Commentary Piece Research Articles

Realizing the potential of accessible ICTs in developing countries

Purpose: To raise the awareness of policy makers, economic development practitioners, and service providers about the importance of making information and communication technology (ICT) based international economic development in low- and middle-income countries inclusive of people with disabilities and to discuss the role and importance of addressing the complete ICT and assistive technology (AT) ecosystem to ensure sustainable, scalable, and affordable access to ICTs and ICT-based programs. Method: This commentary piece draws upon recent literature and practice cases to examine the role of accessible ICTs in international development. Results: Accessible ICTs can enhance economic participation and prevent exclusion from participation in international development programs. Access to and use of accessible technologies are largely determined by the ecosystem in which they exist and can be enhanced or hindered by government policy and legislation and the quality of the service delivery systems and financing mechanisms. Conclusions: People with disabilities in developing countries face daunting barriers to socioeconomic participation. Accessible ICTs can eliminate or mitigate some of these barriers. However, technology advancements do not solely promote penetration, affordability, or scalability of ICT-based development for persons with disabilities. A comprehensive ecosystem approach can help in developing sustainable mechanisms for access, affordability, and availability.Implications for RehabilitationAccessible ICTs are unavailable to the majority of people with disabilities living in low- and middle-income countries thus posing barriers to socioeconomic participation and ICT enabled social and economic development programs (ICT4D).Availability of and access to ICT is determined by the nature and components (individual, social, financial, and government actors and systems) of its ecosystem.The promise of ICTs for people with disabilities cannot be realized in low- and middle-income countries without supportive legislation, policy, infrastructure and financing.The ICT ecosystem will promote successful outcomes when its stakeholders, policy structures, and resources align to strengthen and support one another.

Commentary

This short commentary piece arises from completing an Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)–funded research project into the relationship between representations of business on factual television in the United Kingdom and the public’s perception and understanding of entrepreneurship. What we would like to do here is reflect on some of the implications of this work with specific regard to the research agenda around the media and civic culture. We remain convinced that even in the digital age, popular television remains a central entry point into debates about the relationship between broader civic and political culture.

Literary Freedom and the Need to Inter-logue

This commentary piece is based upon an article published in Malaysiakini 1 and the reactions that resulted from it. The article is not a literary appraisal of the novel. It is an attempt to understand the ensuing controversy and plead for literary freedom. It is not the writer’s place to decide whether the novel is suitable as classroom material but this piece explains the special qualities of literary work and the ethnic politics in Malaysia that is the real casus belli for the controversy. Keywords : Interlok , ethnic politics, controversial literary work, school textbook

Reviewing public relations research and scholarship in the 21st century

I have been prompted to write this Commentary piece following a period of reflection on the field of public relations as a whole. My thoughts have been focused by sharing Meet the Editor platforms with a number of respected colleagues including Ray Hiebert, the long-standing editor of this journal and an analysis of papers coming to my own journal and to others where I serve as an editorial board member. It is also informed by attending numerous academic conferences around the world, an ongoing involvement with the practitioner community over the past 10 years and my current role as Chair Elect of the Global Alliance.1 After the first decade of the 21st century it is appropriate to take stock of our field. The main lens through which I do this, the papers that are being submitted to journals in the field, provides an insight into what topics are taking up the time and energy of many in the academy, and the too few practitioners that submit their work to our refereed publications. This Commentary might also partially explain the dearth of practitioner contributions to our journals and it is certainly a plea for more. I confess I have been goaded into writing this piece, partly out of frustration about what I see as some issues in our field of scholarship that are not being honestly confronted, and partly because I see many opportunities being missed. My wish is that this piece stimulates debate, possibly even a conference to address some of the topics raised. It is driven out of a deep desire for our field to advance, to be respected and to take its place as an academic field of note and a practice of the same standing. I make no apology about the stance I take in this Commentary as an academic who has spent many years in practice and who happily straddles the divide between the academy and those who work in the increasingly challenging and complex world of practice. We are an academic field that has arisen from the practice and my unashamed ambition is for the practice to be more rigorous and respected. I also recognise there are many areas left unconsidered in this piece, but I am hopeful it will serve as a starting point and others will delve below the surface I have skimmed, and venture much wider.

No visible means of support

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to outline issues regarding business support for family businesses in the UK. The paper is a commentary on the state of business support in the UK, and also poses questions regarding the provision of education and training for owners, managers and advisors of family businesses.Design/methodology/approachThis article is a commentary piece from a practitioner view about the business support provision for family businesses in the UK.Practical implicationsThis commentary paper suggests that there are a number of gaps in business support provision for family businesses in the UK. It discusses the state of support for family businesses in other countries and highlights the influence that the media has on developments in this area. It also offers a number of recommendations regarding government support for family businesses and the professional development for family business advisors.Originality/valueThe paper provides an informed practitioner view of the state of family business support in the UK and as such is rare. It will be useful for academics, researchers and family business practitioners, policy makers and professional business advisors.

Review: On the problems of mixing RCTs with qualitative research: the case of the MRC framework and the evaluation of complex healthcare interventions

This is a commentary piece on: Blackwood, B; O'Halloran, P and Porter, S (2010)On the problems of mixing RCTs with qualitative research: the case of the MRC framework and the evaluation of complex healthcare interventions Journal of Research in Nursing 15(6)511-521.

Logic Lessons Lost

This commentary piece contains two criticisms of textbook definitions. One is the old definition of element (cannot be separated into...), to the correct definition (a class of atoms with the same atomic number). The second criticism concerns the correct name for a bonded atom as opposed to a free atom. These two species are not the same entities. The major suggestion here involves renaming all free nonbonded atoms atomes, while continuing to call bonded atoms what we have always called them, atoms. The vast majority of our atoms will then happily remain atoms, save the noble gases. The positive consequences of this renaming convention are briefly discussed.

Input Effects Within a Constructionist Framework

Constructionist approaches to language hypothesize that grammar can be learned from the input using domain‐general mechanisms. This emphasis has engendered a great deal of research—exemplified in the present issue—that seeks to illuminate the ways in which input‐related factors can both drive and constrain constructional acquisition. In this commentary piece, we situate results reported by contributors to the present issue within the larger body of acquisition work in the constructionist framework. We address the importance of both type frequency and skewed input samples in the development of constructional categories and we compare different ways that the association between verbs and constructions can be measured, including through the use of conditional probabilities, lexical biases, and introspective judgments.

Letter from the Editor

Letter from the Editor David F. Armstrong This issue of Sign Language Studies begins with two articles commemorating the ninetieth anniversary (July 21, 2009) of the birth of William C. Stokoe, the journal’s founder, and the tenth anniversary of his passing (April 4, 2010). The articles are reprinted from The Study of Signed Languages, a volume of essays produced in celebration of his eightieth birthday. These articles are followed by a commentary piece concerning interpretations (and misinterpretations) of Bill’s seminal concept, “semantic phonology.” Next are two articles that deal with one of the principal preoccupations of his life’s work—the possible impact of signed languages on the education of deaf children. Fittingly, these articles describe educational programs in two widely separated parts of the world: the United States and Argentina. The first article, by Cynthia Bailes and her colleagues, draws quite literally on Bill’s legacy—its preparation was supported by income from a generous gift of an endowment to Gallaudet University, which he made just before his death. (Those wishing to support the William C. Stokoe Jr. Chair of Ethnographic Studies in Deaf Language and Culture should contact the Gallaudet Development Office.) The issue ends with a review of a book that might seem, at first glance, like an odd choice for this journal. It was chosen for two reasons: It gives a slight nod in the direction of Bill’s early career as a scholar of English literature, and it deals with an important discussion, however flawed, of the underlying role of vision and visual representation in the development of human language and poetry. We believe that those familiar with the body of Stokoe’s work will see the connection. More generally, we hope that readers will find this issue a fitting tribute to a most distinguished and influential human being. [End Page 388] Copyright © 2009 Gallaudet University

At the Intersection of Transnationalism, Latina/o Immigrants, and Education

At the Intersection of Transnationalism, Latina/o Immigrants, and Education Patricia Sánchez and Margarita Machado-Casas Except for Mexico, “there are now more Latino-origin people in the U.S. than there are people in Spain, Argentina, Colombia, or any other Spanish-speaking country…[In fact, our nation is experiencing] the greatest demographic transformation in the last 100 years of its history” (Mandel, 2004, citing Professor Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco). As former schoolteachers of immigrant children in Texas and California, we have witnessed this demographic transformation firsthand in schools where our students' backgrounds and communities included both first- and second-generation Latinas/os.1 Today as educational researchers and professors who prepare teacher candidates, we are even more intrigued by the social, cultural, political, economic, and educational issues related to this population shift. Our intrigue stems from the unique opportunities that these waves of Latina/o newcomers bring to our society as well as from our concerns that many in the field of teaching do not quite understand nor appreciate the complexity of Latina/o immigration. For these reasons, we assembled a collection of studies that address the ongoing transformation of our country's landscape—one that includes immigrant transnationalism “as a long-term process which may be viewed, from an analytical perspective, as a trajectory, or rather as a multiplicity of potential trajectories” (Grillo, 2007, p. 199). Latina/o immigration in the U.S. has both a long history and a variety of social actors from different regions of Latin America, revealing many contours of transnationalism—including transnational projects with lengthy trajectories and others with new and recent intensity. These characteristics are evident in several of the investigations in this special issue. But before we present readers with the specific details of each of the research studies on transnational Latina/o immigrants—seven in total—with a special commentary piece by a leading figure in Latina/o education (Sofía Villenas), we wish to provide demographic [End Page 3] information on the U.S. Latina/o community, followed by a discussion on transnationalism as an important lens with which to “see” immigrant students in general. We then offer a description of the work that has been published by scholars focusing on transnational Latina/o families, complemented by demographic information on Latina/o students and a brief treatise on why more research should combine Latina/o students, transnationalism, and education. It is precisely this last analytic category—education—that has been sorely understudied in work dealing with transnational Latina/o children and youth. We hope the current special issue, “At the Intersection of Transnationalism, Latina/o Immigrants, and Education”—graciously supported by the High School Journal—begins to fill part of that void in educational scholarship. Both academic and practitioner communities will greatly benefit from this dialogue and line of research. Statistics on U.S. Latinas/os According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2007), Latinas/os in this country comprise 15 percent2 of the estimated total U.S. population of 302 million, making Latinas/os the largest minority group in our country. In addition, it is also the fastest-growing: More strikingly, Hispanics account for half of the total population growth in the U.S. over the last five years [2000–2005]. The impact of Latino population growth is further magnified by the fact that the white and black populations have grown by only 2% and 7% respectively since 2000 (Hakimzadeh, 2006). Within the U.S. Latina/o population itself, 40 percent are foreign-born (Hakimzadeh, 2006). And during 2000 to 2005, native-born Latinas/ os accounted for 62% of the total change in the Latina/o population, while foreign-born Latinas/os represented the remaining 38% (Hakimzadeh, 2006). The same 2005 data “confirms that Latino population growth has been driven primarily by increases in the second generation” (Hakimzadeh, 2006). This indicates that U.S. Latinas/os are highly immigrant if we include in this definition those Latinas/os with at least one foreign-born parent; the surge in births of the second generation is highly relevant to the issue of transnationalism and education, as we will see further below. Of the 50 U.S...

Citizenship under siege in the brave new Europe

This commentary piece reflects on the range of contributions to this Special Issue, considering the ways in which the European context fails to offer more inclusionary notions of citizenship in the current era. A long-term decline in state legitimacy in Europe and in the UK cannot be offset by the intensified policing of insecurity that is known as the War on Terror. The Global Social Justice movement is considered as an alternative framework for what security might mean in the absence of state violence. The importance of diasporic identities to such movements comes across in the research project that underpins this Special Issue. States in Europe and the British state, which is focused on here, are experiencing what can be called a 'beseiged legitimacy'. The relative disbelief in official accounts of events by many citizens, such as those interviewed by researchers involved in this Special Issue, combines with a global economy that increasingly resembles a casino.

Discrimination Through the Looking-Glass: Judicial Guidelines on the Burden of Proof

The Court of Appeal’s first (and so far only) consideration of the statutory adjustments to the burden of proof in discrimination cases is to be found in the three cases, reported together, of Igen v Wong, Chamberlain v Emokpae, and Webster v Brunel University.1 The Court of Appeal’s judgment approves, with slight amendments, the guidelines set out by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in Barton v Investec Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd.2 It is argued here that both the guidelines and the reasoning behind them are seriously flawed, and have led employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal into an approach to the burden of proof that threatens widespread findings of discrimination without any proper evidential basis. This commentary piece is in three sections. The first is a consideration of how often the incidence of the burden of proof will determine the outcome of discrimination cases—which is to say, how important it is that the courts should get the interpretation of the provision right. The second is an attempt to analyse of the mechanism of the provision aside from authority. The third examines the manner in which the Court of Appeal interprets the provision in Igen, and proposes an urgent reassessment.

Making Knowledge in Business Communication: Collaboration Between Editorial Teams and Authors

The Publications Board of the Association for Business Communication (ABC) sponsored a panel discussion, with the same title as this commentary, for the 2004 annual meeting of the ABC. The goal was bring together editors and authors share insights about the process of publishing one's work in the field of business communication. The participants included the editors of four business communication journals (Debby Andrews [now former editor], Business Communication Quarterly [BCQ]; Steve Ralston, the Journal of Business Communication [JBC]; Charie Thralls and Mark Zachry, Technical Communication Quarterly [TCQ]; and Dorothy Winsor, the Journal of Business and Technical Communication [JBTC]), three authors who have published in those journals (Jackie Hartman, Colorado State University; Pris Rogers, University of Michigan; and Christine Uber Grosse, Thunderbird University), and one panelist who represented both groups (Lamar Reinsch, former editor of JBC, Georgetown University).The panelists were eager share their advice, and it became apparent from the audience's response that many others could benefit from an inside look at the publishing process in our field. This commentary is a distillation of the panelists' remarks. Whether you an reviewer, associate editor, or editor--or someone planning take on one of these roles--we hope that the collective wisdom represented below will make the work of creating knowledge in business communication smoother, inspiring, and successful for you. Making knowledge in business communication is indeed a enterprise. For all four journals represented on this panel, and for most peer-reviewed academic journals, there essentially four sources of influence on a work under consideration: the the editor, manuscript reviewers (which may include associate editors), and the copyediting and production staff. By definition, this makes the act of publishing one's work a highly venture. How much the editorial staff and reviewers can influence a study can vary greatly from case case and from journal journal. For example, depending on the manuscript, Debby Andrews of BCQ would assume a wide range of positions, from the almost hands off a highly invasive strategy that made her, to a very real extent, a Dorothy Winsor of JBTC gives more or less feedback, depending on the clarity of the reviews and the experience of the author, highlighting, in any case, what's probably most for the author do. Charie Thralls and Mark Zachry of TCQ are committed playing a very active role in helping authors produce the highest quality research for the field, which typically takes the form of helping authors interpret reviewers' comments and cultivate the most promising elements of their manuscripts. Steve Ralston of JBC challenged the appropriateness of the word collaboration as a label for the editor-author relationship. He preferred the term coproduction, not wanting in any way be perceived as a coauthor. And yet, as both he and Jackie Hartman brought out, in at least one case Ralston played a major role in helping an author make one kind of contribution the field instead of another. Hartman had conducted a study of internal communication in two organizations, using locus groups as her primary research method. The reviewers selected for her manuscript had trouble accepting Hartman's research approach. Through phone calls and emails, Ralston advised Hartman turn her article into a commentary piece about the usefulness of focus groups as a research methodology. Hartman regarded this process as collaborative and much appreciated Ralston's willingness help her see in her paper what JBC readers would find most valuable. An important point made by the panelists, in fact, is that editors have, as a rule, the most reliable sense of what their readers will find interesting, significant, and convincing. …

Government demarketing: different approaches and mixed messages

PurposeTo compare three demarketing campaigns.Design/methodology/approachThis is a commentary piece which compares three campaigns those aiming to reduce smoking, excessive drinking and the use of the motorcars – undertaken by the United Kingdom government and considers the different approaches being used.FindingsThe article highlights areas where there appears to be a conflict between the particular demarketing campaign and other initiatives.Originality/valueOutlines some of the different approaches that can be employed by government when trying to demarket the use of products or commodities.

Constructing Contributions to Organizational Learning

This special issue of Management Learning provides the opportunity to reflect on the contribution over the past 30 years of Chris Argyris to the field of organizational learning and on some implications for future research. In order to do this we will reconsider his work against the context of other research that has been done over this period. This special issue therefore contains two items generated by Argyris himself: a commentary piece on the papers that are included here and an interview. The interview is part of a celebration event organized by Management Learning to honour Chris Argyris as a ‘Timeless Learner’ and to celebrate his 80th birthday, and Elena Antonacopoulou, who conducted this interview, presents the main insights from Chris Argyris’ scholarship. In this opening paper we focus on the nature of ‘contribution’ in relation to organizational learning, and this leads into an introduction to the six papers that comprise the core of the special issue.

The Chinese in space: the third man in the fourth battlefield?

AbstractThis commentary piece explores the several ramifications of China's October 2003 successful manned space mission, when the People's Republic of China became the third nation, following the lead of the USA and the Soviet Union, to independently launch a manned space mission. While the achievement resulted in prestige and justifiable pride in China, the potential ‘dual use’ of space for military purposes remains speculative, and is of concern to Washington's ‘Blue Team’, suspicious of China's possible aggressive intentions. While China's space efforts include militarisation, it remains an open question as to whether it intends to fully develop space weapons against a background of its belief that the USA already has ‘abundant power’, especially in space. Copyright © 2004 Henry Stewart Publications

Maria Tells Her Story

As evidenced by the Latino Health Task Force Report, Latinos living in North Carolina face numerous challenges when seeking healthcare services. Those of us who have had the privilege to serve Latinos in clinics and hospitals have been witnesses to the drama that unfolds every day for these families. Navigating through our healthcare system can be a very taxing process for Latino immigrants. In order to fully understand these difficulties, sometimes it's best to let the people tell their story. It is with this thought in mind that we bring you this commentary piece. María and Jesús live in North Carolina. María tells her story to a nurse who speaks Spanish. Although these characters are entirely fictional, the events described here--and many others like them--have taken place all across the state and the country. Any similarities to actual people living or deceased is purely coincidental.

Living in a Material World: Reflecting on Some Assumptions of Health Psychology

A S W E E N T E R the 21st century a major challenge for health psychologists is to reflect on the adequacy of our theories and methods for improving the health of the world’s masses. While many of us may think that our theories developed in the quiet of the academic seminar room are at least benign, the evidence suggests that this may not be the case. For example, in a recent review Waldo and Coates (2000) considered the role of behavioural science, and implicitly of health psychology, in the worldwide programme to develop a strategy to halt the spread of AIDS, the most relentless infectious disease that has led to the deaths of millions in the developing world. They argued that the very theoretical assumptions of health psychology have actually hindered attempts to control this epidemic. Through persistently directing attention towards the individual level of analysis in explaining health-related behaviours, health psychology has contributed to masking the role of economic, political and symbolic social inequalities in patterns of ill-health, both globally and within particular countries. Thus, while some health psychologists may laud the innovativeness of subtle changes to the basic social cognition models of health behaviour it can be argued that these very models may actually be hindering attempts at improving health. Prilleltensky and Prilleltensky (this issue) raise the seriousness of the need for considered reflection by health psychologists and begin to develop an alternative strategy based upon exploring opportunities for critical practice at different levels of intervention. They distinguish between individual, group and organizational and community and societal levels of analysis and intervention. In this short commentary piece we wish to extend this reflection to highlight the broader political forces within which health psychology is shaped and is practised. In particular, we focus our attention on the material dimensions of health and illness and the issues of social inequality and poverty. This critique is discussed more extensively elsewhere (Murray & Campbell, 2003). In addition, other challenges to mainstream health psychology have been developed previously (e.g. Campbell & Jovchelovitch, 2000; Murray & Chamberlain, 1999).

A Response to Gabriel Schoenfeld.

A Response to Gabriel Schoenfeld Sara R. Horowitz Gabriel Schoenfeld has read my essay attentively enough to object to the footnote in which I characterize his Commentary article as "ideologically driven." However, he is not correct in his complaint that in my brief discussion of his article I offer no evidence to support my use of that term. True, my essay does not put forward a detailed critique of Mr. Schoenfeld's Commentary article (perhaps this is what so piques the journalist), nor will I do so here, for reasons that will become clear. In response to his letter, I am prepared to elaborate upon what I wrote and to correct the more egregious errors he makes regarding my essay. I distinguish ideological bias from open inquiry and honest disagreement. I chose the term "ideologically driven" advisedly, and used it only with respect to Mr. Schoenfeld's Commentary article, but not any other work with which I took issue. I stand by this characterization. Mr. Schoenfeld expresses disappointment that I do not supply sufficient "evidence" to buttress my assertions concerning his ideological stance and the distorted reading it engenders. That evidence, however, is to be found in abundance both in the Commentary article and in his correspondence with Prooftexts. As the Commentary piece makes clear, Mr. Schoenfeld likes neither women's studies nor gender studies, not one little bit. He sees no value in their various methodologies when applied to any field, and in particular when brought into the compass of the Holocaust. The a priori judgment against an entire field and set of [End Page 279] and "target[ing] the male sex." Although he may arrange his highly selective (and often decontextualized) array of quotations to reflect his opinion, his criticism is nonetheless based on a false premise and does not represent the state of the field. One need look no further than the essays in the special issue of Prooftexts to see this. Mr. Schoenfeld is certainly entitled not to like gender studies, and to object to its importation into studies of the Holocaust. But if his ideas are to be taken seriously, he must criticize it honestly and not merely write a prickly pastiche. Moreover, one need look no further than Mr. Schoenfeld's letter to the editors of Prooftexts to conclude that he deliberately misreads when it suits his purpose. For example, given the close scrutiny that Mr. Schoenfeld tendered my essay, it is surprising that he should point to my "claim" (his word) that "Ringelblum's words . . . lend . . . posthumous approval, as it were, to the project" (my words, his ellipses) of gender studies, and indignantly accuse me of "grave robbery." The words he cites occur in a portion of the essay that analyzes rhetorical and strategic uses of Emmanuel Ringelblum's injunction "to dedicate a proper page to the Jewish woman" (Ringelblum's words) by both proponents and critics of studies of women in the Holocaust. I noted that the ghetto chronicler's words figured importantly but differently in these works. By cropping my original statement and displaying it out of context, Schoenfeld distorts my meaning, falsifying what I wrote so that he can discredit it. This is what I actually wrote: Interestingly, proponents as well as critics of studies of women in the Holocaust frequently invoke Ringelblum's injunction to study the position and experiences of women in ghettos. . . . In support of gender studies, the citation from Ringelblum's ghetto writing functions rhetorically to disarm potential criticism. Ringelblum's words authorize the writing at hand, lending posthumous approval, as it were, to the project. A focus on women, so construed, does not present a feminist or postmodern imposition on material alien to it, but a belated fulfillment of the desires of ghetto inhabitants. . . . Conversely, in criticism attacking gender-focused studies, Ringelblum's words affirm the possibility of [End Page 281] arriving at an "honest" study of the various kinds of Jews, a possibility contrasted with the studies at hand, seen as ideologically driven. (Prooftexts 20 [winter/spring 2000]: 182) The topic sentence makes it quite plain that, contrary to Mr. Schoenfeld's assertion, I do not regard Ringelblum as belonging exclusively to either side...

Reply from a neighboring village

I am flattered that Hetherington, Daniel, and Brown (1994) took the time to respond to a prepublication version of my article in the form of a commentary piece. They have raised a number of interesting and relevant issues and, despite their criticism of methodological pluralism, they have provided an example of one limited approach to methdological pluralism (critical multiplism). In the short amount of space available for my reply, I am unable to respond to every point raised. Instead, I will focus on the fundamental differences between the approach to studying environmental values that they advocate and my approach. The differences run deep, because we live in different philosophical and disciplinary villages.