Restrained Voices

Abstract

This research presents the voices of women inmates on health care services in prisons. Foucault's discourse analysis as a means of bringing to the surface restrained voices provides the theoretical basis for this study. The research is based on face-to-face interviews of fifty-six women inmates to understand better the role gender plays in prison health care delivery. The results show that women are willing to discuss only physical ailments and are reluctant to speak about mental health care or HIV. While women benefit from health care services in prison, they still feel that a female-oriented approach to health care in general will improve the services tremendously. This approach is not dictated by the “difference” in the ailments between men and women, but by the “difference” in the way men and women encounter health care providers and illnesses.     

Leadership Styles as Perceived by Career Senior Service Executives

Abstract

This study identifies the prevailing leadership styles of career Senior Executive Service (SES) members of the Federal Government. This study also determines if an association exits between SES member's self‐perceived leadership style and personal characteristics, such as gender, years in the Federal Service, and highest academic degree earned. The study population consists of 6395 career SES members. A random sample of 364 career SES members was selected. The selected group was asked to respond to a demographic data questionnaire and the Styles of Leadership Survey (SLS). Over 34% of the sample completed the instrument and data questionnaire. This study reveals that Strategic Leadership Style (5/5) is the dominant self‐perceived leadership style of career SES members. The personal characteristics of gender, years employed in the Federal Government, and educational attainment were identified as being significant factors influencing leadership styles of Federal Government executives.     

Understanding State Rulemaking Processes: Developing Fracking Rules in Colorado,New York,and Ohio

Rulemaking is an integral component of environmental policy at both the federal and state level; however, rulemaking at the state level is understudied. With this research, we begin to fill that gap by focusing on rulemaking regarding the issue of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in three states: Colorado, New York, and Ohio. This policy issue is well suited to begin exploring state‐level rulemaking processes because the federal government has left fracking regulation to the states. Through semistructured interviews with a range of actors in the rulemaking process across these states, we establish a foundation from which future research in this area may build. This exploratory research yields some valuable insights into the roles different stakeholders are playing in regulating fracking in these three states, and our findings may be useful for explaining state‐level rulemaking more generally.     

Measuring Environmental and Economic Opinions about Hydraulic Fracturing: A Survey of Landowners in Active or Planned Drilling Units

We investigate how Eastern Ohio landowners affected by the recent boom in high‐volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) view the industry and the factors that affect their attitudes. Our unique sample almost exclusively contains individuals whose land is under lease for and/or experiencing HVHF. Nation‐ and state‐wide surveys that investigate HVHF attitudes tend to find nearly even splits between opposed and supportive respondents, whose views are strongly influenced by political partisanship. These trends largely do not manifest among Eastern Ohio landowners, for whom personal experiences with HVHF crucially influence attitudes. Most respondents support HVHF and say it has benefited their community economically. Political partisanship does not significantly impact HVHF views. Contrary to arguments in the literature that economic considerations drive variation in support for HVHF, landowners’ support for the industry also appears influenced by perceptions of its environmental and infrastructure impacts. Environmental concerns appear to more powerfully shape attitudes than economic benefits.     

Why Place Really Matters: A Qualitative Approach to Housing Preferences and Neighborhood Effects

The idea that a person’s neighborhood or zip code can predict his or her life outcomes has motivated a host of housing policies aimed at redressing racial segregation and breaking up areas of concentrated poverty. This article critically examines underlying assumptions about high-poverty neighborhoods that motivate those policies. Using ethnographic methods, I present the location preferences of residents living in a low-income neighborhood in Columbus, Ohio, and show the ways in which their perceptions of their neighborhood run counter to common portrayals. This analysis provides clues as to why the underlying logic of dispersal and mobility may be flawed. I conclude that place matters very much to people living in this neighborhood, just not in the way commonly implied by dispersal and mobility policy advocates. The implication is that stability, rather than mobility, ought to be the focus of more housing discussions.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.