Suchergebnisse

A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of Wolverhampton for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. ; This thesis examines the use of combined operations in the American War of Independence and the Naval War of 1812, hereafter referred to as the War of 1812. It compares the use of combined operations in both wars and examines the extent to which the use of combined operations contributed to the very different outcomes of the two wars. However, certain factors such as weather or chance referred to in this thesis as thematic constraints intervened to prevent the success of combined operations. By examining combined operations in both of these conflicts, and also the influence of the thematic constraints on combined operations, various lessons and conclusions can be drawn about combined operations as a distinct art of war by the early nineteenth century. The first war resulted in a clear British defeat and the loss of the thirteen colonies in North America. The second war ended in a political stalemate in which neither side lost any territory. This thesis demonstrates that combined operations and the associated thematic constraints were overwhelmingly influential in determining the different outcomes of the two wars. The thesis examines the lexicographical problems which arise in the definition of the term 'combined operations' and arrives at a working definition. It then argues that the objective of combined operations was to deliver a victory, but that the fog and friction of war intervened under certain circumstances in the form of the thematic constraints. Their presence could be sufficient to cause the combined operation to fail. The thematic constraints were not all equally important. Some like political constraints or defects in leadership were more important than others. The relative importance of the thematic constraints to each other and the criterion used to assess their relative importance are discussed in detail below. The thematic constraints could operate in ...

In the past year several bills and resolutions have been introduced into the United States Congress that contain provisions for the protection of seriously ill newborns in our nation's hospitals. This paper examines the role that Congress has played during the past decade in medical decisions affecting the lives of seriously ill newborns. Alternatives for future Congressional involvement in the newborn nursery are also presented. These alternatives include a general statement of national intent regarding the rights of handicapped newborns, substantive civil rights legislation prohibiting discriminatory practices against handicapped infants, the establishment of a Congressional commission, and expanded funding for research in the field of bioethics.

There is strong philosophical, legal, and empirical support for integrated educational programs for students with severe disabilities. In spite of this support, significant numbers of students with severe handicaps continue to be educated in segregated special schools. This article briefly reviews the support for integration and presents a framework for planned educational change, based on the extant racial desegregation literature. This report includes a discussion of the logistical issues facing school administrators and an analysis of effective leadership roles in the change process.

Since its original passage in 1975 as Public Law 94-142, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has been the cornerstone of practice in special education. This federal law has enabled all eligible students with disabilities to access a free and appropriate public education. During the past 2 years, the 104th Congress has debated vigorously some of the law's basic tenets (e.g., definition of disability, content of the individualized education plan [IEP], parental rights to attorneys, fees, discipline, and placement). The basic requirements of the law remain intact and continue to shape the scope and content of special education. This article addresses whether or not the assumptions upon which IDEA is based remain valid as we approach the 21st century. We critique these assumptions within the context of four requirements of IDEA: (a) eligibility and labeling, (b) free and appropriate public education, (c) the individualized education program (IEP), and (d) the least restrictive environment. Recommendations for changes in existing law relative to each of the above requirements are presented.

This paper develops a framework for improved mainstreaming of ecosystem science in policy and decision-making within a spatial planning context. Ecosystem science is advanced as a collective umbrella to capture a body of work and approaches rooted in social-ecological systems thinking, spawning a distinctive ecosystem terminology: ecosystem approach, ecosystem services, ecosystem services framework and natural capital. The interface between spatial planning and ecosystem science is explored as a theoretical opportunity space to improve mainstreaming processes adapting Rogers' (2003) diffusion model. We introduce the twin concepts of hooks (linking ecosystem science to a key policy or legislative term, duty or priority that relate to a particular user group) and 'bridges' (linking ecosystem science to a term, concept or policy priority that is used and readily understood across multiple groups and publics) as translational mechanisms in transdisciplinary mainstreaming settings. We argue that ecosystem science can be embedded into the existing work priorities and vocabularies of spatial planning practice using these hooks and bridges. The resultant framework for mainstreaming is then tested, drawing on research funded as part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On programme (2012-2014), within 4 case studies; each reflecting different capacities, capabilities, opportunities and barriers. The results reveal the importance of leadership, political buy in, willingness to experiment outside established comfort zones and social learning as core drivers supporting mainstreaming processes. Whilst there are still significant challenges in mainstreaming in spatial planning settings, the identification and use of hooks and bridges collectively, enables traction to be gained for further advances; moving beyond the status quo to generate additionality and potential behaviour change within different modes of mainstreaming practice. This pragmatic approach has global application to help improve the way nature is respected and taken account of in planning systems nationally and globally.

This paper develops a framework for improved mainstreaming of ecosystem science in policy and decision-making within a spatial planning context. Ecosystem science is advanced as a collective umbrella to capture a body of work and approaches rooted in social-ecological systems thinking, spawning a distinctive ecosystem terminology: ecosystem approach, ecosystem services, ecosystem services framework and natural capital. The interface between spatial planning and ecosystem science is explored as a theoretical opportunity space to improve mainstreaming processes adapting Rogers' (2003) diffusion model. We introduce the twin concepts of hooks (linking ecosystem science to a key policy or legislative term, duty or priority that relate to a particular user group) and 'bridges' (linking ecosystem science to a term, concept or policy priority that is used and readily understood across multiple groups and publics) as translational mechanisms in transdisciplinary mainstreaming settings. We argue that ecosystem science can be embedded into the existing work priorities and vocabularies of spatial planning practice using these hooks and bridges. The resultant framework for mainstreaming is then tested, drawing on research funded as part of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment Follow-On programme (2012–2014), within 4 case studies; each reflecting different capacities, capabilities, opportunities and barriers. The results reveal the importance of leadership, political buy in, willingness to experiment outside established comfort zones and social learning as core drivers supporting mainstreaming processes. Whilst there are still significant challenges in mainstreaming in spatial planning settings, the identification and use of hooks and bridges collectively, enables traction to be gained for further advances; moving beyond the status quo to generate additionality and potential behaviour change within different modes of mainstreaming practice. This pragmatic approach has global application to help improve the way nature is respected and taken account of in planning systems nationally and globally.