Search results

This paper aims to measure the prevalence of deviant behaviour among children who have dropped out of school and their subsequent arrests by the criminal justice system. The paper further analyses the relationship between the factors attributed to deviant behaviour and the subsequent arrests by the criminal justice system.

Using a semi-structured interview schedule, data was collected from 330 children who had already dropped out of school, remained on the streets or worked. The interviews took place in the presence of either of the children’s parents, with their consent.

The research identified 12 significant factors contributing to children dropping out of school. It also found six factors responsible for deviant behaviour. Furthermore, the study revealed that about 70% of the respondents were involved in one or more deviant behaviours. Among them, 51% had been detained by the Police in the past two years. Additionally, the linear regression model results positively predict the nexus among the six factors responsible for deviant behaviour.

The study is limited to male children who had dropped out of school, as female children were excluded. In connection with measuring deviant behaviour, it was challenging to discern whether it occurred before students left school, after or both.

The study suggests several measures, including policies such as early intervention programmes, providing quality education, mentoring and counselling for students and parents, vocational education opportunities, creating drug-free environments, career guidance, peer mentoring, community engagement, substance abuse prevention and rehabilitation programmes, to prevent school dropout and subsequent deviant behaviour.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is unique to India. The moderation regression model represents an exceptional finding. This study constitutes another addition to the field of child welfare while also indicating scope for future research.

This study investigates the validity of Ferreira et al.’s (2020) Organizational Bullshit Perception Scale by examining its distinctiveness from similar constructs (perceptions of organizational politics, organizational cynicism, procedural justice) and its predictive validity through its relations with important organizational attitudes (organizational identification) and behaviors (counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior). This study also examines the moderating effects of honesty–humility on the relations between organizational bullshit perception and the outcomes of counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational identification. Finally, this study examines the incremental validity of organizational bullshit perception in predicting counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational identification above and beyond similar constructs in an exploratory fashion.

Survey data were collected from a sample of working adults online via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform across two waves (final N = 323 for wave 1 and 174 for wave 2), one month apart.

The results indicate that organizational bullshit perception, as measured by Ferreira et al.’s (2020) scale, represents a distinct construct that has statistically significant relations with counterproductive work behavior, organizational citizenship behavior and organizational identification, even after controlling for procedural justice, organizational cynicism and perceptions of organizational politics. The results, however, showed no support for honesty–humility as a moderator.

These findings suggest that organizations can benefit from assessing and working to alleviate their employees’ perceptions of organizational bullshit. This construct predicts behaviors and attitudes important for organizational functioning.

This study adds to Ferreira et al.’s (2020) original work by demonstrating organizational bullshit perception’s distinctiveness from existing constructs in the literature and its implications for organizations and their employees.

The ways communities have regarded disasters and natural hazards in the cultural sphere can provide a lens to inform the understanding of their ability to withstand shocks and the factors that led to such conditions. Only by tracing the complexities of creating, transmitting and preserving a culture of preparedness among disaster-vulnerable communities can researchers and practitioners claim to be working toward policy that is informed by the communities’ own experience and design policy or programming on their behalf.

In efforts to prevent, respond to and recover from disasters, what alternatives are available to top-down strategies for imposing expert knowledge on lay publics? How is the context of communities’ socioecological context understood in the development of programs and policy on their behalf? What can be learned from community narratives and cultural practices to inform disaster risk reduction?

I collected examples of how different communities perceive, prevent and respond to disaster through art, music and literature and analyzed how these were embedded into local narratives and how historical context influenced such approaches. My findings show that communities use cultural practices to contextualize experiences of hazards into their collective narrative; that is, storytelling and commemoration make disasters comprehensible. By incorporating such findings into existing policies and programs, institutions may be able to more effectively apply them to affected communities or build new ones around their actual needs and experiences.

By framing disasters as an anthropological inquiry, practitioners can better recognize the influence of a place’s nuance in the disaster management canon–guided by these details, not despite them.