Methodological and conceptual issues in the search for a relationship between animal body-size distributions and benthic habitat architecture

Benthic ecologists have studied the distribution of animal body sizes because it is a form of ‘taxon-free’ classification that may be a useful metric for describing variation within and between ecological communities. In particular, the idea that the allometry of physiological and life-history traits may control species composition and relative abundances implies a functional link between body-size distributions and communities. The physical structure of aquatic habitats has often been cited as the mechanism by which habitat may determine body-size distributions in communities. However, further progress is hindered by a lack of theoretical clarity regarding the mechanisms that connect body size to the characteristics of ecological communities, leading to methods that may obscure interesting trends in body-size data. This review examines the methodological and conceptual issues hindering progress in the search for a relationship between animal body size and habitat architecture and suggests ways to resolve these issues. Problems are identified with current methods for the measurement of animal body size, the data and measures used to quantify body-size distributions and the methods used to identify patterns therein. Fundamentally, renewed emphasis on the mechanisms by which animal body sizes are influenced by habitat architecture is required to refine methodology and synthesise results from pattern-seeking and mechanistic studies.

Principal selection: homosocialibility, the search for security and the production of normalized principal identities

Researchers investigating the decline of potential applicants for principalships have demonstrated that teachers perceive there to be a significant problem in current selection procedures. This article reports an investigation in two Australian states into principal selection. Drawing on a corpus of interviews, two case studies and administrative guidelines, we highlight five key problems in the interview process: (1) the dependence of selection panels on a written application; (2) the dilemma of experience versus potential; (3) the covert rule about the appointment of preferred applicants; (4) the quandary of panel competency; and (5) the evidence of inconsistency of decisions. We argue that the selection process amounts to a reproductive technology which, in the quest for certainty and safety, results in particular kinds of people being successful. This amounts we suggest, whether the selection process is managed by progressive or conservative personnel, to a form of homosociability the tendency to select people just like oneself.