Lobbying: An art and a science—Five golden rules for an evidence‐based lobbying strategy

In the battle for influence, public affairs professionals make crucial strategic decisions every single day. “Should we go public with this case?” “Who are we going to lobby, and how?” “Should we form a coalition with other organisations?” Public affairs professionals often make these decisions based on their experience or their gut feeling. In practice, lobbying is often more of an art than a science. It is an intuitive and creative process, rarely involving any insights rooted in science. And yet many public affairs professionals are faced with uncertainty about the added value of their activities. “Does what we do really matter?” “What kind of impact do we have?” “Are we making the right strategic decisions?” Some colleagues seek to compensate for these doubts with an overwhelming dose of self‐confidence. An experienced lobbyist recently said during a lecture: “The day I can measure my influence is the day I can double my rates.” Other public affairs professionals are a little more modest and try to assess their impact with key performance indicators. They systematically review the lobbying tactics used. This systematic approach has gained a lot of traction in recent years. The smoky back rooms, the cigars, and whisky of the past are now giving way to evidence‐based lobbying, based on facts, building a bridge between art and science of lobbying.     

Associations Between Psychosocial Well-Being,Stressful Life Events and Emotion-Driven Impulsiveness in European Adolescents

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Knowing the extent to which mental well-being and stressful life events during adolescence contribute to personality characteristics related to risk-taking...     

What really matters for TTOs efficiency? An analysis of TTOs in developed and developing economies

The Journal of Technology Transfer - The university’s role in reaping the benefits from research by transforming knowledge and technology into commercially usable forms is becoming...     

Assessing callous–unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits

The presence of callous–unemotional (CU) traits designates an important subgroup of antisocial youth. To improve upon existing measures, the Inventory of Callous–Unemotional Traits (ICU) was developed to provide an efficient, reliable, and valid assessment of CU traits in samples of youth. The current study tests the factor structure and correlates of the ICU scale in a sample (n = 248) of juvenile offenders (188 boys, 60 girls) between the ages of 12 and 20 (M = 15.47, SD = 1.37). Confirmatory factor analyses are consistent with the presence of three independent factors (i.e., Uncaring, Callousness, and Unemotional) that relate to a higher-order callous–unemotional dimension. Also, CU traits overall showed associations with aggression, delinquency, and both psychophysiological and self-report indices of emotional reactivity. There were some important differences across the three facets of the ICU in their associations with these key external criteria.     

多民族共存与民族歧视——当代东南亚族际关系的两个侧面

互为依存的经济生活使各民族共生共荣,历史文化的差异又使民族歧视普遍存在,当代东南亚族际关系的两面性和复杂性与政治、经济发展的不平衡相互交织,共同作用于战后本地区的历史进程,并使东南亚成为当今世界族际关系变幻莫测的地区之一.     

Does government funding alter nonprofit governance? Evidence from New York City nonprofit contractors

Government contracting has raised a collection of issues with respect to adequate oversight and accountability. This paper explores one avenue through which contracting agencies may achieve these tasks: through the governance practices of the contractor's board. Oversight and monitoring are a board's key responsibilities, and influencing a board's practices is one way a governmental agency can help to insure quality performance. Agencies could thus use both their selection process and their post‐contracting power to influence board practice. Using a new, rich data set on the nonprofit contractors of New York City, a series of hypotheses were tested on the relationship between government funding and board practices. Significant differences were found to exist in board practices as a function of government funding levels, differences that mark a shift of energy away from some activities (i.e., traditional board functions, such as fund‐raising) towards others (financial monitoring and advocacy). This suggests that government agencies may indeed use their contracting choices with an eye to particular governance practices. This increased emphasis on such activities appears to crowd out other activities, and is not unambiguously to the benefit of nonprofit board governance. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.