Search

The paper contributes to current debates about decolonising curriculum and advancing corresponding 'humanness pedagogies' in South Africa by developing a capabilitarian approach and foregrounding epistemic justice capabilities. This is aligned with and to fostering a shared African ethic for individual transformation-in-context and for building universities which benefit communities and societies. It is proposed that epistemic justice capabilities are foundational to decolonising curriculum and foundational for pedagogies which mediate disciplinary content and the dismantling of comparative inequalities among students in order to foster humanness. The capabilitarian framework seeks to secure the expanded wellbeing, co-flourishing and agency of all, in this case in and through higher education and a quality, decolonising curriculum oriented to an ecology of knowledges and a generous, inclusive humanity. The paper concludes with suggestions regarding a way forward to dismantle an exclusionary 'epistemic line' and associated oppressions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The field of social and behavior change communication (SBCC) has a history reaching back to the period of decolonization following World War II. Since that period, much has been learned about theories and methods pertinent to this communication subfield. One topic that has received too little attention is the ethical dimension of SBCC. This paper considers the need for an SBCC code of ethics and justification for such a code. Amartya Sen's capabilities approach and Habermas's discourse ethics are reviewed as substantial contributions to such a justification. Habermas's U and D principles are selected as especially useful when the criteria for communicative action are considered, including criteria related to validity claims and general symmetry conditions. The paper argues that discourse ethics is the most suitable general ethical approach for SBCC, offering both a theoretical foundation for SBCC ethics and guidelines for practice in the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study focuses on the role of intrinsic speed capabilities, which refer to the ability to execute investment projects faster than competitors, in the attractiveness and selection of alliance partners. We predict that intrinsically faster firms have a higher likelihood of being selected as alliance partners due to the potential of accelerating the realization of future revenue streams of an alliance project as well as of preempting slower competitors. We also expect that intrinsic speed capabilities substitute for deficiencies in alliance experience and firm innovativeness. Using data on construction projects in the global Liquefied Natural Gas industry, we find empirical support for our theoretical expectations. Our results suggest that firm speed plays an important role in alliance partner selection and has the potential to facilitate the generation of future growth options for firms due to greater partner attractiveness in the market for alliance partners. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surge management is important to hospital operations, yet surge literature has mostly focused on the addition of resources (e.g., 25% more beds) during events like pandemics. Such views are limiting, as meeting surge demands requires hospitals to engage in practices tailored to a surge's unique contingencies. We argue that a dynamic view of surge management should include surge management capability, which refers to how resources are deployed to respond to surge contingencies. To understand this capability, we qualitatively studied five hospital systems experiencing multiple surges due to COVID-19 between April 2020 and March 2022. We develop a framework showing that managing surges involves preserving capacity, expanding capacity, smoothing capacity demand, and enabling surge management. We contribute to surge literature by identifying practices hospitals can adopt to address surges and offering a better understanding of surge conditions (e.g., degree of novelty) that make some surge management practices more appropriate than others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Does "shaming" work in NATO? More precisely, does publicly using negative language criticizing allies' defense spending improve burden-sharing, or is it counterproductive, leading to lower spending? We evaluate the effectiveness of public shaming language; specifically, whether it increases allies' defense spending or whether other considerations like external threat, domestic budgets, economic growth, or unemployment rates are better predictors of contributions. Using an original dataset of presidential statements and NATO defense spending data disaggregated across the four categories tracked by the alliance, we conclude that negative language toward allies' spending is at best ineffective and may even adversely affect burden-sharing in the long run. These findings have important implications for the political economy of alliances and both theories and policies on the use of rhetorical pressure to elicit compliance in asymmetric power relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]