Suchergebnisse

This article integrates previous research on program implementation and extends it to form a participatory approach to evaluating program implementation. A central focus of this method is the continuous, active involvement of program developers, managers, and staff in the evaluation process. The methodology accomplishes this goal while maintaining a high degree of methodological rigor. Initially, program documents are reviewed and several meetings are arranged to discuss the program's activities with program developers, management, and staff. From these documents and meetings, a series of items describing each program activity and three possible levels of implementation are created and formulated into an implementation inventory. Multiple methods for measuring implementation level are then developed in consultation with program developers, management, and staff. Following the collection of data, levels of implementation are determined, and this information is fed back to all concerned parties. Advantages of the participatory approach include increased cooperation of program manage ment and staff; the setting of quantitatively based, realistic levels of implementation; and the combined usage of quantitative and qualitative information. Throughout the article, the basic procedures are illustrated through the application of the method to an actual program.

Third party interventions designed to de-escalate intergroup conflict can be differentiated by their underlying assumptions regarding conflict. Process-oriented approaches such as third-party consultation try to de-escalate conflict by taking a subjective emphasis and focusing on the basic relationship between parties, their attitudes, and their perceptions. Traditional third-party interventions, particularly mediation, try to de-escalate conflict by focusing more on the substantive issues in dispute. This study examines how mediation and consultation operate differently within an intergroup conflict simulation. The Intergroup Conflict Simlatllion (Grant, Fisher, Hall, & Keashly, 1990) creates a moderately intense resource and value conflict which involves two equal power groups negotiating for points in a dispute over land divisions. A consultation or a mediation intervention was introduced midway through intergroup negotiations. The results showed that the two interventions did not have a differential impact on settlement of land divisions. Consultation and mediation groups achieved similar point outcomes and were equally committed to and satisfied with the settlement. In contrast, the consultation intervention changed the relationship between the groups. In particular, the groups expressed more positive attitudes and perceptions about the other group and perceived the intergroup relationship as more positive and collaborative after intervention. The implications of these results for third party intervention in intergroup conflict are discussed.

In the month approaching the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, we tested the Identity‐Deprivation‐Efficacy‐Action‐Subjective Well‐Being model using an electorally representative survey of Scottish adults (N = 1,156) to predict voting for independence and subjective well‐being. Based on social identity theory, we hypothesized for voting intention that the effects of collective relative deprivation, group identification, and collective efficacy, but not personal relative deprivation (PRD), should be fully mediated by social change ideology. Well‐being was predicted to be associated with PRD (negatively) and group identification (positively and, indirectly, negatively). Unaffected by demographic variables and differences in political interest, nested structural equation model tests supported the model, accounting for 82% of the variance in voting intention and 31% of the variance in subjective well‐being. However, effects involving efficacy depended on its temporal framing. We consider different ways that social identification can simultaneously enhance and diminish well‐being and we discuss ramifications of the model for collective mobilization and separatist nationalism. Findings also suggest new directions for research on social identity, collective efficacy, and collective action.

In the month approaching the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum, we tested the Identity‐Deprivation‐Efficacy‐Action‐Subjective Well‐Being model using an electorally representative survey of Scottish adults (N = 1,156) to predict voting for independence and subjective well‐being. Based on social identity theory, we hypothesized for voting intention that the effects of collective relative deprivation, group identification, and collective efficacy, but not personal relative deprivation (PRD), should be fully mediated by social change ideology. Well‐being was predicted to be associated with PRD (negatively) and group identification (positively and, indirectly, negatively). Unaffected by demographic variables and differences in political interest, nested structural equation model tests supported the model, accounting for 82% of the variance in voting intention and 31% of the variance in subjective well‐being. However, effects involving efficacy depended on its temporal framing. We consider different ways that social identification can simultaneously enhance and diminish well‐being and we discuss ramifications of the model for collective mobilization and separatist nationalism. Findings also suggest new directions for research on social identity, collective efficacy, and collective action.

Ecologists can spend a lifetime researching a small patch of the earth, studying the interactions between organisms and the environment, and exploring the roles those interactions play in determining distribution, abundance, and evolutionary change. With so few ecologists and so many systems to study, generalizations are essential. But how do you extrapolate knowledge about a well-studied area and apply it elsewhere? Through a range of original essays written by eminent ecologists and naturalists, The Ecology of Place explores how place-focused research yields exportable general knowledge as well as practical local knowledge, and how society can facilitate ecological understanding by investing in field sites, place-centered databases, interdisciplinary collaborations, and field-oriented education programs that emphasize natural history. This unique patchwork of case-study narratives, philosophical musings, and historical analyses is tied together with commentaries from editors Ian Billick and Mary Price that develop and synthesize common threads. The result is a unique volume rich with all-too-rare insights into how science is actually done, as told by scientists themselves.