Treatment of Uncertainty in Performance Assessments for Complex Systems

When viewed at a high level, performance assessments (PAs) for complex systems involve two types of uncertainty: stochastic uncertainty, which arises because the system under study can behave in many different ways, and subjective uncertainty, which arises from a lack of knowledge about quantities required within the computational implementation of the PA. Stochastic uncertainty is typically incorporated into a PA with an experimental design based on importance sampling and leads to the final results of the PA being expressed as a complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF). Subjective uncertainty is usually treated with Monte Carlo techniques and leads to a distribution of CCDFs. This presentation discusses the use of the Kaplan/Garrick ordered triple representation for risk in maintaining a distinction between stochastic and subjective uncertainty in PAs for complex systems. The topics discussed include (1) the definition of scenarios and the calculation of scenario probabilities and consequences, (2) the separation of subjective and stochastic uncertainties, (3) the construction of CCDFs required in comparisons with regulatory standards (e.g., 40 CFR Part 191, Subpart B for the disposal of radioactive waste), and (4) the performance of uncertainty and sensitivity studies. Results obtained in a preliminary PA for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, an uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of the MACCS reactor accident consequence analysis model, and the NUREG-1150 probabilistic risk assessments are used for illustration.     

Roadmap to recovery: Reporting on a research taskforce supporting Indigenous responses to COVID‐19 in Australia

In April 2020 a Group of Eight Taskforce was convened, consisting of over 100 researchers, to provide independent, research‐based recommendations to the Commonwealth Government on a “Roadmap to Recovery” from COVID‐19. The report covered issues ranging from pandemic control and relaxation of social distancing measures, to well‐being and special considerations for vulnerable populations. Our work focused on the critical needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities; this paper presents an overview of our recommendations to the Roadmap report. In addressing the global challenges posed by pandemics for citizens around the world, Indigenous people are recognised as highly vulnerable. At the time of writing Australia's First Nations Peoples have been largely spared from COVID‐19 in comparison to other Indigenous populations globally. Our recommendations emphasise self‐determination and equitable needs‐based funding to support Indigenous communities to recover from COVID‐19, addressing persistent overcrowded housing, and a focus on workforce, especially for regional and remote communities. These latter two issues have been highlighted as major issues of risk for Indigenous communities in Australia It remains to be seen how governments across Australia take up these recommendations to support Indigenous peoples' health and healing journey through yet another, potentially catastrophic, health crisis.     

Ecologies of Boundaries: Modes of Boundary Work in Professional Proto‐Jurisdictions

Ecological approaches to professional work, authority, and regulation have seen a resurgence in the sociology of professions, as epitomized in the linked ecologies framework of Andrew Abbott. Alongside this resurgence comes a renewed attention to the way symbolic and material boundaries within and between professions, as well as between professional, university, and political institutions, come to be defined, negotiated, and changed as part of ongoing professional projects. Building on and comparing case studies set in Denmark into three emerging professional “proto‐jurisdictions”—of water‐related climate adaptation, lifestyle disease prevention, and innovation management—this article identifies three key modes of interprofessional boundary work important for such projects. In doing so, it grounds Abbott's meso‐level framework of linked ecologies in more situated accounts of workplace‐level boundary interaction, by reconnecting to a wider tradition of symbolic interactionist studies of professions.     

Understanding the geographical development of social movements: a web‐link analysis of Slow Food

Slow Food (SF) is a global, grassroots movement aimed at enhancing and sustaining local food cultures and traditions worldwide. Since its establishment in the 1980s, Slow Food groups have emerged across the world and embedded in a wide range of different contexts. In this article, we explain how the movement, as a diverse whole, is being shaped by complex dynamics existing between grassroots flexibilities and emerging drives for movement coherence and harmonization. Unlike conventional studies on social movements, our approach helps one to understand transnational social movements as being simultaneously coherent and diverse bodies of collective action. Drawing on work in the fields of relational geography, assemblage theory and webometric research, we develop an analytical strategy that navigates and maps the entire Slow Food movement by exploring its ‘double articulation’ between the material‐connective and ideational‐expressive. Focusing on representations of this connectivity and articulation on the internet, we combine methodologies of computation research (webometrics) with more qualitative forms of (web) discourse analysis to achieve this. Our results point to the significance of particular networks and nodal points that support such double movements, each presenting core logistical channels of the movement's operations as well as points of relay of new ideas and practices. A network‐based analysis of ‘double articulation’ thus shows how the co‐evolution of ideas and material practices cascades into major trends without having to rely on a ‘grand', singular explanation of a movement's development.     

Reflection on action: The process of helping social work students to develop their use of theory in practice

Over the years, college and practice-based social work teachers have been expected to help social work students to relate or integrate theory and practice, to transfer knowledge and/or to be a reflective practitioner. This paper first seeks to unpick and clarify what integrating theory and practice actually means and then goes on to suggest a model for exploring the use of theory in practice which a practice teacher could use with students in supervision.     

The organizational design of offshoring: Taking stock and moving forward

Offshoring can be defined as the relocation of organizational tasks and services to foreign locations. At the same time as the scale and scope of offshoring have reached unprecedented levels in recent years, firms have increasingly been exposed to the challenges relating to managing an organization consisting of a number of offshored activities. In this special issue introduction paper, we argue that an organizational design perspective on offshoring can benefit research and practice in understanding how firms can coordinate and integrate offshoring activities. Specifically, we argue that offshoring implies an organizational reconfiguration consisting of three stages: disintegration, relocation and reintegration. We discuss the implications of this perspective and outline a research agenda.     

Implementing human resource development best practices: Replication or re-creation?

Abstract

Firms increasingly introduce HRD ‘best practices’ developed somewhere else, but results often fall short of expectations. Much of existing theory fails to guide the implementation of HRD best practices because it does not recognize how introduced practices interact with existing practices in the firm. In this paper, we contrast the dominant perspective ‘Implementation as Replication’ with a perspective of ‘Implementation as Re-creation’. Through four stages of the implementation process, we identify and discuss how these contrasting perspectives yield different implications for how firms go about introducing HRD best practices. First, when firms take up a practice, is this a process of adoption or translation? Second, is it assumed that new knowledge can be implanted directly and lead to new behaviour, or is active experimentation a necessary precondition to gain new knowledge? Third, are deviations from the intended plan considered errors to be corrected or sources for learning? Fourth, are introduced best practices treated in isolation or as integral parts of the firm's management system? We argue that implementation efforts guided by the re-creation perspective increase the prospects of HRD best practices succeeding as a useful tool in the receiving firm.