To save 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 saving content to .
To save 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 saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved 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.
There is currently no generally accepted formula for the optimal timing of health technology assessments (HTAs). This paper presents some of the relevant issues and then reviews the existing literature on timing of HTAs. It finds that the literature that specifically addresses these issues is limited. There is a consensus that HTAs should be initiated at an early stage of the development of a new health technology, and repeated during the life cycle of the technology. However, the questions of reliably identifying new technologies at an early stage in their development and of deciding on a detectable critical point for starting evaluation are not resolved. It is proposed that a system of categorization and prioritization of health technologies should be developed to allow decisions to be made as to when a strongly precautionary approach is required and how the limited resources available for HTA could be optimally deployed.
This chapter explores the interface between the family and one of our main public institutions. The introductory chapter pointed to the ways in which traditional notions of family life still tend to dominate public policy provision, being based, for example, on (gendered) understandings of the availability of family members to perform certain caring or socialisation functions. Families, as we have seen, are accepted as appropriate sites for the socialisation of children, but it is also clear that society, since the mid-19th century, has also taken the view that the family should not be left on its own to perform this function in so far as it is construed in terms of providing an appropriate education for children. Public institutions like schools have traditionally been seen as sites of hegemonic discourse, where public notions of appropriate childhood behaviour and good parenting, for example, are instilled through both the formal and the hidden curricula and through social relations between school and family members. The calculation of how far professionals could intrude on and determine the agenda of private family life, or how far families could retreat into the private territory of the family to evade professional demands and claims on their behaviour, makes fascinating reading over the last hundred and thirty odd years since the 1870 Education Act. Thus boundaries between families and school have often been identified as confusing, ambiguous and even dangerous. A combination of macro social trends and policy responses to perceived social problems in the last few years seems, however, to have altered the boundary conditions between state and family over schooling and makes this an area worth revisiting.
Perhaps most marked has been a shift whereby it is no longer appropriate for parents as proxy education service users to be merely passive recipients of service. Instead a normalising discourse now operates where active participation by parents is seen as key to children's success. The rhetoric of citizenship and the imperative to participate which had been evident in other policy areas (Peterson and Lupton, 1996) appeared in the UK Conservative government reforms of education in the 1980s and 1990s. These saw the ‘rebadging’ of education and other public service users (for example parents, not children, and patients) as consumers and signalled a growth in the marketisation of education (Ball, 1995; Dehli, 1996).
The paper explores whether key oil and gas companies are expressing awareness of the work–family debate and reports findings from an ongoing three-year study, funded by the ESRC, which provides an account of the work-family interface in relation to the oil and gas industry. Although this paper is informed by our research as a whole, it draws on a specific subset of our data, namely in-depth interviews with human resource personnel in eighteen oil and gas companies (see Table 1). Companies determined who should be interviewed and this varied depending on size, internal functional design (e.g. geographical location of senior staff), and the extent to which the research was seen to be of value. In eight companies, the interviews were conducted with the most senior human resources manager, while in others the personnel interviewed had titles such as ‘employee relations manager’ or ‘support services manager’. American, Canadian, Italian, French, Norwegian and British-owned firms are included. Interviews lasted between one and one-and-a-half hours.
The slow progress in providing community-based care for mentally ill people and thus closing large psychiatric institutions has been well researched and documented. The enquiries have typically sought to demonstrate the gap between national policy intent and reality and have highlighted the structural, financial and organisational barriers to achieving new forms of service provision. Equally, an important recent study has shown that there are marked intra-Britain differences in how the assumed unitary national policy is interpreted and implemented. There is general agreement that the present ‘statutory framework’ inhibits radical service change and, furthermore, that centralised planning, joint-working, joint-planning mechanisms are flawed and underpinned by a poorly formulated financial and manpower strategy. Some management ‘process’ factors have also been isolated such as the presence/absence of clear leadership and ‘committed local champions of change’. The issue of ‘interprofessional tensions’ has been only briefly alluded to, with even less recognition of how the other powerful organisational groups interrelate. Certainly, there has been little ethnographic detail of how these tensions between dominant groups are played out at a local level or indeed impinge on local decision-making and progress. More typically, existing accounts of the closure of the large institutions have had a structuralist bias, with more emphasis upon the impact of regional and national policy and on the machinery of collaboration than on internal politics or the effects of local power relations.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.