In long-term interaction (over minutes, hours, or days) the tight cycle of action and feedback is broken. People have to remember that they have to do things, that other people should do things and why things happen when they do. This paper describes some results of a study into long-term processes associated with the running of the HCI'95 conference.The focus is on the events which trigger the occurrence of activities. However, during the study we also discovered a recurrent pattern of activities and triggers we have called the 4Rs. For a longer report see [2].
The author devised the Challenging Behaviour Scales (CBS) in response to the task of evaluating how much impact a ward-based intervention had on the challenging behaviour of the men who lived there. They were used as one of a "battery" of ten research methods; adding a quantitative assessment to what were largely qualitative techniques. This paper aims to describe the CBS, as opposed to project outcomes, in the belief that it has potential for wider application within areas of evaluational research. The background and objectives of the CBS are outlined, along with a description of the construction of its two parts: the Frequency and Intensity sections.Production of the accompanying Manual is also described,as well as the reliability checks, scoring methods, and staff comments obtained after application of the CBS. Finally, suggestions are made about ways in which data produced from this model of scale development can be analysed, and the author clarifies the position that she believes this type of behavioural assessment has in evaluational work. Additional suggestions are made for people who may wish to use the model of construction underlying the CBS elsewhere."Demonstrating that behaviour has changed as a result of a programmatic intervention serves as the major mandate f o r virtually all programme evaluators" (Jones, 1974;l).
The Supreme Court in Swann drove the yellow school bus down the road of racial reform. And a bumpy journey it would prove to be. Why, one wonders, did the Court choose busing among all the alternatives available? Why, moreover, was that choice unanimous? Why, lastly, had several justices even swallowed their personal misgivings to join the opinion? For the Court’s commitment to this fateful step, there exist various explanations. One is that the Court never anticipated just how much opposition compulsory busing would provoke. Northern sentiment had not yet been aroused at the time of Swann; South Boston was but a speck on the racial horizon. The justices might still have believed opposition to busing just another eruption of the same southern temper that had produced Little Rock, Prince Edward, and the ugly happenings at Lamar. By 1970, moreover, the Court was most impatient with the South and more than a little embarrassed that sixteen years after Brown the task of southern integration remained incomplete. Thus Swann seemed the final step in the South’s subjugation. That busing would soon become the hottest issue of national domestic politics, the justices had not as yet fully foreseen. There was more to the Court’s approval of busing than integrating the South. Green had whetted the Court’s appetite for numbers. Black-white percentages at last gave the Court a concrete measuring rod, an objective determinant of a school board’s good faith. If one’s goal for schools was statistical racial balance, busing seemed the most direct way to achieve it. In fact, busing seemed the only way to achieve it in the urban metropolis where the races lived largely apart. But something more profound motivated the Court’s probusing stance in 1971: a mystical force in the catacombs of the Supreme Court known as the spirit of Brown. Brown’s legacy was a special race consciousness, an understanding among justices that blacks were henceforth to enjoy constitutional priority.
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.