To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Assessment of transformative learning is challenging because key aspects of the transformative experience are often difficult for faculty to recognize and for students to communicate. Also, there is an affective component involved in the struggles students face when encountering disorienting dilemmas and the subsequent perspective shifts that must occur to accommodate new ways of making sense of self, others, and the world. There are ways to track and measure student progress across an arc of development in those important beyond-disciplinary and life skills and mindsets that are the hallmarks of good employees, entrepreneurs, artists, citizens, and family members – humans that are, in short, creators, not just consumers. Faculty generally must be trained in this process because creating good reflective prompts and spotting individual students’ idiosyncratic expressions as they attempt to put into words felt shifts of worldview are not typically part of PhD curricula. One Midwestern, regional state university in the US has met the challenge of eliciting and assessing transformative learning. Lessons learned and specific, replicable processes and tools are shared in this chapter.
This article focuses on the way that staff and guardians in the rural Nottinghamshire workhouse of Southwell sought to exert control and containment over pauper inmates. Fusing together local and central records for the period 1834–71, including locally held punishment books and correspondence at The National Archives, Kew (TNA), we argue that the notional power of the workhouse authorities was heavily shaded. Most paupers most of the time did not find their behaviour heavily and clumsily controlled. Rather, staff focused their attention in terms of detecting and punishing disorderly behaviour on a small group of long-term and often mentally ill paupers whose actions might create enmities or spiral into larger conflicts and dissent in the workhouse setting. Both inmates and those under threat of workhouse admission would have seen or heard about punishment of ‘the usual characters’. This has important implications for how we understand the intent and experience of the New Poor Law up to the formation of the Local Government Board (LGB) in 1871.
This chapter has two tasks. The first is to clarify different senses of the term ‘dialogue’. It explores whether it implies an egalitarian relationship between institutions, whether it justifies judicial review, who has the last word under the metaphor, and how, importantly, it relates to the ‘passive virtues’ tradition of judicial restraint associated with Alexander Bickel, John Hart Ely and Cass Sunstein. The second task is to point out certain problems with the dialogue metaphor, and in particular those relating to recent reformulations of the idea. The author argues that the equivocation over who has the last word in rights disputes puts rights at substantial risk; that the dialogue metaphor pays insufficient attention to the need for finality and authoritative resolutions of law; and that the separation of powers is put in doubt where legislatures are invited to reject the constitutional interpretations of the judicial branch. Agreeing with these criticisms does not commit one to a robust view of judicial supremacy, one that makes no room for judicial restraint. To the contrary, the passive virtues tradition that dialogue theory seeks to replace or compete with has fewer of these problems.
This chapter begins by contending that social rights scholarship has been too slow in taking the broader study of welfare states and social policy seriously. In reflection on some of it, we can see emerging a frightening set of challenges for the future of social rights. They include recent trends such as collapsing support for old-left parties and unions, new vectors such as climate and demographic change and the inevitable consequences such as stealth retrenchment and intra-welfare state competition. If the law is to meet such challenges, the author argues, we must also recognize that the liberal heritage of much public law has bequeathed certain pitfalls. Ultimately, he argues that constitutional social rights should be seen as the capstone rather than foundation of a just welfare state, and that public law in particular should play a supporting rather than leading role in the show.
Deliberative democratic theory emphasises the importance of informed and reflective discussion and persuasion in political decision-making. The theory has important implications for constitutionalism - and vice versa - as constitutional laws increasingly shape and constrain political decisions. The full range of these implications has not been explored in the political and constitutional literatures to date. This unique Handbook establishes the parameters of the field of deliberative constitutionalism, which bridges deliberative democracy with constitutional theory and practice. Drawing on contributions from world-leading authors, this volume will serve as the international reference point on deliberation as a foundational value in constitutional law, and will be an indispensable resource for scholars, students and practitioners interested in the vital and complex links between democratic deliberation and constitutionalism.