How doctoral students view their institution's ability to resolve problems may be directly related to their overall satisfaction of the institution. Challenges such as barriers to communication could have a negative effect on the students' ability to be retained by the institution. Policies to address issues relating to retention; high default rates on student loans and student services are increasing and more constraining. While the literature indicates the formation of federal policies to monitor recruitment practices of for-profit online institutions, it is not known to what extent these policies have influenced the quality of postrecruitment services. Using the theoretical framework of Vincent Tinto's model of student retention, this qualitative phenomenological study analyzes the quality of these postrecruitment policies related to enrollment, financial, and problem resolution from the perspective of students. Data were collected from 20 current and former doctoral students of online programs at for-profit institutions through inteviews. These interview data were transcribed, and then subjected to open coding and thematic analysis. Findings indicate that participants perceive that their institutions were prepared to resolve problems; however, communication issues were prevalent largely because of the asynchronous nature of email communication or differences in time zones. Based on these findings, the recommendation is for institutions to consider reevaluating methods of communication with students. Social change can be obtained by utilizing the students' experiences to facilitate improvements in the for-profit sector to minimize the opportunity for snowball effects such as retention challenges.

Made available in DSpace on 2014-12-17T14:27:26Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 RicardoCFDJ_DISSERT.pdf: 2239139 bytes, checksum: 6274158f5866cc9d35f70c49136bffb7 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2013-08-26 / This work presents an analysis about the legitimation of independent regulatory commission`s rulemaking power by participation procedure. It is observed that political and administrative decentralization and fragmentation of State, with the purpose of approaching citizens and provide, more efficiently, the functions acquired by the passage of the Welfare State, leads to a deficit of legitimacy (democratic crisis), which is noticeable in the making of legal norms by directors of independent regulatory commission to regulate specific economic sector. However, we understand that this crisis stems from the observation of the contemporary world from dogmas and legal institutions of the eighteenth century, without their evolution and adaptation to the modern world. The legitimacy must be perceived as the justification of power, relation command /obedience, which, from the Modern State, has the democracy as standard. Therefore, just as the world has evolved and demanded political and administrative decentralization to accompany him, it is necessary to the development of the idea of representative democracy (formal legitimacy) to participatory democracy (legitimacy stuff). Legitimacy is not confused with the legality: as the legality is on observance to internal legal system, the "rules of play"; legitimacy, as inputs to be fed into this system, the selection of the different expectations in the environment. Nevertheless, the legitimacy will take place by legality, through introduction of rational and communicative procedures: procedures get fundamental importance because these will be the means to select the expectations to be introduced in the legal system in order to make decisions more fair, rational and qualified towards society. Thus, it is necessary to its opening to the environment for dialogue with the government. In this context, we try to make an analysis of constitutional norms based on systematic and teleological interpretation of these norms to build these arguments. According to the Constitution of 1988, participatory democracy is a result of the democratic principle (sole paragraph of art. 1 of the Constitution), and it is an expression of citizenship and political pluralism, both foundations of Republic (respectively Art. 1st, inc . V and II of the Constitution), as well as the national consciousness. From another point of view, that principle consists of an evolution in the management public affairs (principle of Republic). The right of interested participate in the rulemaking process derives both the principle of popular participation (part of the democratic principle) and the republican principle as the due process constitutional (art. 5, LIV and LV, CF/88) and the right to petition (Art . 5 ?, inc. XXXIV, "a", CF/88), and it is the duty of the State not only be open to participation and encourage it. Ignoring stakeholder involvement in procedures and / or expressions compiled can be causes of invalidation of the rule of law produced by addiction of procedure, motive, motivation and/or because of the administrative act. Finally, we conclude that the involvement of stakeholders in the process of making rules within the independent regulatory commission is the legitimacy and the validity of rules; and that, despite of the expressions do not bind the decision making, they will enter the system as juridical fact, balancing the field of technical discretionary of agencies / O trabalho apresenta um estudo sobre a legitima??o do poder normativo das ag?ncias reguladoras pelo procedimento participativo. Constata-se que a descentraliza??o fragmenta??o pol?tico-administrativa do Estado com o objetivo de se aproximar dos cidad?os e prestar, de forma mais eficiente, as fun??es adquiridas pela passagem do Estado Social ocasiona um d?ficit de legitimidade (crise democr?tica); o qual ? percept?vel na cria??o de normas jur?dicas por particulares (os dirigentes das ag?ncias reguladoras) para regular determinado setor econ?mico. No entanto, entendemos que essa crise decorre da observa??o do mundo contempor?neo a partir de dogmas e institutos jur?dicos oitocentistas, sem a sua evolu??o e adequa??o ao mundo atual. A legitimidade deve ser entendida como a justifica??o do poder; rela??o comando/obedi?ncia, a qual, a partir do Estado Moderno, tem como ?nico crit?rio a democracia. Assim, da mesma forma que o mundo evoluiu e exigiu a descentraliza??o pol?tica-administrativa para acompanh?-lo, ? necess?ria a evolu??o da ideia de democracia representativa (legitimidade formal) para a democracia participativa (legitimidade material). A legitimidade n?o se confunde com a legalidade: enquanto a legalidade consiste na observ?ncia interna ao sistema jur?dico, nas regras do jogo ; a legitimidade, nos inputs a serem introduzidos nesse sistema, na sele??o das diversas expectativas presentes no ambiente. Entretanto, a legitimidade decorrer? da legalidade, atrav?s de introdu??o de procedimentos racionais e comunicativos: os procedimentos adquirem fundamental import?ncia, pois, ser?o o meio a selecionar as expectativas a serem introduzidas no ordenamento jur?dico, no intuito de produzir decis?es mais justas, racionais e qualificadas perante a sociedade. Assim, ? necess?rio a sua abertura ao ambiente para o di?logo com o Poder P?blico. Nesse contexto, busca-se fazer uma an?lise das normas constitucionais com base na interpreta??o sistem?tica e teleol?gica dessas para construir tal argumenta??o. Conforme a Constitui??o Federal de 1988, a democracia participativa ? uma decorr?ncia do princ?pio democr?tico (par?grafo ?nico do art. 1? da CF), e ? express?o da cidadania e do pluralismo pol?tico, ambos fundamentos da Rep?blica (respectivamente art. 1?, inc. V e II, da CF), assim como da consci?ncia nacional. Sob outro ponto de vista, o princ?pio ora em comento consiste em uma evolu??o na gest?o da coisa p?blica (princ?pio da Rep?blica). O direito dos interessados participarem do processo normativo decorre tanto do princ?pio de participa??o popular (vertente do princ?pio democr?tico) e do princ?pio republicano quanto do devido processo legal constitucional (art. 5?, LIV e LV , CF/88) e o direito de peti??o (art. 5?, inc. XXXIV, a , CF/88); sendo, portanto, um dever do Estado n?o s? estar aberto ? participa??o quanto incentiv?-la. A n?o observ?ncia da participa??o dos interessados nos procedimentos e/ou das manifesta??es elaboradas pode ser causa de invalida??o da norma jur?dica produzida por v?cio no procedimento, no motivo, motiva??o e/ou causa do ato administrativo. Por fim, conclu?mos que a participa??o dos interessados no processo de cria??o normativa no ?mbito das ag?ncias reguladoras consiste na pr?pria legitimidade e, por conseguinte, validade das normas; e que, apesar das manifesta??es n?o vincularem a tomada de decis?o, elas ingressar?o no sistema como fato jur?dico, relativizando o campo de discricionariedade t?cnica das ag?ncias

There is much dialogue in the global aviation industry about Safety Management Systems (SMS) and how it should be integrated across all domains of the industry including aircraft design, production, flight operations, overhaul and maintenance, suppliers, service providers, airports, and so forth (Johnson, 2012). Regulators have made significant progress in recent years to implement ICAO’s SMS into airlines, albeit as a required or recommended practice. More recently the regulators are seeking to implement SMS into the aircraft manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. This research reviewed regulatory publications from multiple countries to assess the technical makeup of SMS, and understand what regulators are requiring, or recommending, and when. It was found that global regulators accept the ICAO published definition of SMS, but different regulators have varying approaches regarding implementation. However, they are consistent in initially targeting airlines for SMS implementation. SMS comments range from “The best thing since sliced bread” to “Worst thing since the creation of the FAA; I don’t need anyone telling me what’s safe when I already know it; waste of time and money”. This investigation experimented with field tests to connect the engineering, production and airline domains into one ICAO SMS model. Results indicate that because the different domains are risk-specific, the application of one safety risk management model to all domains is not viable. The SMS model applies to airlines because airlines’ primary risk is about operational safety. Aircraft production and maintenance is about production risk – therefore the risk model must be centric to process risk. Field test 3 tailored the ICAO SMS risk architecture to assess and mitigate process risk as applicable to the aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. Although the SMS architecture was usable, the content and focus was significantly adjusted to be production process-risk centric, to the point where the term “SMS’ was deemed out of place. The resulting model was therefore named Production Risk Management System (PRMS). Following the emergence of PRMS from field tests, this investigation reviewed industry, research and regulatory arguments for and against SMS in the airline industry, and correlated those arguments with the benefits and non-benefits of PRMS for the manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. The researcher advocates PRMS as a viable model that meets ICAO SMS-like architecture for aircraft production and maintenance. Methods were identified for developing and implementing PRMS, and for evaluating its ROI. If and when “SMS” is truly mandated in these domains, the researcher proposes PRMS as a viable model that should be considered. Furthermore, the researcher proposes that PRMS can be an effective production risk management system that can enhance the organization’s existing QMS, regardless of “SMS” regulations.

There is much dialogue in the global aviation industry about Safety Management Systems (SMS) and how it should be integrated across all domains of the industry including aircraft design, production, flight operations, overhaul and maintenance, suppliers, service providers, airports, and so forth (Johnson, 2012). Regulators have made significant progress in recent years to implement ICAO’s SMS into airlines, albeit as a required or recommended practice. More recently the regulators are seeking to implement SMS into the aircraft manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. This research reviewed regulatory publications from multiple countries to assess the technical makeup of SMS, and understand what regulators are requiring, or recommending, and when. It was found that global regulators accept the ICAO published definition of SMS, but different regulators have varying approaches regarding implementation. However, they are consistent in initially targeting airlines for SMS implementation. SMS comments range from “The best thing since sliced bread” to “Worst thing since the creation of the FAA; I don’t need anyone telling me what’s safe when I already know it; waste of time and money”. This investigation experimented with field tests to connect the engineering, production and airline domains into one ICAO SMS model. Results indicate that because the different domains are risk-specific, the application of one safety risk management model to all domains is not viable. The SMS model applies to airlines because airlines’ primary risk is about operational safety. Aircraft production and maintenance is about production risk – therefore the risk model must be centric to process risk. Field test 3 tailored the ICAO SMS risk architecture to assess and mitigate process risk as applicable to the aircraft manufacturing and maintenance. Although the SMS architecture was usable, the content and focus was significantly adjusted to be production process-risk centric, to the point where the term “SMS’ was deemed out of place. The resulting model was therefore named Production Risk Management System (PRMS). Following the emergence of PRMS from field tests, this investigation reviewed industry, research and regulatory arguments for and against SMS in the airline industry, and correlated those arguments with the benefits and non-benefits of PRMS for the manufacturing and aircraft maintenance domains. The researcher advocates PRMS as a viable model that meets ICAO SMS-like architecture for aircraft production and maintenance. Methods were identified for developing and implementing PRMS, and for evaluating its ROI. If and when “SMS” is truly mandated in these domains, the researcher proposes PRMS as a viable model that should be considered. Furthermore, the researcher proposes that PRMS can be an effective production risk management system that can enhance the organization’s existing QMS, regardless of “SMS” regulations.

The diploma thesis examines new phenomena of electronic democracy which is becoming more popular with the internet expansion. The thesis summarizes existing research in the field of electronic democracy from a view of forms that could be or are taken. The aim of this summarization is to show that new transformational changes affecting our society do not automatically implicate a shift towards direct democracy. Using theoretical summarization a state of the art of electronic democracy in the Czech Republic is described. Importance is given to an analysis of contemporary evolving tools and initiatives which were developed from two directions - top-down and a bottom up. A part of this analysis is an assessment of important factors that are stimulating a development of electronic participation - freedom of information right, internet penetration and computer literacy.

Wie sollen Rechtssysteme auf Regeln reagieren, die Provider von Netzgemeinschaften wie Facebook oder World of Warcraft Nutzenden auferlegen? Das positive Recht gibt hierauf keine verlässliche Antwort. Erst ein Verständnis der Legitimität der Regeln ermöglicht ein Austarieren des Verhältnisses zwischen den Regelwerken von Netzgemeinschaften und Rechtssystemen. Nach Literaturstimmen sollen die Regeln durch außerrechtliche Mechanismen (z.B. direktdemokratische Verfahren), eine gerichtliche Kontrolle nach verfassungsrechtlichen Kriterien oder Zivilverfassungen legitimiert werden. Es ist aber zweifelhaft, ob Netzgemeinschaften legitime außerrechtliche Mechanismen schaffen können, ob sie wie Staaten behandelt werden sollten und ob Zivilverfassungen entstehen werden. Die Arbeit schlägt ein alternatives Modell vor: Im deutschen Zivilrecht zeichnet sich ein Legitimitätsmodell für private Regeln ab, das auf Regeln von Netzgemeinschaften anwendbar ist und als transnationale Schablone dienen kann. Danach werden die Regeln durch die Zustimmung und das Wohl der Nutzenden legitimiert. Letzteres gewährleistet ein Ausbeutungsschutz der Nutzenden in Form einer gerichtlichen Kontrolle. Die Anwendung des Modells führt zu folgenden Erkenntnissen: 1. Geschriebene Regeln sind schwach durch Zustimmung legitimiert. Eine gerichtliche Kontrolle nach vertragsrechtlichen Kriterien (bei Regelungen des Austauschverhältnisses zwischen Providern und Nutzenden) oder grundrechtlichen Kriterien (bei Verhaltensregeln) verleiht ihnen zusätzliche Legitimität. Die Kontrollintensität hängt von der Höhe des Ausbeutungsrisikos und der Existenz von legitimen außerrechtlichen Mechanismen ab. 2. Code-Regeln (z.B. Newsfeed- Algorithmen) sind auch nur schwach durch Zustimmung legitimiert. Gerichtliche Kontrollmöglichkeiten, die sie gegenüber Nutzenden legitimieren, müssen noch geschaffen werden. 3. Geschriebene und Code-Regeln sind illegitim gegenüber Nichtnutzenden, weil sie nicht auf deren Zustimmung beruhen. / How should legal systems respond to rules that virtual community providers such as Facebook or World of Warcraft impose on users? To answer this question, we must look beyond black letter law. Only an understanding of the legitimacy of these rules allows us to balance out their relationship with legal systems. Current scholarship theorizes their legitimacy as follows: Non-legal mechanisms (e.g. direct voting systems), judicial review according to constitutional principles, or digital civil constitutions may legitimize the rules. Yet, three points remain doubtful: whether virtual communities can develop legitimate self-governance mechanisms, whether they should be treated like states, and whether digital civil constitutions will effectively emerge. This work proposes an alternative legitimacy model: German private law reflects a legitimacy model for private rule-making applicable to rules of virtual communities which can serve as a transnational template. This model suggests that the rules can derive legitimacy from two sources: user consent and the common good of users, the latter ensured by judicial review protecting users against exploitation. This leads to the following key findings: 1. Written rules of virtual communities are weakly legitimized by user consent but derive additional legitimacy from judicial review. Contract law standard applies to rules that govern the bilateral exchange relationship between providers and users. General rules of conduct for users are checked against fundamental rights. The required intensity of review depends on the risk of user exploitation and the presence of legitimate self-governance mechanisms. 2. Rules embedded in computer code (e.g. newsfeed algorithms) are poorly legitimized by user consent. Judicial review procedures legitimizing them towards users still need to be established. 3. Both written rules and rules embedded in computer code are not legitimate towards non-users since non-users have not consented to them.