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.
Like Chapter 7, this chapter also discusses the sequencing of case study designs. Here we particularly focus on the deductive–inductive sequencing. Using an exemplar case study, we discuss how prediction outliers (deviant cases) identified during the initial study can guide the sequencing of designs in further stages. In the context of the example, we discuss the research question, theoretical sampling, cases, levels of analysis, and the potential requirement for additional data collection. Furthermore, we discuss the issue of omitted variable bias and internal validity in the context of sequenced case study designs. We end the chapter with a discussion on how to report sequenced case studies following deductive–inductive reasoning.
In this chapter, we move on from the archetypical to the sequenced case study designs. First of all, we discuss what sequencing case study designs entail. Using an illustrative example, we discuss one type of sequencing in detail (i.e. the inductive-deductive sequencing). In the context of the example, we discuss the research question, theoretical sampling, controls, cases, embedded units, and the levels of analysis involved in the sequenced design. Lastly, we briefly discuss how to report the sequenced case study design.
The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of farmer recognition and reporting of lameness in their sheep flock when compared with the prevalence of lameness observed by a researcher. Thirty-five sheep farms were visited. Farmers were asked for estimates of the prevalence of lameness in 2008, in the flock and in one group of sheep that was inspected by the researcher the same day. These estimates were then compared with the researcher's estimate of lameness. All farmers were able to recognise lame sheep but they slightly under reported the prevalence of lameness in the group selected for examination when compared with the researcher's estimate. The proportion underestimated increased as the prevalence of lameness in the group increased. Farmer estimates on the day were consistently, closely and significantly correlated to that of the researcher's estimate of prevalence of lameness. We conclude that farmer estimates of prevalence of lameness in sheep are a sufficiently accurate and reliable tool for risk factor studies. The prevalence of lameness in sheep, nationally, is probably higher than the current estimate of 10% by 2-3%.
There is a paradox in the American narrative of Mass Incarceration. In theory, making criminal laws more severe should not lead to large prison populations in the long term. That’s because as laws become more severe, crime becomes increasingly unattractive. That should lead, over time, to less crime and shrinking prison populations. No crime is worth the punishments currently on the books. And by now, decades into “tough on crime” policies, everyone should know that crime doesn’t pay. There should be no drug dealing, no unlawful weapons possession, no violence, no repeat offenders. It may sound silly, but if you look at the claims politicians made about why they were increasing criminal severity, this was the idea.
Despite increasing awareness and high-level commitments on disability inclusion by humanitarian donors and actors, persons with disabilities continue to be ignored from humanitarian assistance. Rights and inclusion of persons with disabilities are a foreign policy priority for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland, including in humanitarian assistance. The primary means for donors, such as Finland, to promote disability-inclusive humanitarian action are funding and advocacy. Trade-offs between flexible and earmarked funding for disability inclusion are challenging when reporting on results is inadequate. This article shares examples on how the Ministry promotes inclusion of persons with disabilities in humanitarian action and explores challenges that need to be resolved by stakeholders.
Clear understanding of artificial intelligence (AI) usage risks and how they are being addressed is needed, which requires proper and adequate corporate disclosure. We advance a legal framework for AI Fairness Reporting to which companies can and should adhere on a comply-or-explain basis. We analyse the sources of unfairness arising from different aspects of AI models and the disparities in the performance of machine learning systems. We evaluate how the machine learning literature has sought to address the problem of unfairness through the use of different fairness metrics. We then put forward a nuanced and viable framework for AI Fairness Reporting comprising: (1) disclosure of all machine learning models usage; (2) disclosure of fairness metrics used and the ensuing trade-offs; (3) disclosure of de-biasing methods used; and (d) release of datasets for public inspection or for third-party audit. We then apply this reporting framework to two case studies.
Climate change and the pursuit of sustainability and sustainable business might be regarded as among the world’s “wicked problems”, especially as they are multi-dimensional problems. Achieving corporate accountability in this context is also difficult when corporate structures are complex as they operate globally and through supply chains. At the European level, under the Green Deal, the Sustainable Finance Initiative and the Sustainable Corporate Governance Initiative include new reporting requirements to amend and expand the scope and application of the 2014 Non-Financial Reporting Directive, alongside changes to directors’ duties to ensure they take account of stakeholders’ needs and environmental and human rights due diligence requirements. This paper will argue that these legislative and regulatory efforts are to be welcomed, but the complexity of the regulation threatens to undermine its potential impact. It may therefore be necessary to reduce some of the complexity of the regulatory arrangements. However, some complexity may increase resilience and adaptability for responding to the risks involved in the uncertainty and unpredictability of climate change and in dealing with complex corporate structures. The answer is to provide robust regulation that will prompt the corporate behaviours required to avoid the catastrophic trajectory we currently face.
This chapter explores the various aspects of planning for effective implementation and enactment of the Australian Curriculum: Health and Physical Education . Most Australian, states and territories are now working with this curriculum or their own version of it.
Recently, the Chinese government has advocated a shift in focus from quantity expansion to quality promotion in the field of higher education, with a specific emphasis on enhancing the research competence of higher education institutions. Since 2012, a new state-held “National College Student Innovation and Entrepreneurship Training Program” has pushed undergraduate research (UR) in China to its peak. Tsinghua University, a leading university in science and engineering in the country, is one of the first higher education institutions to promote UR in China and is China’s flagship endeavor. In the future, it is likely there will be a disciplinary balance that maintains the emphasis on science and technology but increases the proportions of humanities and social sciences. Formative assessment is needed for the management and reporting of UR programs. Moreover, further actions must be taken to grant Chinese higher education institutions more autonomy to design UR programs consistent with their own academic strengths.
With personal information an overt ‘site of struggle’ in contemporary politics, how do non-state actors gather data but also craft their authority to do so? This chapter shifts the site of Informational Relations spatially, away from the lofty ‘international’, as well as temporally, to earlier in this chain of events. The authority of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to gather data is often treated as antecedent, but collecting Others’ information and acting as repositories are themselves invocations of authority. While a key driver of this book has been the importance of ideas in crafting everyday authority, legitimation’s material consequences are highly conspicuous in this process of gathering information: it is a core NGO ‘currency’. This chapter focuses on the collection of data, whereby the authority of NGOs is instantiated through acts of monitoring and verification, both laterally with respect to peers and vertically to communities. It pits NGO against NGO; NGO against local government; village volunteers against their leaders and peers. NGOs thus find themselves enmeshed within a complex informational ecosystem that is truly global. Given the clear fungibility of information, the gathering of data proved one of the most contentious legitimation practices.
As teachers we are always accountable to learners, parents and caregivers, the education system we are employed by and our community more broadly for the learning we plan and implement in the classroom. Our goal is to facilitate the learning process for all the individuals in our classrooms and our effectiveness is most often judged by learners’ achievements. While the content in this chapter provides rich examples of assessment in primary English and literacy, the principles and terms discussed apply across all stages of education and key learning areas. This chapter underlines the complexity of authentic or educative English and literacy assessment. It begins by considering definitions for many of the key assessment terms in use in education contexts, including ‘evaluation’, ‘assessment’ and ‘measurement’. The importance of implementing inclusive and authentic assessment practices is discussed along with formative assessment processes (assessment for learning) and summative (assessment of learning) and assessment as learning strategies. A range of examples and case studies follow. Each demonstrate the relationship between curriculum and assessment in English and literacy.
In Chapter 10, I discuss the moral context of research interpretation and reporting. I describe interpretation as the constitution of evidence within an epistemic frame characterized by the totality of (always at least partly moral) commitments underlying analytic choices. These analytic choices include those concerning what is worthy of study, what kinds of methods and forms of evidence are considered acceptable, and what kinds of claims are warrantable. I also emphasize the ways that evidence is not merely gathered nor reported, but constituted within a rhetorical and political context. In the latter half of the chapter, I discuss the moral affordances of research reporting, focusing on questions of fairness, honesty, representation, and other considerations involved in report authoring. I focus specifically on questions of: collaboration and credit; style and representation; venue, availability, and audience; submission, editorial, and revision; and the dissemination and use of research reports.
Health economic evaluations are comparative analyses of alternative courses of action in terms of their costs and consequences. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement, published in 2013, was created to ensure health economic evaluations are identifiable, interpretable, and useful for decision making. It was intended as guidance to help authors report accurately which health interventions were being compared and in what context, how the evaluation was undertaken, what the findings were, and other details that may aid readers and reviewers in interpretation and use of the study. The new CHEERS 2022 statement replaces previous CHEERS reporting guidance. It reflects the need for guidance that can be more easily applied to all types of health economic evaluation, new methods and developments in the field, as well as the increased role of stakeholder involvement including patients and the public. It is also broadly applicable to any form of intervention intended to improve the health of individuals or the population, whether simple or complex, and without regard to context (such as health care, public health, education, social care, etc.). This summary article presents the new CHEERS 2022 28-item checklist and recommendations for each item. The CHEERS 2022 statement is primarily intended for researchers reporting economic evaluations for peer-reviewed journals, as well as the peer reviewers and editors assessing them for publication. However, we anticipate familiarity with reporting requirements will be useful for analysts when planning studies. It may also be useful for health technology assessment bodies seeking guidance on reporting, as there is an increasing emphasis on transparency in decision making.
This chapter considers why, in light of globalisation, it is necessary to move beyond the domestic sphere to consider the role of international mechanisms when seeking to achieve the twin goals of enhancing corporate decision-making surrounding fundamental rights and developing the substantive content of corporate obligations. Where existing mechanisms are not silent concerning those obligations, they either tend to read off corporate obligations directly from state obligations or to conflate impacts with violations. Most current structures are ‘soft’ and thus have limited authority to issue guidance. I make proposals for reforms to existing initiatives – including the United Nations Guiding Principles - and for establishing new institutional mechanisms that would be capable of providing relatively authoritative guidance in relation to corporate obligations. The multi-factoral model is proposed as a basis for structuring the reasoning of those mechanisms around and deepening our understanding of those obligations.
This chapter considers the institutional implications of the multi-factoral model in national law. Given its involving an ineliminable need for judgment, this chapter argues for an approach to law reform that focuses on enhancing the quality of decision-making within the corporation surrounding its fundamental rights obligations. Doing so, I argue requires focusing much attention on reforms to corporate law that can help ‘constitutionalise’ fundamental rights within the basic legal structure of the corporation itself. I propose a series of law reforms that include expanding the diversity of the directors; developing a new fiduciary duty specifically relating to fundamental rights; enhancing disclosure requirements; developing a new enforcement action allowing directors to be sued in their personal capacity for rights violations; creating regulatory fines and financial penalties for rights violations; implementing an enhanced framework for shareholder obligations; rejecting the business judgment rule where fundamental rights are involved; and the utilisation of dialogical remedies by courts.
Institutional weaknesses can be attributed to limited human and/or financial capacity, limited accountability, limited commitment and limited fiscal capacity. Ignoring institutional limitations increases the odds of inefficient regulation, undesirable social side effects and excessive fiscal burdens. To address some of the limitations, most countries have created specialized separate regulatory agencies (SRA). The SRA model has been less popular for water and transport regulation, which continues to be largely managed by units within ministries or agencies directly controlled by the ministries, than for telecoms and electricity. Countries with overlapping and interconnected network facilities are increasingly considering moving part of the regulatory responsibilities to supranational agencies. In contrast to the theoretical predictions, the empirical evidence on the effectiveness of SRAs in terms of efficiency, equity, financial/fiscal viability and accountability is mixed. There is no single perfect institutional solution that applies to all sectors and all countries. The existence of an agency is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for performance improvements of a public utility. Hybrid models that combine traditional visions with more modern approaches, which include a role for civil society and for expert panels, can be better to match the local country context.
Throughout your teaching career you will hear, and use, the terms ‘curriculum’, ‘pedagogy’, ‘assessment’ and ‘reporting’ often. Each of these terms has been interpreted in different ways and, throughout the history of formal education, one or the other has been often at the forefront of educational thinking and practice. We consider that these four areas are inextricably interwoven and changes in policy or practice in one area influence each of the others.
In this chapter you will be introduced to some of the literature, research and practice that will help you understand curriculum, pedagogy, assessment and reporting. We will discuss the interrelationship and alignment of these four areas, and you will be able to reflect on how changes in each of these areas at a national, system or school level will impact on your day-to-day work as a teacher.
Scientific reporting on major incidents, mass-casualty incidents (MCIs), and disasters is challenging and made difficult by the nature of the medical response. Many obstacles might explain why there are few and primarily non-heterogenous published articles available. This study examines the process of scientific reporting through first-hand experiences from authors of published reports. It aims to identify learning points and challenges that are important to address to mitigate and improve scientific reporting after major incidents.
This was a qualitative study design using semi-structured interviews. Participants were selected based on a comprehensive literature search. Ten researchers, who had published reports on major incidents, MCIs, or disasters from 2013-2018 were included, of both genders, from eight countries on three continents. The researchers reported on large fires, terrorist attacks, shootings, complex road accidents, transportation accidents, and earthquakes.
The interview was themed around initiation, workload, data collection, guidelines/templates, and motivation factors for reporting. The most challenging aspects of the reporting process proved to be a lack of dedicated time, difficulties concerning data collection, and structuring the report. Most researchers had no prior experience in reporting on major incidents. Guidelines and templates were often chosen based on how easily accessible and user-friendly they were.
Conclusion and Relevance:
There are few articles presenting first-hand experience from the process of scientific reporting on major incidents, MCIs, and disasters. This study presents motivation factors, challenges during reporting, and factors that affected the researchers’ choice of reporting tools such as guidelines and templates. This study shows that the structural tools available for gathering data and writing scientific reports need to be more widely promoted to improve systematic reporting in Emergency and Disaster Medicine. Through gathering, comparing, and analyzing data, knowledge can be acquired to strengthen and improve responses to future major incidents. This study indicates that transparency and willingness to share information are requisite for forming a successful scientific report.
This chapter distills the ocean of news stories and commentary produced by the press between 1914 and 1919 into a manageable narrative about press practice during and immediately after the war. Journalists’ work during the war was suffused with themes of order, progress, and rational efficiency. This sense of nearly boundless optimism—striking in light of the catastrophic nature of the war--has been largely lost in the historiography of the period. The chapter describes and analyzes this spirit of publicity, an ethos about pragmatic democracy that involved both politics and the professionalization of journalism, public accountability, and civic reform. After a broad account of press coverage of the first years of the war, the chapter surveys most of the major magazines and about a half-dozen newspapers from 1918-1919 to analyze the way the press was involved in the resolution of the war.