Search results

Antarctica, the highest, coldest and windiest of all continents is also the least known. Although initial discovery and exploration began with Captain Cook in the 18th century, substantial investigation began only in the 20th century. 1956 — the start of the International Geophysical Year — marks the major turning point for interest in Antarctica and the beginning of a continuing growth in Antarctic information. Increasing international interest in Antarctic resources, conservation, politics and science is providing a much wider demand for environmental information of all types.

This paper aims to draw on Ostrom’s commons theory to analyse the governance regime of Antarctic as a commons institution. Antarctic is a peculiar territorial space on Earth, which due to its unique characteristics constitutes a global common resource that very much resembles outer space resources. On these grounds, the paper highlights successful, and less successful, arrangements developed in the Antarctic commons to be considered as a blueprint or roadmap towards the governance of outer space resources as a commons.

The paper uses first, the social-ecological system (SES) framework to outline the characteristics of Antarctic as a commons institution, and second, Ostrom’s design principles to assess the commons institution of Antarctic. The Antarctic commons institution is used next, as an analogy to reflect on the challenges outer space global resource face and the way it could be managed.

The paper concludes that Antarctic enjoys a functional, credible and successful commons institution that should reinforce the twofold governance structure it exhibits. Similar cases of global common resources, such as these of outer space, that seek to establish a similar commons institution should take into account issues related the benefits spectrum and the credible commitment of actors to engage in different levels of the governance regime. What matters is not necessarily the form of the regime but rather how the commons as an institution functions, whether it fulfils the needs and interests of the driving actors and, on these grounds, how credible these arrangements are in the eyes of the committed members.

Both Antarctica and outer space are rather unique cases and domains of multiple resources.

The paper provides an analogy to consider sustainable appropriation of global resources (“global commons”) for peace and prosperity to all.

The paper is original, in the sense that according to the best of the authors’ knowledge, no published work has identified Antarctic as a commons institution or has used the aforementioned methodologies to analyse Antarctica as a commons and to employ their findings in providing directions for the design of appropriate governance frameworks for other resources that exhibit the characteristics of global commons, such as these of the outer space.

In this observation study the theory of conglomerated conflict behavior is tested. The impact of seven conflict behaviors on substantive and relational conflict outcomes is examined through multiple independent observations of 103 Dutch nurse managers handling a standardized conflict. Results show that process controlling is most important for achieving substantive outcomes, whereas problem solving, confronting, and forcing are most important for relational outcomes. In addition, substantive and relational outcomes are positively related. Implications for managerial practice and training are discussed.

PROPERLY administrated, the reading room—displaying newspapers, magazines, and ready‐reference books—may, in spite of all that has been said to the contrary, become an important contributory factor in the educational work of our libraries. Let us examine the position closely. It is admitted, even by intemperate opponents, that the reading room is one of our most frequented departments. How, then, may the librarian make it of real educational value to the frequenters? This is a significant question, and, in the limited space available, we propose to indicate a few directions in which much might be done to enhance the utility of this department, and, within certain limits, to systematize its work on the lines of the policy governing the circulating departments. First of all, there is the important question of planning the room; and, although the size and arrangement must, to a large extent, depend upon the local requirements, a few general observations, applicable under almost all circumstances, may here be made. The room should be so designed as to facilitate supervision—glass partitions being more desirable than solid walls. Wherever practicable, the exit should be within view of the staff. For passages between tables, ample space should be allowed—six to eight feet being a reasonable width where movable chairs are used. The accompanying plan obviates the necessity for further comment, and will, perhaps, convey a clearer idea of what is required.

[In view of the approaching Conference of the Library Association at Perth, the following note on the Leighton Library may not be inopportune. Dunblane is within an hour's railway journey from Perth and has a magnificent cathedral, founded in the twelfth century, which is well worthy of a visit.]

The present paper reviews the research literature on trust in bargaining and mediation. Several models of trust within the bargaining process are also described. It is concluded that trust means different things, depending upon the relationship under investigation. Trust among negotiators can refer to a personality trail (how trusting a negotiator is of others) or to a temporary state. Within the state perspective, trust often refers to one of three orientations: (1) cooperative motivational orientation (MO), (2) patterns of predictable behavior, (3) a problem‐solving orientation. Trust between a negotiator and constituents usually refers to a cooperative MO (i.e., shared loyalty) between these two groups. The addition of a mediator can impact both the opposing negotiators' relationship and each negotiator‐constituent relationship; the mediator also has direct and indirect relationships with the parties and their constituents. Future directions for research on trust are identified.

This chapter describes five disciplinary domains of research or lenses that contribute to the design of a team tutor. We focus on four significant challenges in developing Intelligent Team Tutoring Systems (ITTSs), and explore how the five lenses can offer guidance for these challenges. The four challenges arise in the design of team member interactions, performance metrics and skill development, feedback, and tutor authoring. The five lenses or research domains that we apply to these four challenges are Tutor Engineering, Learning Sciences, Science of Teams, Data Analyst, and Human–Computer Interaction. This matrix of applications from each perspective offers a framework to guide designers in creating ITTSs.