Search results

It is often argued that while state rhetoric may be inclusionary, policies and practices may be exclusionary. This can imply that the power to include rests only with the state. In some ways, the implication is valid in respect of Aboriginal Australians. For instance, the Australian state has gained control of Aboriginal inclusion via a singular, bounded category and Aboriginal ideal type. However, the implication is also limited in their respect. Aborigines are abject but also agents in their relationship with the wider society. Their politics contributes to the construction of the very category and type that governs them, and presses individuals to resist state inclusionary efforts. Aboriginal political elites police the performance of an Aboriginality dominated by notions of difference and resistance. The combined processes of governance act to deny Aborigines the potential of being both Aboriginal and Australian, being different and belonging. They maintain Aborigines' marginality.

It is often argued that while state rhetoric may be inclusionary, policies and practices may be exclusionary. This can imply that the power to include rests only with the state. In some ways, the implication is valid in respect of Aboriginal Australians. For instance, the Australian state has gained control of Aboriginal inclusion via a singular, bounded category and Aboriginal ideal type. However, the implication is also limited in their respect. Aborigines are abject but also agents in their relationship with the wider society. Their politics contributes to the construction of the very category and type that governs them, and presses individuals to resist state inclusionary efforts. Aboriginal political elites police the performance of an Aboriginality dominated by notions of difference and resistance. The combined processes of governance act to deny Aborigines the potential of being both Aboriginal and Australian, being different and belonging. They maintain Aborigines' marginality.

The purpose of this research was to examine the impact that current USAF Quality Assurance (QA) manning practices has on key aircraft wing- and unit-level metrics. Interviews and surveys culminated in development of a QA Manning Effectiveness Matrix. We then used the matrix to calculate historical QA manning effectiveness at 16 ACC bases. Effectiveness scores were regressed with associated historical data for 26 metrics derived from a Delphi survey. Nine metrics were deemed statistically significant, including break rates, cannibalization rates, flying schedule effectiveness rates, key task list pass rates, maintenance scheduling effectiveness rates, quality verification inspection pass rates, repeat rates, dropped objects counts and safety/technical violations counts. An example benefit cost analysis for changes in QA manning effectiveness was performed, using reasonable cost values. The results present compelling evidence for maintenance managers to carefully weigh decisions to leave QA manning slots empty, or to assign personnel possessing other than authorized credentials. Maintenance managers can use this tool to help determine mitigating strategies for improving unit performance with respect to the nine metrics.