Research into choosing individuals to fill positions at or near board level in organisations is scarce; however we know that interviewing is the dominant selection practice. The research into selection interviewing at junior and middle levels is extensive. Overwhelmingly it takes the form of scientific (typically psychological) studies of independent, interacting individuals understood in either rational agent or stimulus-response modes. This research narrates the author’s involvement as an expert adviser to the board of a UK non-profit in the selection of their chief executive. The narrative material is interrogated using the concepts of habitus and practice as developed by the sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. This work builds on explorations of power, skill and intuition which use further narratives of the author’s experience as an interviewer and a leader, and also a participant in the management doctorate programme at the University of Hertfordshire. Previously the author worked for eighteen years in executive search. The author argues that both the practice of senior selection interviewing and its theorisation are damaged by too narrowly scientific a discourse which neglects substantial strands of relevant scholarship (for example within broader management studies, sociology, critical theory and philosophy). Behavioural competencies and transferable skills – bedrock concepts in contemporary human resource ‘best practice’, including selection – are called into question. The author experiences the practice of senior selection interviewing as stuck, caught between cynical and scientific interpretations of itself (that is, self-interested power play and disinterested measurement). Neither perspective yields a productive dialectic. The ideas of habitus and practice open a different understanding which does not simply reject the preceding perspectives but attempts to advance beyond them.

The purpose of this study was to identify essential features of Epistemic Orientation toward Teaching Science (EOTS) and to explore the relationships between EOTS and instructional practices. This study proposes a new concept, EOTS: defined as a teacher's set of interrelated beliefs that are developed and used when teaching science, and are shaped by the Nature of Knowing in General, the Nature of Knowing in Science, the Nature of Learning, and the Nature of Teaching. The essential elements of EOTS were identified through a comprehensive literature review and refined through a multiple-case study. The participants of the study were three exemplary fifth grade teachers who had been implementing an Argument-based Inquiry (ABI) approach, called Science Writing Heuristic (SWH), for more than three years and were highly devoted to encouraging their students to engage in science practices addressed in Next Generation Science Standard. Data were collected from multiple sources including semi-structured interviews, Video-Stimulated Recall interviews, classroom observations, researchers' field notes, and classroom artifacts. Data was systematically coded, and each belief and practice analyzed in-depth. The results identified eleven interconnected beliefs held in common by all three teachers. Among the eleven elements, How to Learn was the core belief that was most connected to the others and also aligned well with the Source of Knowing, How to Learn, Evidence-based Argument, and How to Teach; this idea established a strong structural foundation for the EOTS. In addition, some elements were explicitly presented when the teachers made instructional decisions, while others were only presented implicitly. In addition, prominent patterns of instructional practice were evident across the three cases. The teachers did not plan how to teach in advance, rather they made instructional decisions based on their epistemic orientations. In particular, they emphasized a conceptual understanding of the big ideas in science by making connections between students' ideas and the big ideas in science. Constant negotiation (construction and critique) was another pattern observed throughout the lessons. In creating effective learning conditions for conceptual understanding and constant negotiation, teachers used language practices and social, group-work as epistemic tools to help students construct and critique knowledge. Moreover, physical resources, such as physical materials and time, were used in a way that encouraged students to engage in science practice. More importantly, the way in which classroom practices and dialogue were managed relied heavily on the essential elements of ETOS. Specifically, How to Learn and Control of Learning influenced the student-centeredness of their instructional practices. This study provides several implications for teacher education and research. Teacher-education programs should focus energy on shaping teacher ideas about learning, and address the epistemic foundations of science practices. Further investigation into the essential elements of EOTS, and the relationship between these elements and instructional practices must be pursued with diverse subjects, contexts, and methodologies, to develop a fuller understanding of how these elements work as a whole.

In the typical general chemistry environment, the use of lecture and laboratory are important components to the instruction. The Center for Authentic Science Practice in Education (CASPiE) Project, now being implemented at Ball State University, uses a research module approach to provide laboratory instruction. This new approach not only engages students in authentic research practices but applies the Peer Led Team Learning (PLTL) concept to the learning environment. In this study, the implementation of training techniques and the overall development of the peer leaders at Ball State were investigated. As a result, several recommendations are presented to improve the overall experience of the peer leaders and the students they serve. These include the continuation of current training techniques with more emphasis given to reflection with the peer leaders and the faculty of their impact and the institution of a training schedule for peer leaders that includes student learning styles, module content and instrumentation, and techniques for interacting with students. / Department of Chemistry

Many current debates in Ecology and Conservation Science center on how to navigate the interface between science, policy and practice with the aim of using science to support viable, effective solutions to environmental problems. This dissertation has the general aim of contributing to devise ways to navigate the science-practice interface by taking an interdisciplinary approach to identify (1) how the academic debate on this subject has been framed, and (2) how scientists and decision-makers have been thinking about the relationship between science and practice. In chapter 1, I present a literature review, based on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science-practice gap extracted from 122 articles published in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation journals. I use text analysis techniques to organize these causes into a process-based conceptual framework that describes three perspectives on the important processes, knowledges and actors in the science-practice interface. I then evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making, such as Political Science. The unchanged predominance over time of the perspective centered on a linear, unidirectional flow of scientific knowledge from science to practice suggests debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards perspectives focusing on a bidirectional, integrative flow of knowledges between science and practice. In Ecology and Conservation, the integrative perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream Conservation Biology, which in turn has been dominated by \"evidence-based conservation\" approaches. All identified perspectives represent superficial views of decision-making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision-making contexts, fuzzy science-practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. Nonetheless, the integrative perspective emphasizing collaborative work between scientists and decision-makers may potentially allow for more democratic decision-making processes and explicit discussions of values. In chapter 2, I focus on scientists and decision-makers from Brazil, a tropical developing nation with a growing science and rich biodiversity, but currently facing several drawbacks in environmental policies. I used the three perspectives of the conceptual framework of chapter 1 to create a list of 48 statements describing how the science-practice interface should ideally be. Using Q-methodology from psychology, I asked 22 ecologists and environmental federal analysts to rank their agreement with these statements. Principal component analysis revealed three groups of participants with similar rankings of statements, thus holding shared ways of thinking about the science-practice interface. All ways of thinking assigned great importance to actors and knowledges from both science and practice, but differed on the roles assigned to science, scientists or decision-makers, indicating the need to openly debate expected roles for each actor in science-practice partnerships. Moreover, such partnerships seem to be hindered by a lack of organizational incentive rather than by cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers. In the final session of the dissertation, I integrate the conclusions from both chapters, highlighting the most important implications for a better understanding of the science-practice interface and for fostering productive science-practice linkages in Ecology and Conservation / A interface ciência-prática em Ecologia e Conservação: um esquema conceitual e modos de pensaDiversos debates atuais em Ecologia e Ciência da Conservação estão centrados em como navegar na interface entre ciência e prática com o objetivo de usar a ciência para apoiar soluções efetivas e viáveis para os problemas ambientais. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo geral contribuir com caminhos para navegar na interface ciência-prática ao identificar, através de uma abordagem interdisciplinar, (1) como o debate acadêmico sobre este assunto tem sido feito e (2) como a relação entre ciência e prática é percebida por cientistas e tomadores de decisão. No capítulo 1, apresento uma revisão da literatura, conduzida a partir de 1563 frases sobre as causas da lacuna ciência-prática extraídas de 122 artigos publicados em periódicos de Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade. Uso técnicas de análise de texto para organizar essas causas em um esquema conceitual que descreve três perspectivas sobre os processos, conhecimentos e atores importantes na interface ciência-prática. A seguir, averiguo a predominância dessas perspectivas ao longo do tempo e em diferentes periódicos, para depois avaliar as perspectivas à luz de disciplinas que estudam o papel da ciência na tomada de decisão, como a Ciência Política. A predominância ao longo do tempo da perspectiva centrada em um fluxo unidirecional de conhecimento da ciência para a prática sugere que o debate em Ecologia e Conservação não seguiu a tendência observada em outras disciplinas na direção de perspectivas enfatizando um fluxo bidirecional e integrativo de conhecimentos entre a ciência e a prática. Em Ecologia e Conservação, a perspectiva integrativa parece estar restrita a tradições de pesquisa historicamente isoladas da Biologia da Conservação, que, por sua vez, é dominada por abordagens de \"conservação baseada em evidência\". Todas as perspectivas constatadas representam visões superficiais da tomada de decisão ao desconsiderarem limites à racionalidade humana, a complexidade da tomada de decisão, fronteiras difusas entre ciência e prática, a ambiguidade trazida pela ciência e diferentes tipos de uso de conhecimento. Por outro lado, a perspectiva integrativa que enfatiza o trabalho colaborativo entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão permite potencialmente processos de tomada de decisão mais democráticos e discussões explícitas de valores. No capítulo 2, eu me volto para cientistas e tomadores de decisão do Brasil, um país tropical em desenvolvimento com uma ciência crescente e uma rica biodiversidade, mas cujas políticas ambientais vem sofrendo diversas ameaças. A partir das três perspectivas do esquema conceitual do capítulo 1, elaborei uma lista de 48 frases descrevendo como a interface entre ciência e prática deveria ser. Usando a metodologia Q advinda da Psicologia, pedi para 22 ecólogos e analistas ambientais do IBAMA ranquearem suas concordâncias com essas frases. Uma análise de componentes principais revelou três grupos de participantes com ranqueamentos similares, apresentando, portanto, modos de pensar compartilhados sobre a interface ciência-prática. Todas as formas de pensar conferiram grande importância para atores e conhecimentos da ciência e da prática, mas houve divergência nos papéis atribuídos à ciência, aos cientistas e aos tomadores de decisão, indicando a necessidade de debater abertamente os papéis que se espera que cada ator assuma nas parcerias entre ciência e prática. Além disso, a falta de estímulo organizacional parece ser um entrave maior para essas parcerias do que diferenças culturais entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão. Na última sessão da dissertação, eu integro as conclusões dos dois capítulos, ressaltando as implicações mais importantes para uma melhor compreensão da interface ciência-prática e para o fomento de parcerias produtivas entre ciência e prática em Ecologia e Conservaçãor compartilhados entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão

Many current debates in Ecology and Conservation Science center on how to navigate the interface between science, policy and practice with the aim of using science to support viable, effective solutions to environmental problems. This dissertation has the general aim of contributing to devise ways to navigate the science-practice interface by taking an interdisciplinary approach to identify (1) how the academic debate on this subject has been framed, and (2) how scientists and decision-makers have been thinking about the relationship between science and practice. In chapter 1, I present a literature review, based on 1563 sentences describing causes of the science-practice gap extracted from 122 articles published in Ecology and Biodiversity Conservation journals. I use text analysis techniques to organize these causes into a process-based conceptual framework that describes three perspectives on the important processes, knowledges and actors in the science-practice interface. I then evaluate the predominance of these perspectives over time and across journals, and assess them in light of disciplines studying the role of science in decision-making, such as Political Science. The unchanged predominance over time of the perspective centered on a linear, unidirectional flow of scientific knowledge from science to practice suggests debates in Ecology and Conservation lag behind trends in other disciplines towards perspectives focusing on a bidirectional, integrative flow of knowledges between science and practice. In Ecology and Conservation, the integrative perspective seems primarily restricted to research traditions historically isolated from mainstream Conservation Biology, which in turn has been dominated by \"evidence-based conservation\" approaches. All identified perspectives represent superficial views of decision-making by not accounting for limits to human rationality, complexity of decision-making contexts, fuzzy science-practice boundaries, ambiguity brought about by science, and different types of knowledge use. Nonetheless, the integrative perspective emphasizing collaborative work between scientists and decision-makers may potentially allow for more democratic decision-making processes and explicit discussions of values. In chapter 2, I focus on scientists and decision-makers from Brazil, a tropical developing nation with a growing science and rich biodiversity, but currently facing several drawbacks in environmental policies. I used the three perspectives of the conceptual framework of chapter 1 to create a list of 48 statements describing how the science-practice interface should ideally be. Using Q-methodology from psychology, I asked 22 ecologists and environmental federal analysts to rank their agreement with these statements. Principal component analysis revealed three groups of participants with similar rankings of statements, thus holding shared ways of thinking about the science-practice interface. All ways of thinking assigned great importance to actors and knowledges from both science and practice, but differed on the roles assigned to science, scientists or decision-makers, indicating the need to openly debate expected roles for each actor in science-practice partnerships. Moreover, such partnerships seem to be hindered by a lack of organizational incentive rather than by cultural differences between scientists and decision-makers. In the final session of the dissertation, I integrate the conclusions from both chapters, highlighting the most important implications for a better understanding of the science-practice interface and for fostering productive science-practice linkages in Ecology and Conservation / A interface ciência-prática em Ecologia e Conservação: um esquema conceitual e modos de pensaDiversos debates atuais em Ecologia e Ciência da Conservação estão centrados em como navegar na interface entre ciência e prática com o objetivo de usar a ciência para apoiar soluções efetivas e viáveis para os problemas ambientais. Esta dissertação tem como objetivo geral contribuir com caminhos para navegar na interface ciência-prática ao identificar, através de uma abordagem interdisciplinar, (1) como o debate acadêmico sobre este assunto tem sido feito e (2) como a relação entre ciência e prática é percebida por cientistas e tomadores de decisão. No capítulo 1, apresento uma revisão da literatura, conduzida a partir de 1563 frases sobre as causas da lacuna ciência-prática extraídas de 122 artigos publicados em periódicos de Ecologia e Conservação da Biodiversidade. Uso técnicas de análise de texto para organizar essas causas em um esquema conceitual que descreve três perspectivas sobre os processos, conhecimentos e atores importantes na interface ciência-prática. A seguir, averiguo a predominância dessas perspectivas ao longo do tempo e em diferentes periódicos, para depois avaliar as perspectivas à luz de disciplinas que estudam o papel da ciência na tomada de decisão, como a Ciência Política. A predominância ao longo do tempo da perspectiva centrada em um fluxo unidirecional de conhecimento da ciência para a prática sugere que o debate em Ecologia e Conservação não seguiu a tendência observada em outras disciplinas na direção de perspectivas enfatizando um fluxo bidirecional e integrativo de conhecimentos entre a ciência e a prática. Em Ecologia e Conservação, a perspectiva integrativa parece estar restrita a tradições de pesquisa historicamente isoladas da Biologia da Conservação, que, por sua vez, é dominada por abordagens de \"conservação baseada em evidência\". Todas as perspectivas constatadas representam visões superficiais da tomada de decisão ao desconsiderarem limites à racionalidade humana, a complexidade da tomada de decisão, fronteiras difusas entre ciência e prática, a ambiguidade trazida pela ciência e diferentes tipos de uso de conhecimento. Por outro lado, a perspectiva integrativa que enfatiza o trabalho colaborativo entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão permite potencialmente processos de tomada de decisão mais democráticos e discussões explícitas de valores. No capítulo 2, eu me volto para cientistas e tomadores de decisão do Brasil, um país tropical em desenvolvimento com uma ciência crescente e uma rica biodiversidade, mas cujas políticas ambientais vem sofrendo diversas ameaças. A partir das três perspectivas do esquema conceitual do capítulo 1, elaborei uma lista de 48 frases descrevendo como a interface entre ciência e prática deveria ser. Usando a metodologia Q advinda da Psicologia, pedi para 22 ecólogos e analistas ambientais do IBAMA ranquearem suas concordâncias com essas frases. Uma análise de componentes principais revelou três grupos de participantes com ranqueamentos similares, apresentando, portanto, modos de pensar compartilhados sobre a interface ciência-prática. Todas as formas de pensar conferiram grande importância para atores e conhecimentos da ciência e da prática, mas houve divergência nos papéis atribuídos à ciência, aos cientistas e aos tomadores de decisão, indicando a necessidade de debater abertamente os papéis que se espera que cada ator assuma nas parcerias entre ciência e prática. Além disso, a falta de estímulo organizacional parece ser um entrave maior para essas parcerias do que diferenças culturais entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão. Na última sessão da dissertação, eu integro as conclusões dos dois capítulos, ressaltando as implicações mais importantes para uma melhor compreensão da interface ciência-prática e para o fomento de parcerias produtivas entre ciência e prática em Ecologia e Conservaçãor compartilhados entre cientistas e tomadores de decisão

When the New Zealand Government restructured the system of the public funding of research (1990-1992) it created Crown Research Institutes (CRIs) as companies operating in a global, market-led economy. One CRI, AgResearch, responded to this environment by corporatisation and instituted a normative system of control of workers which, through strategic plans, vision and mission statements, and performance appraisal processes, encouraged workers to adhere to company goals. This thesis, reporting on an ethnographic study of this CRI, shows how most scientific workers (technical workers and scientists alike) experienced insecurity through estrangement because the contributions they wished to make were less valued both in society and in their work organisation. They were excluded from participation in both organisational and Government policy-making, and felt they did not ‘belong’ anymore. Scientists in particular were also experiencing alienation (in the Marxist sense), as they were losing autonomy over the production of their work and its end use. Scientific workers developed tactics of compliance in order to resist these experiences and ostensibly comply with organisational goals while maintaining and protecting their self-identities, and making their work meaningful. Meanwhile, to outward appearances, the work of the CRI continued. This thesis adds to the sociology of work literature by extending the understanding of the concepts of compliance and resistance in white-collar work, particularly under normative control, by developing two models of resistance. It adds to the stories of the impact on public sector workers of the restructuring of this sector in New Zealand’s recent history, and develops implications for science policy and practice.