an article by Nele De Cuyper, Kristien Philippaers and Dorien Vanhercke (KU Leuven, Belgium) and Hans De Witte (KU Leuven, Belgium; North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa) published in Journal of Career Development Volume 46 Issue 1 (February 2019)
Abstract
This study sets out to investigate the reciprocal relationship between resources and psychological distress in a sample of unemployed job seekers shortly after dismissal.
This idea of reciprocal relationships is inspired by general resource-based theories, the conservation of resources theory, and the broaden and build theory in particular. We selected perceived availability of networks as a social resource and reemployment efficacy as a personal resource, and we distinguished between negative and absence of positive affect as indicators of psychological distress.
We analyzed data of 610 unemployed job seekers who participated twice in a survey with a time lag of 6 months and using structural equation modeling.
Results showed that negative affect (but not absence of positive affect) depleted both perceived availability of networks and reemployment efficacy. The path from resources to psychological distress was not significant.
We discuss potential implications for research and practice.
Showing posts with label efficacy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label efficacy. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 February 2019
Monday, 9 October 2017
Sharing: post-scarcity beyond capitalism?
an article by Matthew David (University of Durham, UK)
published in Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society Volume 10 Issue 2 (July 2017)
Abstract
Regarding efficiency, efficacy and incentive, free-sharing online (of recordings, live broadcasts, software and published works) outperforms market and property systems by reducing costs of production and distribution, increasing quality and access and better promoting creativity.
Free-sharing online emerged within “global network capitalism” and non-capitalist networks. Free-sharing of purely informational content online challenges capitalism by eliminating scarcity. However, post-scarcity is limited by constraints on time and the capacity to filter digital plenitude. These limits create scope for alternative business models.
Free-sharing online tempers capitalism’s “tragedy of the anticommons”. However, to date, post-scarcity remains incomplete.
Abstract
Regarding efficiency, efficacy and incentive, free-sharing online (of recordings, live broadcasts, software and published works) outperforms market and property systems by reducing costs of production and distribution, increasing quality and access and better promoting creativity.
Free-sharing online emerged within “global network capitalism” and non-capitalist networks. Free-sharing of purely informational content online challenges capitalism by eliminating scarcity. However, post-scarcity is limited by constraints on time and the capacity to filter digital plenitude. These limits create scope for alternative business models.
Free-sharing online tempers capitalism’s “tragedy of the anticommons”. However, to date, post-scarcity remains incomplete.
Tuesday, 21 March 2017
Judgement without justice: on the efficacy of the European human rights régime
an article by Petra Guasti (Czech Academyu of Sciences, Institute of Sociology, Czech Republic), David S. Siroky (Arizona State University, Tempe, USA) and Daniel Stockemer (University of Ottawa, Canada) published in Democratization Volume 24 Issue 2 (2017)
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is widely regarded as the most important human rights court worldwide. This article investigates the extent to which the court addresses cases from countries with the worst human rights performance. Using a new data set on all ECtHR judgments from 1995–2012, the analysis suggests that the ECtHR does not deliver its judgments against members of the Council of Europe with the worst human rights records, but instead against more democratic and affluent states.
The reason is that litigating in front of a supranational court requires capacities that vulnerable people are unlikely to possess, except when aided by transnational advocacy groups.
However, more judgements are issued against countries that lack independent judiciaries, where cases are less likely to be resolved at the domestic level. While the ECtHR might not address the worst human rights crimes, it plays a subsidiary role in the European human rights protection system by compensating for weak domestic judiciaries.
However, the court's inability to independently pursue litigation, together with the lack of capacity in some countries to bring cases forward, have hampered more effective protection of human rights for the most vulnerable in Europe.
Abstract
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is widely regarded as the most important human rights court worldwide. This article investigates the extent to which the court addresses cases from countries with the worst human rights performance. Using a new data set on all ECtHR judgments from 1995–2012, the analysis suggests that the ECtHR does not deliver its judgments against members of the Council of Europe with the worst human rights records, but instead against more democratic and affluent states.
The reason is that litigating in front of a supranational court requires capacities that vulnerable people are unlikely to possess, except when aided by transnational advocacy groups.
However, more judgements are issued against countries that lack independent judiciaries, where cases are less likely to be resolved at the domestic level. While the ECtHR might not address the worst human rights crimes, it plays a subsidiary role in the European human rights protection system by compensating for weak domestic judiciaries.
However, the court's inability to independently pursue litigation, together with the lack of capacity in some countries to bring cases forward, have hampered more effective protection of human rights for the most vulnerable in Europe.
Monday, 18 March 2013
Knowing what we are talking about: why evidence doesn't always travel
an article by Nancy Cartwright (Durham University, UK) published in Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice Volume 9 Number 1 (January 2013 )
Abstract
When is a well-established study result that a given policy/programme/treatment produced a given outcome in a particular study setting ('there') evidence that that policy/programme/treatment will produce that outcome in a new setting ('here')?
This paper insists that 'there' and 'here' be firmly distinguished and offers in answer that we must have evidence that two further facts obtain:
Abstract
When is a well-established study result that a given policy/programme/treatment produced a given outcome in a particular study setting ('there') evidence that that policy/programme/treatment will produce that outcome in a new setting ('here')?
This paper insists that 'there' and 'here' be firmly distinguished and offers in answer that we must have evidence that two further facts obtain:
- that the policy can play the same causal role widely (widely enough to cover both here and there) and
- that a complete set of the support factors necessary for the policy to operate here are present in some individuals here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
