Search results
1 – 8 of 8Mark Kunawotor, Godson Ahiabor and Eric Yobo
Most African countries operate large government sizes but with little corresponding economic outcomes. Institutional economics however, show that strong institution is fundamental…
Abstract
Purpose
Most African countries operate large government sizes but with little corresponding economic outcomes. Institutional economics however, show that strong institution is fundamental in promoting economic growth. This study examines the linkages between government size, institutional quality and economic welfare in Africa.
Design/methodology/approach
This study deploys the System Generalized Method of Moments estimation strategy on panel data of 52 African economies from 2000–2018.
Findings
The result shows that government size has a negative impact on economic welfare, while institutional quality has a positive impact on economic welfare. The interaction of government size and institutional quality shows a positive impact on economic welfare, signifying synergy and complementarity. Thus, strong institutions counteract the adverse effects of large government size on economic welfare.
Practical implications
To promote human development and economic welfare, and attain key Sustainable Development Goals such as good health and well-being, quality education, decent work and economic growth, African policy makers need to keep their government sizes at optimal levels and promote strong institutions.
Originality/value
This paper provides first-hand empirical evidence of the relevance of institutional quality in counteracting the adverse influence of large government size in Africa. It determines the thresholds of government size and uses a composite index as proxy for same. In addition, this study uses the World Governance Indicators and the Fraser Institute Economic Freedom Index as alternative measures of institutional quality and Gross Domestic Product per capita and Human Development Index as proxies for economic welfare.
Peer review
The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/IJSE-01-2024-0075
Details
Keywords
Kat McConnell, Rachel Louise Geesa and Kendra Lowery
The purpose of this paper is to discover peer mentors’ perspectives of an education doctoral (Doctorate of Education) peer mentoring program implemented in a mid-sized public…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to discover peer mentors’ perspectives of an education doctoral (Doctorate of Education) peer mentoring program implemented in a mid-sized public institution.
Design/methodology/approach
Data from one focus group and an interview collected from peer mentors as part of a larger case study of mentors and mentees in a peer mentoring program for education doctoral students are presented. Four (n=4) peer mentors participated in a focus group (n=3) and an interview (n=1). Participants were asked about their perceptions of the program and their experiences as mentors.
Findings
Four themes were discovered within the data: mentors relate to social, emotional and academic life balances of mentees, mentors provide support and reassurance to mentees, mentors guide mentees to focus on the future, and mentors gain personal and professional growth from the peer mentoring program. Results indicated that mentors believed that the program was helpful for their mentees and beneficial to their own personal and professional development.
Research limitations/implications
Limitations of this study include the small sample size (n=4) and the short period of time in which participants were asked to be a part of the mentoring program and reflect in focus groups and interview (one academic year). Implications of this study include the benefits of peer mentoring for both mentors and mentees alike.
Originality/value
In contrast to many other studies of peer mentoring programs, this peer mentoring program targeted scholar-practitioner students who were balancing full-time careers with their coursework and family lives. Thus, peer mentors focused more on career and work-life balance with mentees than mentors may in other programs, as well as finding benefit to their own professional development.
Details
Keywords
The key characteristics that eventually came to be considered to be Australian ‘heavy metal’ emerged between 1965 and 1973. These include distortion, power, intensity, extremity…
Abstract
The key characteristics that eventually came to be considered to be Australian ‘heavy metal’ emerged between 1965 and 1973. These include distortion, power, intensity, extremity, loudness and aggression. This exploration of the origins of heavy metal in Australia focusses on the key acts which provided its domestic musical foundations, and investigates how the music was informed by its early, alcohol-fuelled early audiences, sites of performance, media and record shops. Melbourne-based rock guitar hero Lobby Loyde’s classical music influence and technological innovations were important catalysts in the ‘heaviness’ that would typify Australian proto-metal in the 1960s. By the early 1970s, loud and heavy rock was firmly established as a driving force of the emerging pub rock scene. Extreme volume heavy rock was taken to the masses was Billy Thorpe & The Aztecs in the early 1970s whose triumphant headline performance at the 1972 Sunbury Pop Festival then established them as the most popular band in the nation. These underpinnings were consolidated by three bands: Sydney’s primal heavy prog-rockers Buffalo (Australia’s counterpart to Britain’s Black Sabbath), Loyde’s defiant Coloured Balls and the highly influential AC/DC, who successfully crystallised heavy Australian rock in a global context. This chapter explores how the archaeological foundations for Australian metal are the product of domestic conditions and sensibilities enmeshed in overlapping global trends. In doing so, it also considers how Australian metal is entrenched in localised musical contexts which are subject to the circulation of international flows of music and ideas.
Details
Keywords
Rachel Louise Geesa, Kat R. McConnell, Nicholas Patrick Elam and Ellie Clark
Education doctoral (EdD) students (mentees) typically hold full-time leadership positions in education-related fields while completing their degree. The types of support these…
Abstract
Purpose
Education doctoral (EdD) students (mentees) typically hold full-time leadership positions in education-related fields while completing their degree. The types of support these scholar-practitioners need is unique because of their focus on balancing full-time work, academic, and personal needs. This study aims to explore mentor support systems for mentees in their first and second year of the EdD program through a group mentoring program, which is designed to provide resources and access to mentors to promote successful degree completion in five years or less.
Design/methodology/approach
Mentors participated in monthly presentations and discussions with mentees throughout the 2018–2019 academic year, which were video recorded. At the end of the academic year, mentors partook in an interview or focus group meeting.
Findings
Themes emerged related to mentors’ focus on the dissertation process; emphasis on outreach for support; discussions and work/life balance; selection of presentation topics; perceptions of networking opportunities with mentees; desire to build stronger connections with mentees; and concerns/opinions about the mentoring format.
Research limitations/implications
The design of a mentoring program for EdD mentees varies throughout the doctorate degree pathway. Mentors support mentees in their doctoral journey through presentations and discussions about relevant topics during their first two years in the doctoral program. Additional studies are needed regarding EdD mentoring programs for students in the third year to the completion of the degree.
Originality/value
Few studies exist related to mentoring programs for scholar-practitioners in EdD programs. Results from this research provide EdD faculty and advisors insights to group mentoring and discussion topics for first and second year EdD students, based on the mentors’ perspectives.
Details
Keywords
I left Cambridge in 1962 without having sat‐in, stayed‐out, marched or boycotted. By 1967 the protest jargon of Berkeley, the philosophy of Marcuse, and the revolutionary antics…
Abstract
I left Cambridge in 1962 without having sat‐in, stayed‐out, marched or boycotted. By 1967 the protest jargon of Berkeley, the philosophy of Marcuse, and the revolutionary antics of foreign undergraduates had spread to Britain. We were told about ‘Teach‐Ins’ and ‘Love‐Ins’, and the student world will never be the same again. With customary arrogance and optimism I am going to attempt to explain how this change occurred and to describe the thinking of students in Britain today.
In recent decades, it has become clear that the major economic, political, and social problems in the world require contemporary development research to examine intersections of…
Abstract
In recent decades, it has become clear that the major economic, political, and social problems in the world require contemporary development research to examine intersections of race and class in the global economy. Theorists in the Black Radical Tradition (BRT) were the first to develop and advance a powerful research agenda that integrated race–class analyses of capitalist development. However, over time, progressive waves of research streams in development studies have successively stripped these concepts from their analyses. Post-1950s, class analyses of development overlapped with some important features of the BRT, but removed race. Post-1990s, ethnicity-based analyses of development excised both race and class. In this chapter, I discuss what we learn about capitalist development using the integrated race–class analyses of the BRT, and how jettisoning these concepts weakens our understanding of the political economy of development. To remedy our current knowledge gaps, I call for applying insights of the BRT to our analyses of the development trajectories of nations.
Details
Keywords
BRIAN GRIFFIN, BOB USHERWOOD, LL ARDERN, ROSEMARY JACKSON, ALAN DAY, CATHERINE ROTHWELL, ROBERT BALAY, JFW BYRON, JON ELLIOTT, AGS ENSER and MEGAN THOMAS
ALTHOUGH you are reading a professional journal, you may be interested in the impressions of a semi‐outsider, one who has teetered on the edge of the maelstrom of modern…
Abstract
ALTHOUGH you are reading a professional journal, you may be interested in the impressions of a semi‐outsider, one who has teetered on the edge of the maelstrom of modern librarianship without actually having fallen in—yet. The experience may even be salutary; who knows?