ผลต่างระหว่างรุ่นของ "หน้าหลัก"

จาก wiki.surinsanghasociety
ไปยังการนำทาง ไปยังการค้นหา
ล
ล
แถว 1: แถว 1:
−
Lders. `Coproduction' was originally utilized to describe a model of public
+
Essential and legitimate signifies to keep group identity and cohesion (Rutland
−
Lders. `Coproduction' was initially utilized to describe a model of public service delivery which rested around the belief that making use of a broad selection of perspectives bring about improved, fairer, much more beneficial and more utilised products and solutions [35?8]. These beliefs have transferred towards the production of information through collaborative or participatory approaches, which may well cause far more egalitarian policymaking, via shared responsibilities [39?8].New collaborations among scientists and policymakersIn well being science, several models of analysis effect are built on methods which make minimal reference to policymaking, namely identifying the investigation question, developing a study methodology, implementing dataThere are several models for collaborative interactions among scientists and policymakers (e.g. [49?4]). The James Lind Alliance [55] has long been active inside the `coproduction' of research agendas involving individuals, clinicians and researchers; the National Institute for Well being and Clinical Excellence (Nice) has applied stakeholder groups to generate clinical and study suggestions and priorities for almost two decades [56]. Collaborative research practices tend to fall into two groups ?applying every single other's [https://www.medchemexpress.com/Zoliflodacin.html ETX0914 In stock] expertise and knowledge for somewhat discrete sections in the investigation method (collaborative) and engaging within a whole approach of equal control and decision-making (co-productive) ?though these labels usually are not regularly applied. Both describe a ceding of handle by researchers, over some or all the investigation approach, to stakeholders, like policymakers, to a greater or lesser degree [57, 58]. Small analysis has been performed around the strengths, dangers and implications for study, researchers and policy of these models of interactions [34, 43]. Proponents have a tendency to market their models as far more democratic or as generating higher quality investigation, though generallyCairney and Oliver Well being Study Policy and Systems (2017) 15:Page five ofthis is an ideological instead of empirically-grounded stance. Proponents on the patrician or neutral models are presumably wary about stating their position, as coproductive investigation is increasingly claimed as the car for analysis `impact'. Some commentators determine dangers to researchers in lessening manage or rising advocacy [59, 60], but this has not translated into a deemed discussion of your implications for the evidence-based policy movement. Handful of research contemplate the insights we highlight in regards to the roles of policy actors, the consequent judgments about what counts as proof and why, and how decisions are created. What the majority of these models have in widespread is the fact that they are modifications from the investigation course of action, not responses to the policy approach. The disinclination of many scientists to engage with all the policy world, even amongst essentially the most collaboratively minded, is revealing. It highlights an unresolved situation regarding the extent to which a systematic research-driven model might be adapted and improved to reflect the should compete with advocates of other types of evidence to safe the attention and support of policymakers. In summary, scientists have developed various answers towards the query `how far should you go?' These answers correspond to ways in which scientists and policy actors interact, from disseminator/receiver to equal co-producers. Nevertheless, these interactions haven't however been examined by way of the lens of policy theory, nor have empirical comparative descriptions enabled us to determ.
+
Required and genuine suggests to maintain group identity and cohesion (Rutland, Killen,   Abrams, 2010). More than the past 15 years, a single line of analysis in moral improvement has focused on when group-based exclusion is or is just not viewed as morally wrong, or on how the context (e.g., situational, cultural, historical, national) in which social exclusion occurs may well relate to this evaluation. This approach is component of a broader area of analysis on developmental intergroup attitudes, which examines the origins of prejudice and intergroup bias and has been the concentrate of integrative analysis among social and developmental psychologists (Dunham  Degner, 2010; Killen  Rutland, 2011; Quintana  McKown, 2008). The current study brought together the fields of intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), cultural identity (Phinney, 1992; Social Identity Theory: Tajfel  Turner, 1986), and moral improvement (Social Reasoning Developmental viewpoint: Social Domain Theory integrated with Social Identity Theory: Rutland et al., 2010) to examine moral judgments within the context of Jewish-Arab peer encounters and situations (intergroup get in touch with and cultural identity) below which it is actually viewed as incorrect or reputable to exclude a peer depending on cultural identity (see Figure 1). Recent research has documented the damaging intergroup attitudes involving Jewish and Arab youth and adults in the Middle East (Bar-Tal  Teichman, 2005; Brenick et al., 2007, 2010), but little is recognized about how these negative intergroup biases manifest in cultural communities within the U.S. The U.S. context is one of a kind in that it gives an chance to study intergroup attitudes about Jewish-Arab relations inside a cultural setting removed in the everyday stress and tension of an intractable conflict, the existence of very segregated communities, and an overarching national ideology arguably supporting an ethnocratic state (Yiftachel, 2006). As inside the Middle East, cultural stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination towards Muslim and Arab groups as well as adverse intergroup tensions between Jews and Arabs exist within the U.S. (Alliance of Civilizations, 2006; Anti-Defamation League, 2011; Panagopoulos, 2006). When tiny is identified about U.S. children's or adolescents' attitudes towards peers of Arab descent, one current exception can be a study in which non-Arab American children viewed their own peer group as inclusive, but anticipated peers of Arab descent to become exclusive and prefer to be with their own cultural group (Hitti  Killen, 2013). Investigation with U.S. college students has shown that damaging attitudes towards Arab folks manifest across a variety of contexts, like becoming far more fearful and suspicious if essential to attend an Islamic religious service (than an unnamed religious service), and lacking a willingness or feeling threatened if made to engage in simple social interactions ranging from introducing oneself, to dating an Arab (Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl,  Griffin, 2012; Sergent, Woods,  Sedlacek, 1992), and, especially for Jewish-American participants and participants who didn't know a Muslim personally, supporting racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims (Kim, 2004). Nevertheless, the bigger societal and historical context within the U.S. is one supportive of multiculturalism (even when not entirely inclusive of Arab and Muslim individuals), and as a result is very distinctive from that surrounding Jewish-Arab relationships inside the Mid-East, because the U.S.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscrip.

รุ่นแก้ไขเมื่อ 00:19, 14 สิงหาคม 2564

Essential and legitimate signifies to keep group identity and cohesion (Rutland Required and genuine suggests to maintain group identity and cohesion (Rutland, Killen, Abrams, 2010). More than the past 15 years, a single line of analysis in moral improvement has focused on when group-based exclusion is or is just not viewed as morally wrong, or on how the context (e.g., situational, cultural, historical, national) in which social exclusion occurs may well relate to this evaluation. This approach is component of a broader area of analysis on developmental intergroup attitudes, which examines the origins of prejudice and intergroup bias and has been the concentrate of integrative analysis among social and developmental psychologists (Dunham Degner, 2010; Killen Rutland, 2011; Quintana McKown, 2008). The current study brought together the fields of intergroup contact (Allport, 1954), cultural identity (Phinney, 1992; Social Identity Theory: Tajfel Turner, 1986), and moral improvement (Social Reasoning Developmental viewpoint: Social Domain Theory integrated with Social Identity Theory: Rutland et al., 2010) to examine moral judgments within the context of Jewish-Arab peer encounters and situations (intergroup get in touch with and cultural identity) below which it is actually viewed as incorrect or reputable to exclude a peer depending on cultural identity (see Figure 1). Recent research has documented the damaging intergroup attitudes involving Jewish and Arab youth and adults in the Middle East (Bar-Tal Teichman, 2005; Brenick et al., 2007, 2010), but little is recognized about how these negative intergroup biases manifest in cultural communities within the U.S. The U.S. context is one of a kind in that it gives an chance to study intergroup attitudes about Jewish-Arab relations inside a cultural setting removed in the everyday stress and tension of an intractable conflict, the existence of very segregated communities, and an overarching national ideology arguably supporting an ethnocratic state (Yiftachel, 2006). As inside the Middle East, cultural stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination towards Muslim and Arab groups as well as adverse intergroup tensions between Jews and Arabs exist within the U.S. (Alliance of Civilizations, 2006; Anti-Defamation League, 2011; Panagopoulos, 2006). When tiny is identified about U.S. children's or adolescents' attitudes towards peers of Arab descent, one current exception can be a study in which non-Arab American children viewed their own peer group as inclusive, but anticipated peers of Arab descent to become exclusive and prefer to be with their own cultural group (Hitti Killen, 2013). Investigation with U.S. college students has shown that damaging attitudes towards Arab folks manifest across a variety of contexts, like becoming far more fearful and suspicious if essential to attend an Islamic religious service (than an unnamed religious service), and lacking a willingness or feeling threatened if made to engage in simple social interactions ranging from introducing oneself, to dating an Arab (Jenkins, Ruppel, Kizer, Yehl, Griffin, 2012; Sergent, Woods, Sedlacek, 1992), and, especially for Jewish-American participants and participants who didn't know a Muslim personally, supporting racial profiling of Arabs and Muslims (Kim, 2004). Nevertheless, the bigger societal and historical context within the U.S. is one supportive of multiculturalism (even when not entirely inclusive of Arab and Muslim individuals), and as a result is very distinctive from that surrounding Jewish-Arab relationships inside the Mid-East, because the U.S.NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscrip.

ดึงข้อมูลจาก "https://wiki.surinsanghasociety.com/index.php?title=หน้าหลัก&oldid=283629"