In 2001, Colquitt developed an Organizational Justice Scale that intended to measure procedural, distributive, interpersonal, and informational justice. The dimensionality of the scale has been tested in subsequent studies with diverging results. Given the fact that contextual differences may account for more variation across research sites than individual differences, the deviating research findings may be due to context. This study examined the dimensionality of Colquitt's Organizational Justice Scale in a new context: the public health sector. The procedural and informational justice dimensions were highly correlated, but confirmatory factor analysis showed that a four-factor solution provided a better fit than a three-factor solution. All fit indices for the four-factor model were consistent with a good model. There was, however, evidence of a potential omitted factor, procedural-voice justice, which has also been found in a previous examination of the measure in the public sector.
Aim/Purpose: The aim of this study is to contribute to current knowledge of team supervision. Specifically, we examine the relationship between main supervisor and co-supervisor regarding credibility in the division of roles and responsibilities within supervision teams. Background: The overall intention of this article is to provide more information about the dynamics in the relationship between supervisors and to identify and describe the mechanisms that support the doctoral students in their endeavor for doctorateness. Methodology: A qualitative descriptive approach combined with a thematic analysis is used to analyze in-depth interviews with ten supervisors working in five different doctoral supervision teams. Contribution: The body of literature in the field of doctoral supervision at Norwegian universities is scarce. Moreover, the supervisor perspective has received less attention than the doctoral student perspective. We contribute to reduce this knowledge gap by bringing forward the voices of five supervisor teams at three different universities. Findings: The informants of this study reported that the responsibilities within their respective supervisor teams were clarified and well understood. There was a unanimous agreement that the main responsibility of the supervisor process lays with the main supervisor. Furthermore, it was claimed that this main responsibility includes both monitoring progress, ensuring feasibility, and acting if something is not going according to plan. Our results clearly support the fact that there is power imbalance within the teams, but this does not seem to lead to any conflicts in our sample. Although the power dynamics took on a hierarchical form as opposed to a horizontal form, none of the informants mentioned conflicts related to division of responsibility. Recommendations for Practitioners: This paper invites others to consider their learning journey as well as their experience and reflection of the relationship between main supervisor and co-supervisor within supervision teams. Recommendation for Researchers: The study provides a framework for exploring power dynamics in the relationship between main supervisor and co-supervisor regarding the division of roles and responsibilities within a supervisory team from different institutions and academic fields. Impact on Society: Providing better team supervision for doctoral students is crucial for creating doctorateness. Clarity about division of responsibility and power is of crucial importance for the well-functioning of supervisor teams. Future Research: We recommend future research to examine whether the findings presented here could be replicated in other supervisory contexts. New studies should aim to use additional data collection approaches such as focus groups, including doctoral students, as well as obtaining data via survey approaches. Future research could benefit from a multi-pronged data collection approach, which was not feasible within the current project.
Recent research in the broad field of leadership has demonstrated a need for better understanding of the process of becoming a leader because it might be qualitatively different to being a leader. If so, there is likely to be a need for pedagogies designed deliberately to support first-time outdoor leadership experiences and any such pedagogies must be informed by the needs of first-time leaders. Becoming a leader in outdoor educational settings involves moving from the relative equality of being one participant among several in a group to a position of some influence in the group. In business settings, the process of becoming a leader has been found to involve four transformations: in understanding of leadership; in interpersonal judgment; in self-knowledge; and in coping with the stress of leadership. This paper draws on empirical data from in-depth semistructured interviews with adult outdoor education (friluftsliv) students in Norway to explore factors influencing experiences of becoming an outdoor leader in a formal educational setting. We found that becoming an outdoor leader involves some of the transformations found elsewhere and that these transformations can be complicated by the educational setting. We discuss implications for pedagogical approaches to outdoor leadership development in formal education settings.
Faced with increased global migration, there is a growing concern that social workers need more training in- and knowledge of culture and ethnicity. These understandings have come to influence research, education, practice, codes of ethics and organizational policy, constituting a multicultural discourse within the field of social work. Social workers are expected to have cultural competence, and exercise cultural sensitivity in their practice. However, a clear and consistent understanding of what it means to be culturally competent or culturally sensitive is missing, and there seems to be little consensus in how to define and apply these concepts, both within research and practice. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to synthesize what previous empirical research reports about social workers’ understandings and experiences when operationalizing the concepts into practice. Through data-based and a manual journal search, 12 qualitative empirical studies were included in the synthesis. Our analysis describes four main challenges in the studies’ efforts to operationalize the cultural concepts in social work practice: 1) Who to define as culturally diverse service-users; 2) What aspects of culture to consider in the encounters with culturally diverse service-users; 3) How to consider and approach these aspects of culture, and 4) the capacity to work in a culturally appropriate manner within the organizational context where this work is undertaken. The literature acknowledges these challenges to varying degrees. We summarize the four challenges in a model, and argue that the model can be useful in further awareness-raising, development and integration of our understandings of cross-cultural social work. By depicting the essential questions of who, what, how and where to employ the concepts into practice, we aim to assist scholars, practitioners and educators to help navigate the multifaceted landscape of culture and social work.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.