Consumer-identified barriers and strategies for optimizing technology use in the workplace

Purpose. This article explores the experiences of 26 assistive technology (AT) users having a range of physical impairments as they optimized their use of technology in the workplace. Method. A qualitative research design was employed using in-depth, open-ended interviews and observations of AT users in the workplace. Results. Participants identified many factors that limited their use of technology such as discomfort and pain, limited knowledge of the technology's features, and the complexity of the technology. The amount of time required for training, limited work time available for mastery, cost of training and limitations of the training provided, resulted in an over-reliance on trial and error and informal support networks and a sense of isolation. AT users enhanced their use of technology by addressing the ergonomics of the workstation and customizing the technology to address individual needs and strategies. Other key strategies included tailored training and learning support as well as opportunities to practice using the technology and explore its features away from work demands. Conclusions. This research identified structures important for effective AT use in the workplace which need to be put in place to ensure that AT users are able to master and optimize their use of technology.

Doom and gloom or a time for optimism: Potential aspirants' views about school leadership - now and for the future

Principal recruitment has attracted national and international attention in recent years (eg. Barty et al, 2005 in Australia; Earley et al, 2002 in the UK; Brooking et al, 2003 in New Zealand; Williams, 2003 in Canada). Importantly, Australian research in both state and non-state schools suggests that potential principal aspirants are less enthusiastic than might be expected in their desire to become principals (D’Arbon et al, 2002; Cranston et al, 2004; Lacey, 2002). Given the importance of ensuring we have quality leaders for our schools in the future, the research reported here (which is on-going) examined the views of potential aspirants (primary and secondary deputy principals) from one large government education system in Australia about the principalship and their intentions in seeking promotion (or otherwise) to such positions and the reasons driving these intentions. Data were collected via the Aspiring Principals Questionnaire (APQ) – especially developed for the study – comprising 38 closed items mainly of a Likert-type format, 5 open-ended items linked to particular closed items allowing participants to add their own suggestions/ideas, expand/elaborate on responses; and 4 further more general open-ended items. A number of system-level policy and practice recommendations have been developed from the findings.

Big 4 audit fee premiums for national and office-level industry leadership in the United Kingdom

The pricing of Big 4 industry leadership Is examined for a sample of U.K. publicly-listed companies, and adds to the evidence from the Australian and U.S. audit markets that city-specific industry leadership commands a fee premium. There is a significant fee premium for city-specific industry leaders relative to other Big 4 auditors, but no evidence that either the top-ranked or second-ranked firm nationally commands a fee premium relative to other Big 4 auditors, after controlling for city-level industry leadership. We also test for Big 4 fee premiums relative to non-Big 4 auditors and the U.K. data suggest a three-level hierarchy based on audit fee differentials: (1) Big 4 city-specific industry leaders have the largest fees; (2) other Big 4 auditors (noncity leaders) and second-tier national firms have comparable fees that are lower than Big 4 city leaders but larger than third-tier firms; and (3) third-tier accounting firms have the lowest fees.