This study surveyed male counselor educators regarding the impact of being male upon their professional relationships. Participants (N=163) were surveyed about their attitudes concerning the influence of gender on their relational behavior, as well as their relationship practices with students and colleagues. Mixedmethods analyses revealed a majority of respondents believed being male influenced their relationship behavior and reported experiencing relationship challenges unique to male counselor educators. Male counselor educators shared strategies to avoid the perception of impropriety when engaging in teacherstudent relationships. Consultation, engagement in group activities and avoidance of being alone with students were cited as common strategies to ensure appropriate teacher-student boundaries.
The value created by public–nonprofit (PNP) alliances often emphasizes public sector service delegation to nonprofits, but public and nonprofit organizations often seek to create shared social value with alliances, particularly in sectors where there is coproduction. To better understand shared social value, we apply the Collaborative Value Creation (CVC) framework to investigate value creation in the Transition Coaching sector—nonprofit organizations that provide support to high school students as they transition to college. We interview public and nonprofit executives and staff and find that nonprofits seek resources to help navigate complex bureaucratic public structures related to private client information and centralizing bureaucratic information. We also find shared public and nonprofit value in improving client navigation, knowledge sharing within public bureaucratic structures, and capacity building. Future scholarship should develop the potential for reduced bureaucratic frictions as a point of shared value in PNP alliances.
This study utilizes the Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) and cultural theory to examine the use of policy narratives by coalitions (meso-level) and the institutional uptake (macro-level). We analyze Parliamentary hearings about genetically modified (GM) salmon in Canada to associate narrative strategies with certain cultural worldviews and policy-stances. We explore narrative strategies used by cultural groups with regard to whether they contain the scope of GM salmon issues to “science-only” (direct health and environmental impacts) or expand the issues to “science-plus” (to include broader economic, social, or cultural impacts). Finally, we examine whether certain framings of GM salmon issues or specific cultural narratives are preferentially taken up in the final policy documents generated after the hearings. Our findings reveal significant relationships between policy-stance (pro-vs anti-GM), the cultural disposition of a policy narrative, the narrative strategies being used, and ultimately policy uptake. For example, narratives with hierarchical cultural dispositions were more likely to expand the scope of the issue to science-plus when supporting their own policy position (typically pro-GM) but contain the scope to “science-only” when refuting an anti-GM policy-stance. With regard to policy uptake, final government documents referred more to narratives that contained the scope to “science-only” and expressed hierarchical or individualistic dispositions in comparison to the hearings. This study has practical implications for understanding whose perspectives and arguments are legitimized in national policy debates about GM foods. It also extends NPF theory to how narratives containing specific cultural dispositions and risk-based framings influence policy uptake at the macro-level.
Genetically engineered (GE) animal-based foods have entered the Canadian market in recent years, yet a significant proportion of the public is reticent to consume them. Responsible innovation has been suggested as a paradigm for bolstering democratic processes and aligning societal values with technology research and development. In this chapter, we examine regulatory decision-making for the first GE animal approved for food consumption in Canada, the AquAdvantage Salmon (AAS), according to two principles of responsible innovation (RI)—inclusion and responsiveness. First, we look at the regulatory approval process for AAS to examine when there were opportunities for public and stakeholder participation in decision-making (inclusion). Second, we report on our studies using textual analysis of one public participation window—a series of Parliamentary hearings associated with GE animal oversight in Canada in 2016. Here, we examine whether decision-makers incorporated the diverse stakeholder perspectives and concerns voiced at the hearings into their final reports (responsiveness). Finally, we identify barriers to putting inclusion and responsiveness into practice in risk governance of GEOs and discuss ways to overcome these barriers to facilitate responsible innovation practices in oversight systems for emerging technologies.
Designing broad public deliberation is challenging. In addition, participants of public deliberation are guided by their cultural norms, values, and rules. This creates a tension between the goal of practical approaches to broad public deliberation and how individuals perceive issues and relate to others in the world. Despite such challenges, we must continue to create opportunities for the public to deliberate about and provide input into the regulation of emerging technologies. Therefore, previously imagined approaches to broad public deliberation should be reevaluated to better utilize the information gained during the process and expand the range of ideas incorporated into decision‐making. To do this, institutions must consider how the public makes sense of complex issues concerning cultural conflict. This article introduces a framework that demonstrates how cultural theory can be used for rethinking previous approaches to public deliberation. In doing so, it offers guidelines for designing public deliberation involving distinct public participation venues based on different worldviews.
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.