Frontline workers in this study acknowledged that theyoften did not give second chances to clients they viewed as “abusers.”

A Wald tes

In addition, the study measures a number of belief systems or modes of thought that underlie these orientations. Biblical literalism is dummy coded from a question about how respondents understand the meaning of the Bible (see table 1 for details). Authoritarianism is measured using a set of questions about what characteristics respondents desire in children (Feldman and Stenner 1997; Hetherington and Weiler 2009; Jost, Federico, and Napier 2009; Stenner 2005; Perrin, Roos, and Gauchat 2014). Government responsibility is measured using a scale of items about the govern-ment’s role in economic and social affairs (see Brooks and Manza 2013).

The science-funding item was then reverse coded, so that higher values represent more positive views toward science.

(1) “Science is too concerned with theory and speculation to be of much use in making concrete government policy decisions that will affect the way we live”; and (2) “Even if it brings no immediate benefits, scientific research that advances the frontiers of knowledge is necessary and should be supported by the federal government.”

Since 2006, this survey has been included in the biennial General Social Survey (GSS).

Building on recent theoretical advances, this study develops and empirically tests a multidimensional approach to political ideology that specifies both the belief systems and group solidarity aspects of political ideology.

this study emphasizes the acceptance/disapproval of the culture frames that pro-fessional organizations, policymakers, and journalists use to construct science’s “public image,” rather than monolithic notions of “trust in science.”

Consistent with what researchers call the “deficit model,” numerous studies have also found an association between science literacy and greater public acceptance of science

political ideology is both a belief system (or set of belief systems) as well as a group identity, and if properly conceptualized, likely profoundly influences individual cognition.

(2006–2012)

Toward this end, the current study examines the cultural processes that underlie left-right polarization in perceptions of science, focusing on public support/disapproval of science-based government policy and the federal funding of science.

The science-policy image refers to the claim that scientific evidence can improve government policy through the objective evaluation of various policy positions and the identification of social problems. The science-funding image refers to the claim that large-scale government invest-ments are necessary and will yield societal benefits if scientific work remains autonomous from economic and political interests.

First, what is the political context of scientific authority in the contemporary United States? More specifically, how can we best understand the association between political ideology and public perceptions of science in the current polarized environment?

These results provide apprecia-ble evidence in support of Hypothesis 1a: contact with the criminal justice system is associated with higher odds of not obtaining medical care when individuals thought they needed it.

(animal rights,t= 10.13,p< .001,g2= .24; environmental,t= 3.51,p<.001,g2= .21; political values,t= 3.81,p< .001,g2= .11;

ifficulty preparing food (35.2%), bore-dom with food options (41.2%) and cravings for meat (54.9%) wereespecially problematic

deliberative public opinioncannot be mea-sured, at least not in the sense that polls and surveys typically intend to measurepublicopinionon an issue.

Participants are selected to reflect the diversity of the group(s) affected by theissues discussed, or considered to be representative of those groups according toother criteria.

Practical implementation of deliberative democratic principles takes many forms

a mechanism for providing a meaningful opportunity for public input intocollective societal decisions, polls and surveys fail. Nevertheless, the failure of polls andsurveys in this regard does not detract from the fundamental need of decision-makers tobe cognizant of the values, interests and positions of their constituents on any particulardecision that will affect them. Thus, we not only require mechanisms to convey ‘publicopinion’ to decision-makers; we also require mechanisms to articulate that ‘publicopinion’ in the first place.

Igo therefore suggests that ‘the public’ as a recognizable body, as wellas the individuals inhabiting it, is shaped by the availability of data produced throughmodern survey methods

the propositions embedded in the question incorporate claims that need to beaccepted in choosing a response option. For instance, respondents may agree withthe statement that ‘the welfare system does more good than harm’, but for reasonsother than ‘it provides assistance and training for those who are without jobs andlive in poverty’.

Given the heterogeneity ofsociety, plurality of cultures, religious convictions and interest groups, it is strange to thinkthat one might characterize all of these using a universalizing construct like public opinionwhich lumps all of this into a single analytical unit – the public.

They also show that the moderator responds tothese contextual evaluations in systematic ways that ultimately lead to participants’articulation of context-independent ‘opinions’ that are no longer linked to any par-ticular rhetorical purpose. The ways in which the moderator achieves this include: (1)ignoring certain statements by participants; (2) explicitly articulating the kind ofcontributions that are welcomed; and (3)stripping away the rhetorical context inwhich an evaluation was articulated.

It is therefore unclearhow individuals interpret the term when prompted to respond to the survey. Importantly,Marsh’s scale is not an anomaly reflecting bad research practice, but rather is typical ofattitudinal scales. Second, in the translation of participants’ own expressions into cate-gories the analyst uses to systematize and organize responses, the researcher by necessityglosses over contextual variation in the use of particular terms. The researcher thereforeimposes her or his own analytical categories in interpreting participants’ responses.

In this I draw particularly on discursive psycho-logical and related work.

In this context, Burgess (2014) notes that one particular challenge inher-ent in operationalizing concepts such as ‘the public’ and ‘public interests’ is thatalthough they are abstractions, attempts to consult publics necessarily presume or requiretheir explicit instantiation.

Recently, Stilgoe, Lock and Wilsdon (2014) and Burgess (2014) have observed thatthere has been an important shift from ‘deficit to dialogue’, that is, from viewing thebroader public as deficient and therefore in need of being informed about science andtechnology, to viewing lay publics as key stakeholders to be involved in dialogue aboutthe governance of science and technology.

However, the study of public opinion on science and technology manifests somewhatdifferently from that of many other objects of social interest. For one, many discussionsof science and technology are future-oriented

n policy contexts, public opinionholds a critical place in the assessment and justification of the allocation of resources, thedevelopment of programmes and the implementation and cancellation of services.

Rowe and Frewer (2005) argue that surveys are limited to a one-directional flow ofinformation from public representatives to sponsors (and initiators) of the survey. As amechanism of public participation, therefore, surveys fail to provide opportunities fordialogue, shaping agendas and questioning the framing of issues.

The context that informs my argument is the governance of emerging and/or contro-versial science and technology (S&T).

In thisarticle, I draw on criticisms from social constructionist scholarship to demonstrate prob-lems associated with many typical uses of ‘public opinion’. I then argue that as anexplicit social construction, deliberative public opinion has political legitimacy, whenconstituted appropriately.

In thefirst part of this article I draw on this body of work to demonstrate that there is currentlyno meaningful theoretical foundation for the construct of public opinion as it is typicallymeasured in surveys, polls, or focus groups.

Study Methodology

tech and non-tech job functions

We recognize that the experiences describe within the report do not reflect all companies or all employees.

Other/Decline to Answer

Bureau of Labor Statistics

Unfairness was intentionally undefined for participants,

Summary of unfair experiences

Chinese, Female, Engineer

research questions

The sample was weighted to reflect the composition of adults across the United States, including accounting for age, gender, geographic region, race/ethnicity, income, household size, marital status, employment and education.

To date, there have been no representative studies of tech workplace cultures or what experiences drive employees out of the door.

Although headline-worthy, how common are these accounts across the tech sector? Do these ex-periences affect retention? Does workplace culture create a revolving door for underrepresented groups?

Themostsigniücantoftheseisperceivedneighborhoodincivility

Eventhoughthereissomecontroversyoverwhetherthisquestionisavalidmeasureoffearofcrime(seeFerraro1995),Americansareexperiencingheightenedanxietyabouttheirpersonalsafety

Therefore,addi-tionalstudiesonadolescentfearshouldseektoreplicatetheseündings.

WeconducteditemanalysisontheindexandusedCronbach’salphatodetermineitsreli-ability.Theconstructdemonstratedaninternalreliabilityof.708

Thedataweregatheredfromschoolsrandomlyselectedwithinfourgeographicallydis-tinctareasofthestate

Despitetheabundanceofresearchexaminingfearofcrimeamongadults,therehasbeenscantattentionpaidtoexaminingfearofcrimeamongadolescents

Thereareanumberofindividuallevelvariablesthatareassociatedwithfearofcrimeamongadults.Numerousstudieshaveconsistentlyindicatedthatfemales,non-whites(particularlyAfricanAmericansandHispanics),individualswithlowerlevelsofincomeandeducation,andurbanresidentsaremorelikelytoexperiencefearofcrime

thepurposeofthisstudywastoexaminedeterminantsoffearofcriminalvictimizationamongadolescentsatschooltodetermineifthepredictorsoffearofcriminalvictimization(gender,race,etc.)amongadolescentsarethesameasthoseamongadults.

hisstudyexaminedthepredictorsofadolescentfearofcrimeatschoolinanattempttodeterminewhethertheyaresimilartopredictorsofadultfearofcrime

Usingarep-resentativesampleof742highschoolstudentsfromasoutheasternstate

Allclassificationsweremadebyapanelofthreeclimatescienceresearchers.Allpanelmembersattendedaverbalbriefingatwhichtheclassificationcriteriawerediscussedandclarified.

Akeyimplicationisthatnetworkpositionwillaffectthelikelihoodthatanindividualwilladoptanewattitude/behaviour,anobservationthathasbeenusedtoinformsuccessfulnetwork-basedinterventions

In particular, Asian and Black gays exclude their own racial group at relatively high rates: Asian gays exclude their own race nearly five times more than do White gays, and Black gays exclude their own race just over two and a half times more than do White gays

Asians are the most self-exclusionary group, which suggests that they conform to homonor-mative ideals that position Asians as less desired

Another limitation is that Match.com does not provide users with categories for role/sex position preferences, which may be gendered and racialized, for example, gay Black men primarily valued as dominant and/or insertive partners versus Asian gays primarily valued as submissive and/or receptive partners (Han 2006) or butch/tomboy/femme as a key part of pairing among lesbians

Homonormativity envisions intersections such as race and gender as co-occurring, collec-tively produced features of desire with impli-cations for inequality and, thus, can, for example, account for why a minority gay man might prefer White, masculine men and not minority and/or effeminate men.

racial heterophily is tied to ideal racialized masculinities and femininities that privilege Whites. Thus, while demographic studies indi-cate that gays and lesbians often couple inter-racially and suggest that this is due to partner availability, we argue that underlying these patterns are gendered and racial ideals that gays conform to more than lesbians

To explain these differences, scholars argue that intersections of race, masculinity, and femininity shape ideals of desirability. For example, controlling images that permeate society depict Black women as masculine and Asian men as feminine; they thereby tend to be viewed as less desirable than Black men and Asian women who are seen as more masculine and feminine, respectively (P. H. Collins 2004; Feliciano, Robnett, and Komaie 2009)

In the future, we will extend our study in three majordirections to address some limitations of the current study.

Subscrip-tion link is important because it means that the subscriberis interested in reading the subscribed blogs. It suggeststhat there is an information flow between the twoindividuals.

Community analysis is to identify social groups in anetwork. In SNA a subset of nodes is considered acommunity or a social group if nodes in this group havestronger or denser links with nodes within the group thanwith nodes outside of the group (Wasserman and Faust,1994).

We use three statistics that are widelyused in topological studies to categorize the extractednetwork (Albert and Baraba ́si, 2002):average shortest pathlength,clustering coefficientanddegree distribution.

Based on our review, we pose the following twosets of research questions: (1) Can we use semi-automatictechniques, such as automated text collection, text analysis,and network analysis, to identify hate groups in blogs? (2)What are the structural properties of the social networks ofbloggers in the hate groups? Are there bloggers who standout as leaders of influence in these groups? What is thecommunity structure in these groups? What do thestructural properties suggest about the organization ofthe hate groups? What are the social and politicalimplications of these properties?

Ithas been reported that many terrorists and extremistgroups have been using the Web for various purposes(Zhou et al., 2005;Qin et al., 2006). Analysis and mining ofsuch content can provide useful insights that are importantto national and international security.

This suggests not merely an inequitable distri-bution of foundation resources, but also potential wastage or inefficiencies in the distribution of philanthropic support for higher education.

These findings suggest that the institutions that are advantageously positioned in the network are highly selective, research-oriented institutions that admit few students requiring federal financial aid. In short, these are the most prestigious institutions in the state

Given our research question, degree centrality and eigenvector centrality best demonstrate those institutions in the network that are important, highly visible, and popular

Because there are two different types of nodes in the network (institutions and foundations), the resulting matrix was treated as two-mode—otherwise known as an “affiliation matrix” (Borgatti, Everett, & Johnson, 2013).

In this matrix, donations represented the ties between foundations and institutions.

Secondly, we main-tain that institutional attributes such as having infrastructure for seeking external money, being selective in admissions, serving wealthy students and their families, and encouraging research productivity contribute to centrality within the network and the ability of institutions to compete for and receive foundation donations.

In other words, studies of positional achievement explore whether organizational attributes can help to explain an organization’s position in the network and, by extension, their social capital. The research question in this study asks which institutions are advantageously positioned in a network involving other institutions and philan-thropic foundations and whether certain attributes help to explain their “positional achievement.”

Social capital is the primary construct on which social network theory is based. According to Lin (2001), social capital constitutes “the resources embedded in social relations and social structures which can be mobilized when an actor wishes to increase the likelihood of success in purposive action” (p. 24). Like other forms of capital (e.g., human, economic, or cultural), social capital is a resource from which organizations and individuals can draw in order to realize certain outcomes (Perna & Titus, 2005). Additionally, as in other forms of capital, there are disparities in the distribution of social capital across a population of individuals and organizations.

Of these six factors, Ferris et al. (2008) found that all but public interest or media attention were driving factors in foundations’ decisions to engage in education policy reform, with influence of people in leadership posi-tions and mission/philosophy as the top two reasons.

Arnove and colleagues (1980) vociferously critiqued the ongoing ties between philanthropic foundations and educational institutions, viewing the influence of foundation money as intricately connected to the maintenance of capitalism and its inherent inequities. They argued that, far from benevolent patrons, foundations are largely unregulated and unaccountable to the public. Moreover, they accused foundations of shaping education policy and practice in ways that, rather than promoting social mobility, reproduced social class inequalities.

The study was guided by a two-part research question: Which institutions in North Carolina are advantageously positioned to compete for foundation donations? Furthermore, are there particular institutional attributes that help to explain this advantage?

Previous research examin-ing the content of online ads posted by gays shows that preferences for Blacks, Asians, and Latinos are highly stereotyped: “Asians as exotic, docile, loyal partners; Hispanics as pas-sionate, fiery lovers; and Blacks as ‘well-endowed,’ forbidden partners” (Phua and Kaufman 2003:992).

for example, gay Black men primarily valued as dominant and/or insertive partners versus Asian gays primarily valued as submissive and/or receptive partners (Han 2006) or butch/tomboy/femme as a key part of pairing among lesbians

For example, Pyke (2010a) finds that second-generation hetero-sexual Asian women’s exclusion of Asian men and preference for White romantic partners indicates internalization of negative Asian ste-reotypes and not just superiority of White mas-culinity.

Black men are often treated as hypermasculine sex objects and Asian men as effeminate undesir-ables (Wilson et al. 2009).

For example, controlling images that permeate society depict Black women as masculine and Asian men as feminine; they thereby tend to be viewed as less desirable than Black men and Asian women who are seen as more masculine and feminine, respectively (P. H. Collins 2004; Feliciano, Robnett, and Komaie 2009)

Opportunities offeredby new social and economic structures also influenced newgenerations within the congregations and created new re-quirements and necessities (Sargut2009).

While previousstudies presented that social networks have an influence onreligiousness, they did not respond to the question of howreligious ties structure attitudes and relations in the orga-nizational field (

A list of hashtags,

the difficulty through which producers of skilled and social and entertainment content translate their creations into financial capital deserves further examination

it suggests that adifferent kind of social network may be more important, suchas a fisher’sfishingpartners.ItiswithinwhatLaveandWenger (1991)call‘communities of practice’that skills andexpertise are maintained and regenerated

The second important finding is that measures of net-work centrality were not positively associated with eco-logical change detection abilities.

Due to time constraints, we were able to findand interview only 15 of these individuals to represent thetotal social network sample of 32 individuals. Since half ofthe population in a typical Solomon Islands village is underthe age of 18 (Solomon Islands Government2011), our socialnetwork sample of 32 individuals was approximately 13 %(32 out of 250) of villagers 18 years or older and one-third(29 %) of village households (assuming each interviewee rep-resents one household).

In 2010 we conducted 58 surveys in Kinamara (n=28),Kinda (n=6), and Saika (n=24) where information waselicited to show the extent of villagers’IEK and ninesocioeconomic variables that, according to previous re-search, may influence levels of knowledge: age, gender,number of years of local residence, level of education,type of occupation, days per week marine food is con-sumed, days per week spent fishing, monthly income,and average weekly expenditure on processed food(Table1)(Zent2013). The number of surveys conductedin each community was based on population size and thetotal sample size represents approximately 50 % of house-holds in the three villages. A relatively even number ofmen and women from different age groups was chosen torepresent all ages over 18 years of age.

The threevillages have approximately 110 households with a total pop-ulation of 500 individuals. S

benthic

Typically, individuals with many non-negative social ties in-volving friendship or trust tend to be more effective dissemi-nators of information (Katonaet al.2011), which is importantsince studies suggest that occupying central positions withinnetworks may result in a higher level of ecological knowledge

To explore pathways of knowledge acquisition and itstransmission through communities, researchers in many fieldshave employed social network analysis,

Indigenous Knowledge, Social Networks, and Situated Practices

Known as practice-based ap-proaches or processural perspectives, these conceptualizeknowledge as dynamic and situated practices with distributed,emergent, experiential, and heterogeneous characteristics. Asa result, the focus of research shifts from documenting theshared values, beliefs, patterns, classifications, and rationalesof communities to understanding the individual variation, dis-tribution, change, flow, and emergence of environmental orother knowledge

We compare the results ofmarine science surveys with local ecological knowledge of thebenthos. We also examine multiple socioeconomic variables,and employ social network analysis to measure the influenceof social and expert networks.

Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4 all graphically represent the off-season and postseason social networking maps of the two teams. A line between two actors indicates a relation-ship exists and the arrowhead represents the direction of the relationship.

The criteria employed to generate the four networks were concise, which is consistent with standard network methodology: I went to this person for advice; I trust this person; I considered this person a close friend (regularly got together outside of team functions); I felt confident about this person’s basketball-related knowledge and/or ability. Participant responses to these indices were then imported and for-matted, as square adjacency matrices comprised of the aggregated responses of each individual regarding his or her teammates.

This is important not only because the contexts are, of course,different, and because it affects the implementation of those practices andnetworks that characterise academic capitalism, but also because in this way itis possible to realise that even if some elements of academic capitalism(as found in the United States) are not present in some different nationalcontext, it does not necessarily imply that the concept and theory of academiccapitalism would be irrelevant in that other context.

activecollective and individual actors who have used (and use) ‘a variety of stateresources to create new circuits of knowledge that link higher educationinstitutions to the new economy’

At the same time, much more fuzzy mechanisms of sharing are at work (John 2013): in order to participate, peers must provide identity information – share themselves. The design mechanisms of identity production are elements of a socio-technical architecture which is not developed by peers, but delivered by entrepreneurs, programmers, and designers.

Airbnb, Uber, and TaskRabbit do not meet utopian visions of communal sharing; rather, CEOs and designers deliver a matching service to entrepreneurial individuals and derive a share through monetizing those peer to peer services. A hybrid market niche for mediated – or rather: managed – peer to peer services seems to have emerged – a phenomenon that calls for an organizational analysis.

We are not so much stuck in that iron casing as we are voluntarily stepping onto new iron platforms that efficiently and appealingly organize processes we feel compelled to participate in.

If (a) and (b) are true, and if it costs me anything to help produce the good, then the rational actor will not contribute to the good. 

altruism and philanthropic behaviors are adequately explained as still being rational behaviors