The Ethics of Implementation: Institutional Remedies and the Lawyer's Role

The issue addressed in this article is whether and to what extent a lawyer has an ethical responsibility to pursue implementation of the remedy in institutional reform litigation. Institutional reform litigation refers to cases in which an individual or class of individuals sues a large organization in order to vindicate constitutional or statutory rights. The types of cases with which this article is concerned are the "public law" type, such as school desegregation, prisoners' rights and patients' rights cases, although included under the rubric of institutional reform can be, inter alia, antitrust, reapportionment and bankruptcy cases. The implementation stage of institutional reform litigation arises after an individual or class of individuals prevails at the liability stage, or pursuant to a settlement, and a court orders the defendant organization to change in order to vindicate the plaintiffs' rights. At that point, the defendant organization, whether it be a prison, mental hospital or school district, usually has the burden of implementing the order. One conclusion drawn is that the ethical duty of the lawyer must always be consistent with the lawyer's "special responsibility for the quality of justice."

Nebraska Wind Power: A Comparitive Study of Knowledge and Attitudes

Abstract The goal of this project is to assess the knowledge and attitudes of Nebraskans on the issue of wind power. The point of this research is to learn whether the presence of wind power has a positive effect on a person’s knowledge about and attitudes toward wind power and wind turbines. Using mail surveys, qualitative and quantitative data were collected from the towns of Pierce and Ainsworth Nebraska. The surveys aided in seeing patterns of knowledge about wind power and wind turbines and positive and negative attitudes and major concerns regarding wind power.

Building Leadership: The Knowledge of Principals in Creating Collaborative Communities of Professional Learning

Research literature is replete with the importance of collaboration in schools, the lack of its implementation, the centrality of the role of the principal, and the existence of a gap between knowledge and practice--or a "Knowing-Doing Gap." In other words, there is a set of knowledge that principals must know in order to create a collaborative workplace environment for teachers. This study sought to describe what high school principals know about creating such a culture of collaboration. The researcher combed journal articles, studies and professional literature in order to identify what principals must know in order to create a culture of collaboration. The result was ten elements of principal knowledge: Staff involvement in important decisions, Charismatic leadership not being necessary for success, Effective elements of teacher teams, Administrator‘s modeling professional learning, The allocation of resources, Staff meetings focused on student learning, Elements of continuous improvement, and Principles of Adult Learning, Student Learning and Change. From these ten elements, the researcher developed a web-based survey intended to measure nine of those elements (Charismatic leadership was excluded). Principals of accredited high schools in the state of Nebraska were invited to participate in this survey, as high schools are well-known for the isolation that teachers experience--particularly as a result of departmentalization. The results indicate that principals have knowledge of eight of the nine measured elements. The one that they lacked an understanding of was Principles of Student Learning. Given these two findings of what principals do and do not know, the researcher recommends that professional organizations, intermediate service agencies and district-level support staff engage in systematic and systemic initiatives to increase the knowledge of principals in the element of lacking knowledge. Further, given that eight of the nine elements are understood by principals, it would be wise to examine reasons for the implementation gap (Knowing-Doing Gap) and how to overcome it.

Food Handling Practices, Knowledge and Beliefs of Families with Young Children Based on the Health Belief Model

Objective: To determine current food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs of primary food handlers with children 10 years old and the relationship between these components. Design: Surveys were developed based on FightBac!™ concepts and the Health Belief Model (HBM) construct. Participants: The majority of participants (n= 503) were females (67%), Caucasians (80%), aged between 30 to 49 years old (83%), had one or two children (83%), prepared meals all or most of the time (76%) and consumed meals away from home three times or less per week (66%). Analysis: Descriptive statistics and inferential statistics using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (rho) (p<0.05 and one-tail) and Chi-square were used to examine frequency and correlations. Results: Few participants reached the food safety objectives of Healthy People 2010 for safe food handling practices (79%). Mixed results were reported for perceived susceptibility. Only half of the participants (53-54%) reported high perceived severity for their children if they contracted food borne illness. Most participants were confident of their food handling practices for their children (91%) and would change their food handling practices if they or their family members previously experienced food poisoning (79%). Participants’ reasons for high self-efficacy were learning from their family and independently acquiring knowledge and skills from the media, internet or job. The three main barriers to safe food handling were insufficient time, lots of distractions and lack of control of the food handling practices of other people in the household. Participants preferred to use food safety information that is easy to understand, has scientific facts, causes feelings of health-threat and has lots of pictures or visuals. Participants demonstrate high levels of knowledge in certain areas of the FightBac!TM concepts but lacked knowledge in other areas. Knowledge and cues to action were most supportive of the HBM construct, while perceived susceptibility was least supportive of the HBM construct. Conclusion: Most participants demonstrate many areas to improve in their food handling practices, knowledge and beliefs. Adviser: Julie A. Albrecht

Literacy Research: Issues of Authority, Ownership, and Representation

With the “social turn” of language in the past decade within English studies, ethnographic and teacher research methods increasingly have acquired legitimacy as a means of studying student literacy. And with this legitimacy, graduate students specializing in literacy and composition studies increasingly are being encouraged to use ethnographic and teacher research methods to study student literacy within classrooms. Yet few of the narratives produced from these studies discuss the problems that frequently arise when participant observers enter the classroom. Recently, some researchers have begun to interrogate the extent to which ethnographic and teacher research methods are able to construct and disseminate knowledge in empowering ways (Anderson & Irvine, 1993; Bishop, 1993; Fine, 1994; Fleischer. 1994; McLaren, 1992). While ethnographic and teacher research methods have oftentimes been touted as being more democratic and nonhierarchical than quantitative methods—-which oftentimes erase individuals lived experiences with numbers and statistical formulas—-researchers are just beginning to probe the ways that ethnographic and teacher research models can also be silencing, unreflective, and oppressive. Those who have begun to question the ethics of conducting, writing about, and disseminating knowledge in education have coined the term “critical” research, a rather vague and loose term that proposes a position of reflexivity and self-critique for all research methods, not just ethnography or teacher research. Drawing upon theories of feminist consciousness-raising, liberatory praxis, and community-action research, theories of critical research aim to involve researchers and participants in a highly participatory framework for constructing knowledge, an inquiry that seeks to question, disrupt, or intervene in the conditions under study for some socially transformative end. While critical research methods are always contingent upon the context being studied, in general they are undergirded by principles of non-hierarchical relations, participatory collaboration, problem-posing, dialogic inquiry, and multiple and multi-voiced interpretations. In distinguishing between critical and traditional ethnographic processes, for instance, Peter McLaren says that critical ethnography asks questions such as “[u]nder what conditions and to what ends do we. as educational researchers, enter into relations of cooperation. mutuality, and reciprocity with those who we research?” (p. 78) and “what social effects do you want your evaluations and understandings to have?” (p. 83). In»the same vein, Michelle Fine suggests that critical researchers must move beyond notions of the etic/emic dichotomy of researcher positionality in order to “probe how we are in relation with the contexts we study and with our informants, understanding that we are all multiple in those relations” (p. 72). Researchers in composition and literacy stud¬ies who endorse critical research methods, then, aim to enact some sort of positive transformative change in keeping with the needs and interests of the participants with whom they work.