No description available.

No description available.

This report describes a study that was conducted to determine the perceived degree of usefulness the indicators of progress toward excellence have for the presidents of Florida's 28 community colleges. This study reports this degree of perceived usefulness by using a survey instrument that identified quality indicators developed by the State Board of Community Colleges, Florida Department of Education. Based on a project design and format adapted by the Florida Community/Junior College Inter-Institutional Research Council, this study proposed to identify what information (indicators of progress toward excellence) is considered most valid to the presidents of Florida's community colleges in making quality-evaluation decisions about programs or services offered by their colleges. In addition, this study identified similarities and differences in the usefulness ratings of the indicators for the presidents by the program area in which they most closely associate themselves; by type of institution in which they serve and by other selected personal and institutional classifications. Chapter I includes an introduction to the study, its purposes, rationale, and scope. Chapter II reviews the literature in the area of quality indicators for education and the evaluation of educational quality. Chapter III contains a review of the problem, design of the study, development of the study questionnaire and outlines the design and methodology used in the study. Chapter IV contains the results of a survey of all 28 of Florida's community college presidents and presents these findings in sections dealing with respondents' characteristics, results for all respondents, results by quality indicator groups, and by selected institutional characteristics. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, its results, conclusions, and recommendations. Appendices include the classifications used in the data analysis, the questionnaire, detailed survey results, additional indicators with ratings, and survey follow-up responses.

In the light of rising criticism and debate over the legitimacy and accountability of the central international economic institutions, the IMF, World Bank, and WTO, some developments can be seen in how these organizations are reacting to such criticism to improve their legitimacy. The study is comparative in character and aims to explain how these organizations are changing and why this change is occurring now as well as why there are differences in how the three organizations are developing. In taking a constructivist approach to the study of international organizations as actors, it is argued that an understanding of international organizations as bureaucracies with varying degrees of autonomy will contribute to a deeper understanding of their behaviour. The role, mission, and organization of the three organizations is discussed, followed by critique relating to representation and influence for share- and stakeholders, as well as problems of transparency and accountability. Relevant changes in the organizations include increased transparency and use of evaluations, and an increased contact with NGOs. It is argued that NGOs have been an important influencing factor on this development, but also important is the fact that central states have begun to argue for similar changes. These issues have now become important questions in the organizations. The differing roles and character of the organizations has meant that they have responded differently to criticism and have been more or less open to NGOs. Their bureaucratic culture is seen to influence how these issues are interpreted in the organizations. The World Bank has developed the most while the IMF and the WTO have been slower to respond to criticism and engage with NGOs. Significantly these changes arguably amount to a change in what legitimacy means for these organizations.

This study examined organizational routines and teachers' experiences in two urban public elementary schools. The study advances the scholarship on teachers' work through a nuanced examination of instructional routines in order to illuminate teachers' experiences with accountability based-reforms. Using neoinstitutional theory, this study employed ethnographic methods to examine instructional routines in two schools of varying AYP-status: one high-performing school and one low-performing school. Observations and interviews were conducted with a total of 17 teachers over the course of two school years. Findings indicated that routines were a recoupling mechanism, used to more closely align teachers' tasks with the goals of accountability policy. The implementation and performance of routines was both similar and distinct between the two schools. There were distinct differences in the intensity and the pervasiveness of mandated instructional routines between schools. However, regardless of AYP-status, routines served to rationalize teachers' instructional tasks by reducing variation in the form and content of classroom instruction. Accordingly, the process of recoupling and the resulting rationalization of teachers' tasks resulted in teachers experiencing reduced professional discretion, depleted intrinsic rewards, and compromised relationships with students and with each other. Under these circumstances, accountability policy moved teaching away from professionalization and undermined efforts to sustain teachers over time. / Urban Education

The interdependence and cooperation in the international arena have brought different benefits and made the world more interconnected. As the global system became more complex new types of state and non-state actors have emerged. Institutions have also been introduced with the specific objective to support in upholding mutual agreements and to make sure that the compliance between the several actors is followed. These institutions aim not only to uphold the stability of the system but also to provide support for power asymmetries in a competitive international system. Yet, the difficulty of holding powerful actors accountable is present in the global governance debates.  On one hand, Robert Keohane (2003) argues that democratic accountability is not possible due to the lack of a global public but suggests accountability mechanisms to understand who should hold actors to their accountability. On the other hand, Michael Goodhart (2011) offers an alternative view by arguing that the focus should be on norms, rather than agents, and these norms should carry a democratic standard.  This paper aims to investigate Repsol and more specifically, focus on the oil spill at the La Pampilla Refinery in Peru. The objective is to understand the accountability (or lack thereof) of the oil and gas companies for the harmful, environmental impact that was caused by the oil spill. The dynamics between the actors involved in this case will be studied and analyzed with the aim to expose any shortcomings of accountability in global governance. As a result, this case suggests that without firmer rules from the host country, the business industries are unlikely to make big amendments to their operations to prevent future oil spills. The result of this research adds to the IR discussion concerning the need to strengthen international norms and enable the agency of institutions.

There are many parametric statistical models that have been designed to measure change in nonequivalent control group studies, but because of assumption violations and potential artifacts, there is no one form of analysis that always appears to be appropriate. While the parametric analysis of covariance and parametric ANCOVAS with a covariate correction are some of the more frequently completed analyses used in nonequivalent control group research, comparative studies with nonparametric counterparts should be completed and results compared with those more commonly used forms of analysis. The current investigation studied and compared the application of four ANCOVA models: the parametric, the covariate-corrected parametric, the rank transform, and the covariate-corrected rank transform. Population parameters were established; sample parameter intervals determined by Monte Carlo simulation were examined; and a best ANCOVA model was systematically and theoretically determined in light of population assumption violations, reliability of the covariate correction, the width of the sample probability level intervals, true parent population parameters, and results of robust regression. Results of data exploration on the parent population revealed that, based on assumptions, the covariate-corrected ANCOVAS are preferred over both the parametric and rank analyses. A reliability coefficient of ṟ=.83 also indicated that a covariate-corrected ANCOVA is effective in error reduction. Robust regression indicated that the outliers in the data set impacted the regression equation for both parametric models, and deemed selection of either model questionable. The tightest probability level interval for the samples serves to delineate the model with the greatest convergence of probability levels, and, theoretically, the most stable model. Results of the study indicated that, because the covariate-corrected rank ANCOVA had by far the tightest interval, it is the preferred model. In addition, the probability level interval of the covariate-corrected rank model is the only model interval that contained the true population parameter. Results of the investigation clearly indicate that the covariate-corrected rank ANCOVA is the model of choice for this nonequivalent control group study. While its use has yet to be reported in the literature, the covariate-corrected rank analysis of covariance provides a viable alternative for researchers who must rely upon intact groups for the answers to their research questions. / Ph. D.

Yes / Preregistration is the practice of publicly publishing plans on central components of the research process before access to, or collection, of data. Within the context of the replication crisis, open science practices like preregistration have been pivotal in facilitating greater transparency in research. However, such practices have been applied nearly exclusively to basic academic research, with rare consideration of the relevance to applied and consultancy-based research. This is particularly problematic as such research is typically reported with very low levels of transparency and accountability despite being disseminated as influential grey literature to inform practice. Evidence-based practice is best served by an appreciation of multiple sources of quality evidence, thus the current review considers the potential of preregistration to improve both the accessibility and credibility of applied research towards more rigorous evidence-based practice. The current three-part review outlines, first, the opportunities of preregistration for applied research, and second, three barriers - practical challenges, stakeholder roles, and the suitability of preregistration. Last, this review makes four recommendations to overcome these barriers and maximise the opportunities of preregistration for academics, industry, and the structures they are held within - changes to preregistration templates, new types of templates, education and training, and recognition and structural changes.

One of the great myths of contemporary U.S. culture is that America's food supply is the safest in the world. Another is that government agencies have the ability and authority to guarantee food safety and to enforce accountability standards upon food producers, processors, and distributors. But the U.S. food safety regulatory regime is as it has been for more than a century: embedded in the notions of food purity and wholesomeness that framed the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act and the 1906 Federal Meat Inspection Act. Although changes in food production, processing, and distribution that occurred throughout the 20th century have rendered this regulatory regime ineffective and inefficient, efforts to amend its regulatory scope and power have been largely unsuccessful. Current proposals to transform this system, including the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 and the Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009, however, would expand the power of government agencies to require process-based food safety systems, to test for contamination, to issue recalls, and to institute traceability protocols for all food products. Yet much of the economic literature critiques this top-down approach to regulation. Beginning with an overview of U.S. food safety and its regulation, this dissertation examines the relative effectiveness and efficiency of "top-down" "command and control" versus "bottom up" "market driven" regulatory regimes designed to resolve market failures and promote accountability relative to food safety. It includes an analysis of the impact and influence of food producing, processing, and distributing firms upon the policy process, examining when, why, and how large agri-food corporations support or oppose changes to the food safety regulatory regime and accountability framework, and concludes with an investigation of food safety crises as a catalyst for political change. / Ph. D.

This dissertation examines the effect of accountability and client risk on auditor efficiency and effectiveness during an audit review task. I considered two types of accountability. The first type is outcome accountability, which represents the type of accountability in the current audit review process. The second type of accountability is process accountability, which is not currently utilized in the audit review process. I also examined two levels of client risk (high and low) because client risk has been shown to impact efficiency and effectiveness of the audit review process. An internet-based experimental instrument was utilized for this study. Participants were practicing auditors. Findings indicate that process accountability improved performance by exhibiting both an increase in identification of errors and a decrease in likelihood of agreement with the preparer. Findings also show that process accountability decreases efficiency by increasing overall time to complete the study and the amount of information reviewed. These results suggest that process accountability, the act of documenting the process used to perform a task, may reduce the chances of audit failure, making the reduction in efficiency acceptable. I also find that participants in the process accountability and high risk groups may have experienced information overload. Both high client risk and process accountability have been shown to increase attention to information and time spent on a task. A decrease in errors identified by individuals in this group when compared to individuals in the process accountability and low risk group may indicate information overload. Also, attrition rates and followup responses from participants who did not complete the study indicate that information overload may have been an issue for participants in the process accountability/high risk group. / Ph. D.