Do the Constructs of the FACES IV Change Based on Definitions of “Family?” A Measurement Invariance Test

The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale (FACES) IV does not provide instructions about which family members respondents should think about while answering questions. This study examined which family members respondents thought about while completing the FACES IV, and if this changed measurement invariance and population heterogeneity of the measure. Using a sample of n = 511 individuals, a latent class analysis showed three distinct classes: Nuclear Family, Family of Origin, and All of the Above. The FACES IV demonstrated measurement invariance across classes on the majority of subscales; however, population heterogeneity tests suggested that the means and variances of the subscales varied across classes. The findings suggest further examination of how the measure functions with unique family constellations is warranted.     

Feasibility of Implementation of a Parenting Intervention with Karen Refugees Resettled from Burma

Parents and children exposed to war and relocation have high rates of negative relational and mental health outcomes. This study tested the feasibility of implementing an adapted evidence‐based parenting intervention for contexts of trauma and relocation stress. Eleven Karen refugee caregivers from Burma participated in the intervention. Participants and a focal child completed ethnographic interviews as well as structured assessments at baseline and follow‐up. Caregivers reported changes in their teaching, directions, emotional regulation, discipline, and child compliance. Children reported changes in these areas and in positive parent involvement. Caregivers reported higher mental health distress immediately after the intervention, potentially due to increased awareness. Researchers made personalized referrals for counseling services as needed. Children reported a decrease in mental health symptoms.     

Lessons learned about collaborative evaluation using the Capacity for Applying Project Evaluation (CAPE) framework with school and district leaders

Schools, districts, and state-level educational organizations are experiencing a great shift in the way they do the business of education. This shift focuses on accountability, specifically through the expectation of the effective utilization of evaluative-focused efforts to guide and support decisions about educational program implementation. In as much, education leaders need specific guidance and training on how to plan, implement, and use evaluation to critically examine district and school-level initiatives. One specific effort intended to address this need is through the Capacity for Applying Project Evaluation (CAPE) framework. The CAPE framework is composed of three crucial components: a collection of evaluation resources; a professional development model; and a conceptual framework that guides the work to support evaluation planning and implementation in schools and districts. School and district teams serve as active participants in the professional development and ultimately as formative evaluators of their own school or district-level programs by working collaboratively with evaluation experts. The CAPE framework involves the school and district staff in planning and implementing their evaluation. They are the ones deciding what evaluation questions to ask, which instruments to use, what data to collect, and how and to whom results should be reported. Initially this work is done through careful scaffolding by evaluation experts, where supports are slowly pulled away as the educators gain experience and confidence in their knowledge and skills as evaluators. Since CAPE engages all stakeholders in all stages of the evaluation, the philosophical intentions of these efforts to build capacity for formative evaluation strictly aligns with the collaborative evaluation approach.     

Explaining the move toward the market in US academic science: how institutional logics can change without institutional entrepreneurs

Organizational institutionalism has shown how institutional entrepreneurs can introduce new logics into fields and push for their broader acceptance. In academic science in the United States, however, market logic gained strength without such an entrepreneurial project. This article proposes an alternative “practice selection” model to explain how a new institutional logic can gain strength when local innovations interact with changes outside the field. Actors within a field are always experimenting with practices grounded in a variety of logics. When one logic is dominant, innovations based on alternative logics may have trouble gaining the resources they need to become more broadly institutionalized. But if a changing environment starts systematically to favor practices based on an alternative logic, that logic can become stronger even in the absence of a coherent project to promote it. This is what happened in US academic science, as growing political concern with the economic impact of innovation changed the field’s environment in ways that encouraged the spread of local market-logic practices.     

Carceral politics as gender justice? The “traffic in women” and neoliberal circuits of crime,sex, and rights

This article draws upon recent works in sociology, jurisprudence, and feminist theory in order to assess the ways in which feminism, and sex and gender more generally, have become intricately interwoven with punitive agendas in contemporary US politics. Melding existing theoretical discussions of penal trends with insights drawn from my own ethnographic research on the contemporary anti-trafficking movement in the United States—the most recent domain of feminist activism in which a crime frame has prevailed against competing models of social justice—I elaborate upon the ways that neoliberalism and the politics of sex and gender have intertwined to produce a carceral turn in feminist advocacy movements previously organized around struggles for economic justice and liberation. Taking the anti-trafficking movement as a case study, I further demonstrate how human rights discourse has become a key vehicle both for the transnationalization of carceral politics and for the reincorporation of these policies into the domestic terrain in a benevolent, feminist guise. I conclude by urging greater and more nuanced attention to the operations of gender and sexual politics within mainstream analyses of contemporary modes of punishment, as well as a careful consideration of the neoliberal carceral state within feminist discussions of gender, sexuality, and the law.     

Apps4Africa: A new State Department public diplomacy initiative

In 2010 the U.S. State Department funded an “Apps4Africa” contest to encourage development of socially conscious mobile applications for Africa. The initiative marked a significant departure from traditional public diplomacy efforts to expand diplomatic outreach beyond traditional government-to-government relationships. This case study analyses Apps4Africa to reveal its appropriateness as a model for future efforts and concludes Apps4Africa succeeded primarily because it responded to the changing dynamics of the 21st Century.     

Professional Self‐regulation in North America: The Cases of Law and Accounting

Professional and expert work holds the potential for misconduct that can harm clients or the public. According to the traditional model of professional self‐regulation, developed during the “golden age” of the professions in the mid‐20th century, societies grant professional communities freedom from external regulation in return for their commitment to regulate their members' conduct. Professions were said to cultivate distinctive ethical norms, socialize new practitioners, and engage in social control of deviant behavior. In light of dramatic changes in the professional world since that time, this essay reviews research on the legal and accounting professions in North America to assess the extent to which this traditional model still holds. The two professions continue to resemble the traditional model in some respects but diverge from it in others, and on some points, there is insufficient evidence to draw a conclusion. The traditional model of self‐regulation is probably best viewed as an ideal type that can serve as a standard of reference, not as an accurate representation of social reality. This conclusion opens up new topics for research and opportunities to inform policy.