Suchergebnisse

The Navajo Nation sued the United States government alleging the government breached its trust obligation over the allocation of water rights in the Colorado River Basin. On remand, the district court denied the Navajo Nation leave to file its third amended complaint for futility, holding that the general trust relationship was insufficient to support the Nation's breach of trust claim.

As a growing entity within higher education organizational structures, enrollment managers (EMs) are primarily tasked with projecting, recruiting, and retaining the student population of their campuses. Enrollment managers are expected by institutional presidents as well as through industry standards to make data‐driven planning decisions to reach their goals. However, despite the availability of data, some enrollment managers revealed a different reality from traditional, rational decision‐making models. This study explored the factors that contributed to or influenced the decision‐making process of six enrollment managers working in either two‐ or four‐year public colleges and universities located in the Midwestern United States. Interviews, including a word association exercise, documents and artifacts of tools utilized to make enrollment management ecisions, and observational field notes were gathered and analyzed in this qualitative study grounded in constructionism. Using the theories of Bounded Rationality and the Garbage Can model as lenses, EMs in this study seemed to reflect a highly stressful, competitive, and complex environment where rational decision‐making gave way to satisficing, or "good‐enough" decisions as expectations to meet enrollment goals governed their motives. Decisions also appeared to be closely associated to the Garbage Can Model due to the ambiguity of goal setting and the mixture of participants, problems, and solutions where temporal proximity appeared to be more of a factor in terms of what received attention first. With multiple interruptions into an EM's daily schedule, the ability for the enrollment manager to maintain consistent efforts on desired projects and plans was severely hindered. Enrollment managers in this study shared through multiple examples that they did not feel they had enough time to accomplish their tasks as thoroughly as they preferred and often addressed their problems without full consideration of all possible options, much less the optimal one.

This article compares research identifying the systemic barriers to disability access and inclusion in two regional Australian cities, and discusses some of the leadership and design challenges that will need to be addressed by government and industry to embed universal design principles within the planning, development, and redevelopment of urban infrastructure. In Geelong, Victoria, given the often-opaque decision-making dynamics at play in the urban planning and development of cities, the disability community sought a more holistic and consultative approach to addressing access and inclusion. Systems-thinking for a collective impact approach was used to generate recommendations for action around improving universal design regulations, community attitudes to disability, access to information, accessible housing, partnerships, and disability employment. At Bunbury, Western Australia, a similar project analysed systemic factors affecting universal design at a local government level, and recommended a suite of safeguards for universal design including staff training, policies and procedures, best practice benchmarks, technical support and engagement in co-design. We describe the process followed in both studies to identify how, through collaborative and action-oriented research methods, the studies identified key technical, cultural, political, and structural changes required to achieve equitable access and inclusion in the urban landscape.

"In 2018, William Lane Craig and Erik J. Wielenberg participated in a debate at North Carolina State University, addressing the question: "God and Morality: What is the best account of objective moral values and duties?" Craig argued that theism provides a sound foundation for objective morality whereas atheism does not. Wielenberg countered that morality can be objective even if there is no God. This book includes the full debate, as well as endnotes with extended discussions that were not included in the debate. It also includes five chapters by other philosophers who have written substantive responses to the debate - J. P. Moreland, David Baggett, Mark Linville, Wes Morriston, and Michael Huemer. The book provides crucial resources for better understanding moral realism and its dependence on, or independence from, theistic foundations. Key features a valuable debate about whether or not God is the best explanation for objective morality, bringing together theists and atheists working on the same subject who normally are not in conversation with each other. Includes clear coverage of ontological and epistemological issues in metaethical theories, focusing on Divine Command Theory and Non-natural Robust Moral Realism. Engaging and accessible throughout, making the book well suited for undergraduate and seminary classrooms"--

Social policy is often constructed and implemented by people who have little experience of its impact as a service user, but there has been a growing interest in greater public, patient and service user involvement in social policy as both political activity and academic discipline. Social Policy First Hand is the first comprehensive international social policy text from a participatory perspective and presents a new service user-led social policy that addresses the current challenges in welfare provision. A companion volume to Peter Beresford's bestselling All our welfare, it introduces the voices of different groups of service users, starting from their lived experience. With an impressive list of contributors, this important volume fills a gap in looking at social policy using participatory and inclusive approaches and the use of experiential knowledge in its construction. It will challenge traditional state and market-led approaches to welfare