The Experts below are selected from a list of 204 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Anne M. Price - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
How national structures shape attitudes toward women’s Right to Employment in the Middle East:
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 2015Co-Authors: Anne M. PriceAbstract:Despite dramatic human development in recent decades, women’s Employment rates in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are the lowest in the world. Research shows that gender-egalitarian attitudes are key in explaining women’s Employment. This study examines whether the Middle East stands out in terms of the degree to which individuals hold gender-egalitarian attitudes in the region and in terms of the factors that are most important in shaping attitudes toward women’s Employment. I compare individual attitudes toward women’s Right to Employment in the MENA region to individual attitudes in a global selection of nations available in the fourth (1999–2004) wave of the World Values Survey (WVS) (N = 57), using hierarchical linear models. I find that individuals in MENA hold significantly less egalitarian attitudes toward women’s Employment, compared to those in all other nations sampled. There is not one variable (such as Islam or oil) that is key to explaining attitudes in the region. Instead, th...
-
how national structures shape attitudes toward women s Right to Employment in the middle east
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 2015Co-Authors: Anne M. PriceAbstract:Despite dramatic human development in recent decades, women’s Employment rates in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region are the lowest in the world. Research shows that gender-egalitarian attitudes are key in explaining women’s Employment. This study examines whether the Middle East stands out in terms of the degree to which individuals hold gender-egalitarian attitudes in the region and in terms of the factors that are most important in shaping attitudes toward women’s Employment. I compare individual attitudes toward women’s Right to Employment in the MENA region to individual attitudes in a global selection of nations available in the fourth (1999–2004) wave of the World Values Survey (WVS) (N = 57), using hierarchical linear models. I find that individuals in MENA hold significantly less egalitarian attitudes toward women’s Employment, compared to those in all other nations sampled. There is not one variable (such as Islam or oil) that is key to explaining attitudes in the region. Instead, th...
Neelam Rani - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a Right to Employment mnrega
International Journal of Research, 2018Co-Authors: Neelam RaniAbstract:This paper deals with the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MG NREGA) that what is the Act, what are its objectives and what are its salient features. As MNREGA was notified on September 7, 2005 and it guarantees 100 days wage Employment in a financial year. helps in developing the village infrastructure, creates assets and empowers women. But despite its positive intentions towards rural development' it is not free from corruption.
L U Haina - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Right to Employment security in chinese labor law latest developments in light of international law
Frontiers of Law in China, 2015Co-Authors: L U HainaAbstract:雇用安全很经常从一条劳动法律而非一个人权观点被检验。这篇文章从一个人权观点在中国劳动法律看雇用安全。雇用安全的权利包括否定、积极的方面：对不公平的打发，为原因的包括的打发和经济冗余性的保护的否定权利，和雇用稳定性的积极权利。把中国劳动法律与国际标准作比较，这篇文章集中于在过去的年里在中国在立法开发分析重要变化例如斩断薪水，劳动与不定的持续时间收缩，并且劳动派遣。这篇文章也指出主要缺乏，例如罪犯的地面上的打发责任，工会的软弱和法律实施，和小老板的没有解脱。文章与观察接近国际标准并且指出途径中国应该列在后面的中国法律的一个趋势得出结论：通过当加强雇用安全的立法保护时的更好社会的安全的行业的训练并且规定提高 employability。
Rachel Pain - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Participatory ethics: Politics, practices, institutions
ACME, 2007Co-Authors: Caitlin Cahill, Farhana Sultana, Rachel PainAbstract:Introduction\nResearch in [...] a time of uncertainty, and in an era when knowledge as power is reinscribed through its value as a commodity in the global market place, presents tricky ground for researchers. (Smith, 2007, 102)\n\nThis observation from indigenous scholar Linda Tuhiwai Smith about research in the twenty-first century has special resonance for participatory research. As participatory researchers, we pursue research and other activities with communities (or traditional research ‘subjects’) as collaborating partners, with the primary goal of working towards positive changes on issues identified by the collective (Kindon et al., 2007). We try to engage in all aspects of research - research questions, the choice and design of methods, the analysis of data, the presentation of findings, and the pursuit of follow up action - as collaborative projects which require negotiation between the different parties. So the complex challenge of negotiating ‘ethics’ – as multiple and contested, and whether in institutional or everyday spaces – is central to our research process and inquiry.\n\nThis special issue provides an opening on the messy, behind-closed-door conversations we participate in as we negotiate the ethical quandaries that riddle our research, writing, and theorizing. It grew out of a desire to excavate the ‘tricky ground’ we stand on as participatory researchers grappling with the politics of collaboration, positionality, accountability, and responsibility (Smith, 2007). We articulate these questions within the framework of ‘ethics’ in order to engage in the thorny dilemmas that participatory research presents for theory, practice, and institutional policies. Teasing out the critical issues that participatory research raises for research ethics, we hope to contribute to the ongoing public conversation about the obligations, challenges, and tensions involved in engaging in collaborative research towards social change (Cameron and Gibson, 2005; Kindon et al., 2007; Manzo and BRightbill, 2007), and to recent debates around institutional\nethics.\n\nThe epistemological approach of participatory research has profound implications for rethinking our ethical commitments, and raises a series of critical questions. What do participatory theory and practice tell us about the nature and location of ‘ethics’? What are the ethical dimensions of participatory work? Are there fundamental principles at play in ethical decision-making in participatory projects? And, finally, is there such a thing as an ‘ethic of participation’; and if so,\nwhat does it look like?As Manzo and BRightbill (2007) argue, many choose to do participatory work for ethical reasons, but doing so does not circumvent ethical dilemmas. Indeed it raises new dilemmas, and these often collide with institutional ethics procedures in especially problematic ways. to this end, the papers here critically interrogate the tensions involved in participatory work, and seek to advance a deeper, more critical conceptualization of participatory ethics. This is especially important given recent trends towards the institutionalization of research ethics, and the call for greater accountability for research processes, outcomes and politics to researchers, institutions, funders and research participants.\n\nAt the heart of this special issue is a deep-seated belief in the transformative potential of participatory research. Our conceptualization of a participatory ethics is motivated by a vision for ‘what could be,’ and the possibilities of addressing asymmetries of power, privilege, and knowledge production. Inspired by the radical philosopher Paulo Freire (2001), we conceptualize participatory ethics as an intervention:\n\nWhen I speak of intervention, I refer both to the aspiration for radical changes in society in such areas as economic, human relations, property, the Right to Employment, to land, to education, and to health, and to the reactionary position whose aim is to immobilize history and maintain an unjust socio-economic and cultural order. (Freire, 2001, 6)\n\nIn this sense participatory ethics might be understood as an ethical stance against neutrality, and ‘an “existential” commitment to an ethical ideal rather than to historical inevitability’ (Aronowitz, 2001, 7). to this end, participatory ethics are affirmed as an epistemological curiosity; a responsibility for critical reflection and action that is an integral part of being alive (Freire, 2001); and a ‘retreat from the stance of dispassion’ (Fine et al., 2000, 128; Haraway 1991). While such a stance has been advocated and debated amongst critical geographers and feminist scholars in recent years (e.g. Bondi 2003; Fuller and Kitchin, 2004; Moss 2002; Nast 1994), our interest here is the ways that these goals inform and encourage certain participatory research practices and research ethics.\n\nCentral to participatory ethics, too, is a presumption of engaged scholarship, of doing research informed by an ‘ethic of care’ in its most profound sense as a deep respect for relationships and humanity (Ellis, 2007; Gilligan, 1982; Halse and Honey, 2005; Lawrence-Lightfoot, 2000; Lawson, 2007; Manzo and BRightbill, 2007). A participatory ethics builds upon long-standing traditions of grassroots social movements, activism, critical race and feminist theories and the work of social justice advocates who strive to address unequal relations of power, open up new spaces for decolonized knowledge production, and challenge the dominant hegemonic paradigm (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1996; Tuck, forthcoming; Kelley, 1998; Smith, 2007). At the same time, such approaches raise critical concerns about the implications for this practice, especially in the increasingly corporatized academic setting. Below, we map out the ethical dimensions of participatory research in the three overlapping domains of institutional policies, research practice, and politics, with reference to the papers that follow our introductory overview.
L Randall Wray - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Employer of Last Resort: Strategies for combating poverty
Development, 2007Co-Authors: L Randall WrayAbstract:Randall Wray looks at how to solve the problem that market economies do not provide jobs for all who want to work. He argues that joblessness is usually concentrated among groups that suffer other disadvantages: racial and ethnic minorities, immigrants, younger and older individuals, women (especially female-headed households with children), people with disabilities, and those with lower educational attainment. He underlines the need to generate a broad public understanding of the responsibility of government to secure the Right to Employment.
