for flourishing online, suggests that cyber-wisdom consists of four components: cyber-wisdom literacy, cyber-wisdom reasoning, cyber-wisdom self-reflection, cyber-wisdom motivation. Unlike the models on which it builds, the framework accounts for the specificity of the digital age and is both conceptual and practical. On the one hand, each component has conceptual implications for what it means to be wise in the digital age. On the other hand, informed by character education literature and practice, it has practical implications for how to cultivate cyber-wisdom in the classroom through teaching methods that match its different components.

Debates about how to respond to climate change have largely focused on the difficulties in agreeing on national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By assuming that the main obstacle to emissions reduction lies in the inability to reach agreement internationally, the current debate underplays the challenges of building the state capacity that will be needed to ensure mitigation takes place. The implementation of mitigation strategies is far from straightforward. It requires careful balancing of competing priorities and deliberate strategies to bring different interest groups on board. We analyze the way this balancing act has been carried out in promoting energy efficiency measures in China and India. The balancing act has been done differently as each country has tailored its approach to the specific context of competing priorities and differing state capacity. We encapsulate these differences by referring to China's approach as 'state-signaling' and India's approach as a 'market-plus' approach. China's approach is more explicitly statist than India's, but in both countries, the state plays a central role in building the support base for its policies through processes that we describe as the bundling of policies and interests. These bundling strategies are used to help build informal coalitions in favor of energy efficiency measures. [Reprinted by permission of Sage Publications Inc., copyright holder.]

Debates about how to respond to climate change have largely focused on the difficulties in agreeing on national targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. By assuming that the main obstacle to emissions reduction lies in the inability to reach agreement internationally, the current debate underplays the challenges of building the state capacity that will be needed to ensure mitigation takes place. The implementation of mitigation strategies is far from straightforward. It requires careful balancing of competing priorities and deliberate strategies to bring different interest groups on board. We analyze the way this balancing act has been carried out in promoting energy efficiency measures in China and India. The balancing act has been done differently as each country has tailored its approach to the specific context of competing priorities and differing state capacity. We encapsulate these differences by referring to China's approach as "state-signaling" and India's approach as a "market-plus" approach. China's approach is more explicitly statist than India's, but in both countries, the state plays a central role in building the support base for its policies through processes that we describe as the bundling of policies and interests. These bundling strategies are used to help build informal coalitions in favor of energy efficiency measures.

PurposeThis paper aims to offer a commentary on Psychologically Informed Services: A Good Practice Guide, a recently published operational guidance document on developing psychologically informed environments (PIEs) in services for homeless people.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is an invited opinion piece and comment, based on the specialist experience and viewpoint of the author as a rehabilitation psychiatrist, a medical historian of the therapeutic community movement, and a member of the "enabling environments" development group.FindingsThe new operational guidance is welcomed, with some provisos. Specifically, the author is concerned that, in the prevailing commissioning culture, and the individual pathology‐based presumptions of the "medical model", a focus on the "psychological" may be taken to mean a stress on individual psychology and therapeutic techniques derived from individual therapy. This may distract attention from the need to work with the whole social environment, with peer support and with recognition of the importance of informal interactions, as opportunities for growth, if services are to work with the whole person.Originality/valueServices that wish to develop as PIEs need to take care to work with the whole person, and their social selves, and to develop enabling environments that recognise and work with the importance of all relationships.