Learning to Learn and Building Communities of Practice: Non-governmental Organisations and Examples from Mine Action in Southeast Asia

How do non-governmental organisations (NGOs) interact with one another in specific geographical locations or over specific issue areas? This article evaluates the social learning capacities that may facilitate the development of new communities of practice among NGOs. It focuses on the structures in which NGOs have to work, the nature of the processes of interaction in which they participate, and their motivations for wanting to coordinate with one another in the first place. Based on fieldwork conducted in 2005 and 2006 in Southeast Asia, this paper focuses on the mechanisms for social learning among mine action NGOs in Southeast Asia and the ways in which what might be called a “community” of mine action in the region is starting to develop. At the same time, it raises a number of important questions regarding the coordination of NGO activities in all fields of activity and in any geographical situation.     

Interactions Between Rejection Sensitivity and Supportive Relationships in the Prediction of Adolescents’ Internalizing Difficulties

Rejection sensitivity, the tendency to anxiously or angrily expect rejection, is associated with internalizing difficulties during childhood and adolescence. The primary goal of the present study was to examine whether supportive parent–child relationships and friendships moderate associations that link angry and anxious rejection sensitivity to depression and social anxiety during middle adolescence in an ethnically diverse sample of 277 youth (M age = 14.30 years; 46.93% male). Analyses revealed that angry rejection sensitivity was related to depressive symptoms, but only for adolescents reporting low support from parents and friends. Friend support moderated the association between (1) angry rejection sensitivity and social anxiety, and (2) anxious rejection sensitivity and depressive symptoms. For adolescents reporting low support from friends, support from parents was positively related to social anxiety. Findings highlight the importance of considering relationships in studies of rejection sensitivity and adjustment during adolescence.     

“No Father Required”? The Welfare Assessment in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008

Of all the changes to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 that were introduced in 2008 by legislation of the same name, foremost to excite media attention and popular controversy was the amendment of the so-called welfare clause. This clause forms part of the licensing conditions which must be met by any clinic before offering those treatment services covered by the legislation. The 2008 Act deleted the statutory requirement that clinicians consider the need for a father of any potential child before offering a woman treatment, substituting for it a requirement that clinicians must henceforth consider the child’s need for “supportive parenting”. In this paper, we first briefly recall the history of the introduction of s 13(5) in the 1990 Act, before going on to track discussion of its amendment through the lengthy reform process that preceded the introduction of the 2008 Act. We then discuss the meaning of the phrase “supportive parenting” with reference to guidance regarding its interpretation offered by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. While the changes to s 13(5) have been represented as suggesting a major change in the law, we suggest that the reworded section does not represent a significant break from the previous law as it had been interpreted in practice. This raises the question of why it was that an amendment that is likely to make very little difference to clinical practice tended to excite such attention (and with such polarising force). To this end, we locate debates regarding s 13(5) within a broader context of popular anxieties regarding the use of reproductive technologies and, specifically, what they mean for the position of men within the family.     

More of the Same? A Dual Case Study Approach to Examining Change Momentum in the Public Sector

Despite the significant amount of change experienced by the public sector, there has been relatively limited empirical examination of how change agendas affect public sector employees in Australia. This article presents a comparative analysis of two Australian public sector organisations that implemented the same positive work change agenda, but experienced very different outcomes. Using a critical realist approach, we draw on a mix of qualitative techniques to suggest that textbook notions of ‘successful change’, which are often derived from large private sector expectations, may fail to capture the complex nature of how public sector change initiatives may unfold. In particular, we demonstrate how political, temporal, contextual, and process factors interact to shift change momentum. Illustrative examples are provided throughout and the findings are discussed in terms of their implications for theory building, for change facilitation, and for future research.     

Exclusionary School Discipline and Delinquent Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Excluding students from school remains a common form of punishment despite growing critique of the practice. A disparate research base has impeded the ability to...     

A Contest for Legitimacy: The Divestment Movement and the Fossil Fuel Industry

The divestment movement has sought to influence attitudes to fossil fuels by framing producer companies as pariahs and as unnecessary and redundant. In response, the fossil fuel industry has engaged in a direct and aggressive attack on the divestment movement. This article considers the relationship between the movement and the industry as a contest for legitimacy for both the organizations and the norms they advocate. Through a case study of the coal discourse in Australia from 2013 to 2016, it explores how each party has attempted to undermine the other's legitimacy and to build or defend its own. It concludes that the contest for legitimacy is complex, being conducted at multiple levels (pragmatic, moral, legal, and cognitive) and before multiple audiences. For the movement to “win” the contest, it will require more than a simple rebalancing of the legitimacy scales.