Suchergebnisse

In this paper, problems with the philosophy and research relating to various interpretations of "closing the gap" in educational achievement are used to open up a discussion of, and illustrate, the process whereby a narrow interpretation of "science" and neglect of systemic thinking result in the generation of huge amounts of dangerous and misleading misinformation and thence the generation of draconian and destructive policies. The paper opens by returning to an unfinished debate arising out of a summary of the unanticipated and counterintuitive effects of interventions designed to close the "attainment" gap between more and less advantaged pupils. This is used to illustrate the importance of studying the unintended as well as intended outcomes of interventions and the importance of considering whether those outcomes are desirable. More of the problems facing those who seek to contribute to evidence-based policy are then illustrated, via a discussion of an "illuminative" evaluation of competency-oriented, project-based, education conducted in the environment around a number of schools, to open a discussion of the need for comprehensive evaluation of educational—and other—projects and policies. "Comprehensive evaluation" implies the evaluation of all short and long term, personal and social, desired and desirable, and undesired and undesirable effects of the programmes and policies under investigation. When this criterion is applied to the vast number of published evaluations of school effectiveness it emerges that most fall well short of the mark. Worse than that, most of their conclusions are nothing less than seriously misleading and damaging. The generation of such misleading information is much more widespread and serious than that exposed by the "replication crisis." It is argued that, in essence, it stems from the pervasive deployment of non-systemic (viz. "reductionist") science. A range of serious deficits in the thinking and methodology of psychologists and educational researchers associated with this approach are then discussed. It is concluded that it is vital for social scientists to do what they can to rectify the situation.

Abstract
This article argues that harnessing social processes for the common good depends on creating a learning society which will innovate, learn, and evolve in the long-term public interest. In essence, this involves establishing more embedded, interconnected, and interacting, "organic" feedback (sociocybernetic) loops which do not depend on long and distorting chains of "accountability" to distant "representative" assemblies of "decision takers". Several important steps toward doing this are discussed. However, all depend on undertaking a great deal of adventurous, problem-driven (as distinct from literature-driven) research. By far the most important of these research programmes would be to develop a better understanding of the currently invisible (Kafkaesque) network of social forces that have the future of our species and the planet in their grip … and then to find ways of intervening in that network. It is suggested that this is analogous to Newton first conceptualising physical forces and then showing how to measure, map, and harness them. Answering the question of how work like Newton's could be funded and conducted in modern society – and especially under current research-funding arrangements – thus emerges as crucial to finding a way forward.

Abstract
By way of introduction I have to say that I know little about the Focolari movement or the Economy of Communion group. This paper is offered on the assumption that the movement is dedicated to the radical transformation of society and not just tinkering at the edges in order to keep the economy as we know it going.

Abstract
In this paper I first list a number of areas in which recent research seems to reinforce the need to follow through on activities identified in Simonetta Magari's article (Magari, Cavaleri 2009). A careful review of research in these areas would lead us into deeply mysterious psychological processes and underline the need to change the most fundamental assumptions on which modern psychology is built. Unfortunately, I am in no position to undertake this review.
Accordingly, I have settled for the lesser objective of discussing (i) the problems posed by the phenomenon of emergence; (ii) the dominant role that networks of external social forces play in determining behaviour (and the way these networks of social forces perpetuate and elaborate themselves), and (iii) the emergence of a network of negative social forces which seems to have the future of mankind and the planet in its grip.
I start by showing that one of the most important uses of the slippery word "intelligence" is to refer to an emergent property of a group. Groups can, to a greater or lesser extent, harness (or neglect and destroy) the diverse talents available to them to create cultures of intelligence or enterprise on the one hand and despondency and conflict on the other.
Whereas we, as a species, currently have the highest levels of individual intelligence ever, it seems that we have the lowest levels of collective intelligence ever.
But group and individual characteristics are not the only things transformed by networks of social forces. Time after time we see that well intentioned social action is transformed into its opposite by networks of social forces.
A systemogram of the social forces which transform the "educational" system into its opposite is then used as a basis for a discussion of the role of social forces more generally.
Two issues then stare one in the face. One is that our governance systems are ill equipped to promoting the kind of experimentation and societal learning that is needed…especially to enable us to survive as a species. The other is the dominance of the "sociological" forces pressing unrelentingly toward the societal hierarchy and division that is leading us so forcefully toward our self-destruction.
Unexpectedly, therefore, it emerges that two key tasks for psychologists, qua psychologists, are (i) to contribute to the design of a societal management system which will act more effectively in the long term public interest – that is to say, in the interests of maintaining life itself – and (ii) to map the network of social forces which are driving us so relentlessly toward our own extinction.

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to discuss issues and imbalances in the workforce in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) that result from the nation's relatively recent emergence as a powerful economy in the world. A federal initiative entitled Emiratization is addressed that is intended to improve employment amongst the local Emirati population who, at present, make up a minority of the working population. The role that one federal tertiary education system, the Higher Colleges of Technology (HCT), contributes to this process is discussed with specific implications and challenges for Emiratizing the education system.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on secondary research concerning employment statistics and policy in the UAE and observations of HCT, specifically the BEd program within the colleges.FindingsThree main challenges facing HCT in its attempt to train Emiratis for employment in the education sector in the UAE are discussed in the paper.Practical implicationsThere are practical implications and suggestions discussed for improving the Emiratization of the teaching sector in the UAE. This sector is highlighted as a core area for the Emiratization initiative by the paper.Originality/valueThe UAE represents a unique cultural context, a blending of languages, religion, politics and ethics, with calls for rapid modernization of its government schools. This paper maps out the growing pains and so is of value to both educators and policy makers in similar settings.

McClelland has argued that it is essential to distinguish sharply both between operant and respondent measures and between needs and values. Further, that it is not possible to develop respondent measures of needs. In this paper, it is argued that there are alternative explanations of the results which led McClelland to these conclusions. Thereafter, it is shown that McClelland's measures of needs are best understood as indices of the number of important competencies which people bring to bear to reach goals they value. The measurement paradigm embedded in these measures conflicts with the dominant psychometric paradigm. McClelland's indices are neither valuefree nor internally-consistent; they are value-based, and the scores, like multiple regression coefficients, involve summing across independent predictors of performance. This new understanding of the psychometric principles on which McClelland's measures are based points to ways in which respondent measures of needs can be developed. However, more importantly, it offers a basis on which it would be possible to develop indices of a range of vitally important human qualities, like initiative and the ability to identify and solve problems, which have eluded psychometricians for over a century.