Research on justice has produced two literatures, procedural justice and distributive justice. Procedural justice research has focused on the psychology of procedural preference, establishing reliable preferences for adjudication over other dispute resolution procedures. Procedural justice theories suggest these preferences are based on the concern of participants with decision and process control. Distributive justice theories have examined the justice rules that decision-makers use to determine the appropriate distribution of resources, emphasizing the interpersonal relationships among participants in determination of the “fair” rule for that dispute. Research distinguishing these two justice literatures has concluded that procedural justice concerns are the more robust: that procedural manipulations are more determinative of fairness perceptions than are the rules used for allocation outcomes. This research re-examines that conclusion, using M. J. Lerner’s justice motive theories (1977, 1981) as the bases of analysis for distributive justice while assessing the importance of interpersonal relationship characteristics on procedural justice phenomena. Three studies tested fairness perceptions of conflict scenarios constructed to describe the relational characteristics of Lerner’s theories. Study 1 examines procedural preferences among adjudication, negotiations and joint problem-solving under different interpersonal relationships outlined in Lerner’s original forms of justice (1977), and assesses the distribution rule preferences associated with those relationships. Study 2 tests the evaluations of fairness of those justice procedures and distribution rules across Lerner’s interpersonal relationship characteristics. Study 3 investigates the impact of Lerner’s revised forms of justice (1981) on fairness of distribution rules and on participant concern for process and decision control. Few consistent results for procedural justice emerged across the first 2 studies: Psychological relations of identity/unit/nonunit influenced procedural preference, with joint problem-solving most robust. Adjudication was not the preferred justice procedure. Distributive justice rule preference and fairness ratings in studies 1 and 2 offered only inconsistent and partial support for Lerner’s original forms of justice. Studies 1 and 2 suggested that people preferred a cooperative justice procedure (joint problem-solving) but a competitive distribution rule (justified self-interest). Results from Study 3 similarly presented only partial support for Lerner’s revised justice theory: Only two of six justice rules tested matched a relationship characteristic theorized as determinative of perceived fairness, those being utilitarian decisions and legal contest. Study 3 results showed process and decision control influenced by relationship characteristics: Nonunit relationships were associated with both third-party process control and third-party decision control. Results of the three studies are discussed in terms of their implications for Lerner’s theories and the interaction of distributive and procedural justice literatures. It is apparent that while interpersonal relationships influence both procedural fairness and distribution rule fairness, the power of procedural and distributive justice theories in predicting fairness is weak. / Graduate

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Published Article / This paper seeks to problematise the discourse of social justice in education and engage educational practitioners in tensions that exist in understanding the theory of social justice. I argue that social justice in education is constructed in a way that seeks to disturb not only the tensions of conceptualisation but the traditional power relations present in educational practice as well. This paper is influenced by an eclectic mix of theoretical sources; I have adopted, as a critical lens, poststructuralist, postmodernist, feminist as well as postcolonial theories to interrogate the social justice discourse. While the paper argues that the concept social justice is dynamic and fluid, it attempts to draw the discomforting truths or tensions of conceptualizing social justice. The debates around the conceptualisation of social justice will enable us to better understand the theoretical position which would take us closer to understand social justice in education.

The thesis approaches the question of distributive justice through an analysis of legal rights, focusing in particular on constitutional rights. In Part I (Chapters 1, 2, 3) conceptual issues of the meaning of rights are considered. The concept of a right is analyzed generally as (1) a claim to something; (2) which is logically correlated with a duty; and (3) which is justified, in the case of constitutional rights, by reference to constitutional grounds. The more specific Hohfeldian analysis of legal rights is then coordinated with the general account. Analyzing rights as justified claims leads to the question of what counts as constitutional justification which is in turn intimately tied to a correct account of judicial review. In Part II (Chapters 4,5) a definitive account of judicial review is attempted. After examining the logical base of legal reasoning and concluding that it is essentially dialectical, the major normative theories of judicial review are considered. In particular natural law, legal realism, reasoned elaboration, and legal positivism are considered and all are rejected in part. An attempt is then made to incorporate significant elements of each in a general theory using the coherence methodology of Ronald Dworkin. Finally the results are applied to a paradigm of the sort of judicial reasoning that seems to capture the elements picked out in the earlier analysis. It is argued that the thesis advanced here explains and justifies the judicial reasoning used in that case (Griswold v. Connecticut).

Spatial and temporal components play a critical role in explaining variability across geographic regions and time, and are necessary components to space-time epidemiological research. Until recent years, most spatial epidemiological studies have used simple space-time analyses, but the continuous advancements in statistical modeling software and geographic information systems have made more complex spatial analyses readily available. However, methods may be problematic and several ongoing statistical weaknesses have been documented, including failing to account for three significant correlative factors - spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal autocorrelations. Using Eastern Equine Encephalitis (EEE) human incidence data, this Master's thesis aimed to answer the research question, is there a northeastern shift in human EEE incidence within the United States, by identifying a statistical model that adjusts for spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal autocorrelations. This thesis introduced the spatial autoregressive distributed lag (SADL) model, a model that adjusts for spatial, temporal, and spatiotemporal autocorrelations. However, results demonstrated that EEE is too rare an event for the SADL model to be appropriate, and a non-autocorrelation model was used as the final model. Results showed that EEE incidence is significantly increasing over time for all infected regions of the United States, with a significant difference of 1.4 cases/10 million between 1964 and 2015. Results did not demonstrate a northeastern shift in EEE incidence as the northeastern US had the highest expected incidence across the entire study period (1964-1967: 2.9/10 million; 2012-2015: 6.8/10 million), but results did demonstrate that the northeastern US had the quickest increasing risk for EEE as compared to other infected regions of the US with an increase in expected incidence of 3.9/10 million between 1964 and 2015.

An authoritarian and bureaucratic ethos adopted by South African Schools prior to 1994 continues to be adopted in many schools. It may be assumed that with the advent of the new South African democratic government in 1994 there would be more freedom given to schools to adopt different leadership styles that were relevant to their school context. Given the top-down culture and authoritarian leadership structures of schools that were designed and developed during the apartheid era, secondary school principals and school management teams have struggled to adopt a more democratic approach to running a school since 1994. In the previous dispensation, school decision making was mostly not a collective effort, and involved a minimum of consultation and sharing of ideas, with staff not being seen as having the role or potential to positively influence significant school decisions. The national Department of Education (2003) refers to this as “… the entrenched bureaucratic and hierarchical management practices inherited from apartheid traditions.” However, greater choice and autonomy of thought are part and parcel of the democratic paradigm. A comprehensive literature review on the Community of Enquiry (CoE) methodology, a resource developed by Matthew Lipman, revealed a more open and inclusive approach to thinking together and embraces the principals of choice and autonomy. It is proposed that this methodology could be used to help school management teams (SMTs) become more collaborative and democratic in their approach to decision-making. Particular attention will be paid to the democratic values that underpin a CoE, in particular the values of equality, justice and freedom will be discussed with specific reference to the South African context. Bureaucratic, autocratic and democratic leadership styles may be adopted by the SMTs in various schools and each leadership style could influence the decision making process as well as the culture within a school. The CoE methodology could work in conjunction with a democratic leadership style to allow SMTs to be more collaborative and inclusive in the decision making process.

Student Number : 9307680N - MA research report - School of Philosophy - Faculty of Humanities / Many individuals working in South Africa earn extremely low wages. I briefly discuss these low wages, and examine their implications for the shareholders (owners and controllers of businesses) in South Africa. I argue that shareholders, in particular, have a moral duty to increase the absolute level of the wages of their lowest paid workers. In this essay I choose to develop this position in the context of Kantian distributive justice. I seek to join distributive justice and Kantianism together to evaluate the moral status of the lowest paid workers. I propose a just means of allocating the benefits of wages according to the work performed that shows respect for workers’ autonomy. Current South African stakeholder theory includes ‘equity’ claims arising from compensatory justice issues. However, based on the arguments in this essay, I believe we can see that there is also a definite independent moral duty in distributive justice for shareholders to increase the amounts that they spend on their worst-off employees. This spend is not necessarily only the wage costs for these employees, but is also on self-empowerment tools such as education and community services with which employees can build their life plans.