“I know! I live here”: poor women and the work of empowerment

To trace the effects of empowerment programmes in the Global South, attention needs to be focused on the everyday practices of frontline staff, or fieldworkers, who convey empowerment ideas and practices at the grassroots. This is especially critical when fieldworkers work in the marginalised communities where they also live. Instead of looking outward towards a programme’s outcomes, this article turns inward to examine the impact of women fieldworkers’ dual experiences of development on their decisions and practices in the field. The ethnography of women fieldworkers in a government-led women’s empowerment programme for the poor in Delhi, India reveals the uneasy relationship of women’s empowerment to the larger contradictory development paradigm that they work within. Fieldworkers used their experiences as poor women to meet programme quotas, while also side-lining social change in favour of shielding clients from ineffective programme activities.     

Criteria for Allocation of Responsibility under State Law

Numerous state statutes provide guidance for allocating responsibility and response costs among potentially responsible parties at environmentally contaminated sites. Twenty-eight states explicitly or implicitly address joint and several liability; thirty states address allocation criteria; and two states identify how orphan share costs are shared. Of the thirty states that address allocation criteria in their statutes, twenty-four specify one or more criteria that may be applied to avoid joint and several liability, and twenty-nine permit the allocation of responsibility using unspecified equitable factors. The state allocation criteria tabulated and discussed in this article can be used by counsel and their technical consultants and experts to assess which, if any, state-specific criteria are most applicable to a particular site, given the technical, historical, financial, and regulatory information that may be available for that site.     

The inhibiting factors that principal investigators experience in leading publicly funded research

Securing public funding to conduct research and leading it by being a principal investigator (PI) is seen as significant career development step. Such a role brings professional prestige but also new responsibilities beyond research leadership to research management. If public funding brings financial and infrastructure support, little is understood about the inhibiting factors that publicly funded PIs face given the research autonomy offered by publicly funded research. Our study finds that there are three key PI inhibiting factors (1) political and environmental, (2) institutional and (3) project based. Traditional knowledge, skills and technical know-how of publicly funded PIs are insufficient to deal with the increasing managerial demands and expectations i.e. growing external bureaucracy of public funding agencies. Public funding is no longer the ‘freest form of support’ as suggested by Chubin and Hackett (Peerless science: peer review and US science policy. Suny Press, New York, 1990) and the inhibiting factors experienced by publicly funded PIs limits their research autonomy. We also argue that PIs have little influence in overcoming these inhibiting factors despite their central role in conducting publicly funded research.     

At the frontiers of scientific advancement: the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded principal investigators

This paper aims to unearth the factors that influence scientists in becoming and choosing to become publicly funded principal investigators (PIs). PIs are the linchpins of knowledge transformation and bridging triple helix actors, particularly academia-industry. At a micro level, PIs are at the nexus of engaging and interacting with other triple helix actors. No study to date has specifically focused on the factors that influence scientists to become or choose to become publicly funded PIs. For scientists taking on the role of a PI represents an important landmark in their research career. Set in an Irish research system we found two main categories of influencing factors—push and pull. Pull factors are where the PI has more choice in choosing to become a PI, where as push factors is where the PI has less choice in choosing to become a PI. Pull factors we identified were control, career ambition and advancement, personal drive and ambition. Pull factors we identified were project dependencies and institutional pressures.