A social systems approach to improve mental health collaboration and ethnic relations in Cyprus

Sundel, Martin

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1743(199909/10)16:5<463::aid-sres337>3.3.co;2-v

Cited by 2 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because of the increasing scale of global humanitarian operations and the urgency of humanitarian logistics, an increasing environmental burden is occurring, such as the consequential cholera outbreak in Haiti (Cravioto et al, 2011). Green practices may not simply be Refstie and Brun (2011) Bridging the relevance gap between humanitarian logistics practitioners and academics Kunz and Gold (2017) Näslund et al (2010), Shani et al (2004), Sabri (2018), Jahre et al (2012Jahre et al ( , 2015, Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Sundel (1999), Refstie andBrun (2011), Chang et al (2010), Prasad et al (2017), Chandes and Paché (2010), Rutta et al (2005), Tanabe et al (2015), Lykes (2013), Lykes and Scheib (2016) To ensure rigour, involving a non-participatory researcher to monitor and observe the rigour of the entire research process Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Näslund et al (2010) Understanding what are the economic/political/social/technical motivations behind this research Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Canterino et al (2016…”

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…combining interviews, focus groups and questionnaire/survey) Näslund et al (2010), Sabri (2018) Triangulation of data collection from multiple sources (e.g. practitioners documents and website, respondents from the affected communities, archival data, legal proceedings and court report) Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Chandes and Paché (2010), Lykes (2013), Lykes and Scheib (2016) Potential reflective sessions to discuss and update data collection techniques Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Canterino et al (2016), Näslund et al (2010, Shani et al (2004), Sabri (2018), Sohn (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Refstie and Brun (2011), Chang et al (2010), Tanabe et al (2015Tanabe et al ( , 2018 Although most of the studies data were collected by the entire team, but we still recommend data to be mainly collected by researchers to ensure integrity and rigour Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Canterino et al (2016), Näslund et al (2010,…”

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Näslund et al (2010), Sabri (2018), Jahre et al (2012), Sandvik and Lemaitre (2013), Sundel (1999), Refstie and Brun (2011), Tanabe et al (2015Tanabe et al ( , 2018, Lykes and Scheib (2016) Triangulation of researchers in the analysis phase Jahre et al (2015), Chandes and Paché (2010), Tanabe et al (2015Tanabe et al ( , 2018, Lykes and Scheib (2016), Manikas et al (2017) 7. Implementation by humanitarian logistics practitioners with review and evaluation supported by researchers Practitioners to execute the intervention plan (or to facilitate the implementation with local authorities in the humanitarian field) Coughlan and Coghlan (2002), Näslund et al (2010), Sabri (2018), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Jahre et al (2012Jahre et al ( , 2015, Chang et al (2010), Chandes and Paché (2010),…”

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sundel (1999),Jahre et al (2012),van den Muijsenbergh et al (2016),Tanabe et al (2018),Sohn (2018), Lykes and Scheib (2016) Coordination, linguistic and communication barriers including varied technical terminologies Lykes (2013), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Tanabe et al (2015, 2018), van den Muijsenbergh et al (2016), Kunz and Gold (2017) Reflective long-term collaborative research is time consuming, and most HLSCM research works focus on urgent supply Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Jahre et al (2015), Sohn (2018) Remoteness of many humanitarian aid locations Rutta et al (2005), Nelson et al (2010), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Prasad et al (2017) Damaged infrastructure impedes research Rutta et al (2005), Nelson et al (2010), Jahre et al (2012), Pedraza-Martinez et al (2013), Prasad et al (2017), Sohn (2018), Tanabe et al (2018) Highly contextualised research impedes generalisability of findingsTouboulic and Walker (2016) …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Using collaborative research methodologies in humanitarian supply chains

Sabri

Zarei²,

Harland

2019

JHLSCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to develop an existing collaborative research methodology process (Sabri, 2018), contextualise it for application in humanitarian supply chains and test it empirically. Design/methodology/approach Building on collaborative research methodology and humanitarian supply chain literature, the Sabri’s (2018) collaborative research methodology process is further developed to comprise eight phases of collaborative research contextualised for the humanitarian supply chain domain. The process is applied in a collaborative research case of academia–practitioner knowledge co-creation in a humanitarian supply chain setting, focussing on environmental sustainability improvement. The collaborative case analysis suggests a number of refinements to the elements of the process. This study undertook two cycles of academia–practitioner collaborative research. Findings In testing the process, a noticeable improvement in the collaboration among different humanitarian stakeholders was observed, leading to improved stakeholder management. The implementation improved the sustainability awareness and social inclusion of the affected population. Rurality, remoteness, security issues and resistance of field staff against change were among the main challenges for supply chain researchers to engage in collaborative research in the humanitarian domain. Originality/value The paper addresses the rigour‒relevance‒reflectiveness debate in the humanitarian supply chain domain. A collaborative research methodology process derived from action research is further developed using humanitarian literature, and then it is applied in a humanitarian logistics case focussed on environmental sustainability. The present collaborative research process facilitates engaged scholarship among the humanitarian stakeholders, as the researchers’ roles move from observatory to participatory knowledge broker.

show abstract

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A Collaborative Research Casesustainable Humanitarian Supply Chains 41 Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using collaborative research methodologies in humanitarian supply chains

Sabri

Zarei²,

Harland

2019

JHLSCM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The vast majority of extensive previous research on the Cyprus problem has failed to enlist the views of Cypriot citizens about conflict resolution challenges and solutions (notable exceptions to this are Webster & Timothy, 2006;Webster, 2005a;Lordos, 2005;Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1998). This study claims that an abundance of valuable information can be gathered, at the grassroots level, supporting advances in conflict resolution (see also Diamond & Fisher, 1995;Hadjipavlou, 2004;Hadjipavlou-Trigeorgis, 1998;Lordos, 2005;Sundel, 1999).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 75%

Public Attitudes Towards Peace: The Greek-Cypriot Position

Georgiades

2007

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1974, Turkey divided Cyprus by military force into the north and south, giving the Turkish Cypriots full control of the north. Since then, the United Nations (UN) has attempted to resolve the Cyprus problem, but diplomatic efforts have always fallen short. In 2004, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan proposed a plan that would reunify Cyprus. In a public referendum that followed, about two-thirds of Turkish Cypriots voted for the plan; however, three-quarters of Greek Cypriots rejected the plan. To help illuminate Greek-Cypriot public opinion, a telephone survey is conducted with 150 randomly selected Greek-Cypriot citizens (with a response rate of 87%). Results demonstrate that about four-fifths of respondents do not mistrust Turkish Cypriots and believe they can peacefully coexist with them. Still, 43% of respondents report that Greek Cypriots as a group are not very well prepared to reunify with Turkish Cypriots. Perception of ethnocentrism for both sides is found to be at comparable, mediocre levels. Narrative analyses suggest that the Annan Plan be revised to assure, among other things, (1) complete and timely demilitarization of the island, (2) removal of all Turkish settlers, (3) containment of extremist elements from both sides, and (4) fiscal backing from the international community to the Turkish-Cypriot side. The social and political implications of the findings, study limitations, and some future research needs are highlighted.

show abstract

A social systems approach to improve mental health collaboration and ethnic relations in Cyprus

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Using collaborative research methodologies in humanitarian supply chains

Using collaborative research methodologies in humanitarian supply chains

Public Attitudes Towards Peace: The Greek-Cypriot Position

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About