Search By: SubjectAbstractAuthorTitleFull-Text


Showing 1 through 5 of 2,646 records.
Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 530 - Next  Jump:
2012 - 56th Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society Words: 515 words || 
1. Venkatesh, Mohini., Lee, Seung., Castle, Chris. and Roschnik, Natalie. "A global framework for monitoring and evaluating of school health programs: FRESH M&E framework" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 56th Annual Conference of the Comparative and International Education Society, Caribe Hilton, San Juan, Puerto Rico, Apr 22, 2012 <Not Available>. 2020-02-25 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: (a) objectives or purposes
Because health and nutrition interventions are critical to education outcomes, ministries of education and agencies are implementing School Health and Nutrition (SHN) Programs. The FRESH (Focusing Resources on Effective School Health) M&E Framework is an effort by several key agencies (UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, World Bank and NGOs) to monitor and evaluate these intervention using common indicators.

(b) perspective or theoretical framework
The FRESH (Focusing Resources on Effective School Health) Framework is based on a holistic view of children and the impact health and nutrition have on their ability to learn. The Framework requires education sector specialists and ministries to address the critical issues through partnership with other sectors in particular health, nutrition and WASH sectors to be able ensure that the return on investment in education is positive.

(c) methods, techniques, or modes of inquiry
The FRESH M&E Framework is a result of many consultations with various groups and ministries over a 10 years span since the launch of the FRESH (Focusing Resources on Effective School Health)as a global interagency initiative at the Education For All conference in Dakar, Senegal in 2000.

(d) data sources, evidenceframework
The thematic indicators provided are organized under four general themes, that are also the core components of the overall FRESH (Focusing Resources on Effective School Health) initiative, to be comprehensively implemented in all schools in order to meet the health needs of school-age children. They are Policy (health- and nutrition-related school policies that are non-discriminatory, protective, inclusive, and gender sensitive and promote the physical and psychosocial health of staff, teachers and children), Learning environment (access to safe water and provision of separate sanitation facilities for girls, boys, and teachers; as well as a safe psycho-social environment), Life Skills Education (life skills education, that address identified health, nutrition, and hygiene issues with knowledge, attitudes and skills that promote positive behaviours) and Services (simple, safe, and familiar health and nutrition services that can be delivered cost-effectively in schools and increased access to youth-friendly clinics). From this menu of thematic indicators are drawn a limited number of core indicators.

(e) results and/or conclusions

This Framework is primarily targeted to low-income countries, with a hope it would also serve as a reference point to middle- and high- income countries, and is intended to support and complement existing local standards. The framework is written for use by governments, NGOs, civil society and international (UN) agencies, education managers and planners implementing school health programs or programs with school health component.

These indicators are expected to be published at 2012. More information can be found at

(f) significance of the study to the field of comparative and international education
Using this common framework will be critical in assessing the global effort to address critical health and nutrition interventions and answer whether sufficient effort is being made to ensure quality education. It is hoped that the framework will help lead to better coordination between programs, provide standards of good practice for the implementation of school health and nutrition programs against which countries can rates themselves, and ultimately contribute to better health and education outcomes.

2011 - ASC Annual Meeting Words: 71 words || 
2. Gramckow, Heike. and Walsh, Barry. "The International Framework for Court Excellence (IFCE) - A Quality Framework for Quality Management" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASC Annual Meeting, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, <Not Available>. 2020-02-25 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Developed by an international consortium of judicial sector agencies the IFCE has been developed to asssist judiciaries around the globe to self-assess their operations, policies, organizational strucures and develop aproaches to address performance gaps. This tool has been applied by courts in several countries and first lessons can be drawn. This presentation will discuss the experiences of various courts and the usefulness of this tool in measuring performance progress.

2002 - American Political Science Association Pages: 27 pages || Words: 11987 words || 
3. Baker, Paul., McNeil, Andy. and Griffin, Lisa. "Developing Policy Frameworks for Evaluation of Inclusive Technologies" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston, Massachusetts, Aug 28, 2002 <Not Available>. 2020-02-25 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: While wireless communication and other information linked technologies have rapidly achieved widespread levels of adoption, a significant array of stakeholder groups have been effectively excluded, not by as much by active intent as by inadvertent oversight and lack of awareness. Many of these technologies routinely used by the general population are frequently inaccessible to persons with disabilities. Barriers to the use of these technologies by people with varying disabilities may be subtle and unintentional, but never the less very real. This paper presents preliminary results of policy research designed to develop a framework for assessing the status quo, developing inclusive policy initiatives, and evaluating the efficacy of the research approach.

2003 - American Political Science Association Pages: 35 pages || Words: 15799 words || 
4. Gerring, John. "Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia Marriott Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 27, 2003 <Not Available>. 2020-02-25 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Is causation unitary or plural? The unitary view, implicit in most work adopting a positivist epistemology, has recently been criticized by a number of writers. These writers claim that the unitary perspective betrays a narrow conception of causation and is not reflective of the broad range of causal arguments present in the field of social science today. Instead, these writers suggest that the field of the social sciences is characterized by a plurality of causal assumptions (epistemological, ontological, or logical) and an associated diversity of research designs. Causation is plural, not unitary.
Evidently, there are many ways to think about causation. Indeed, once we head down the analytic road it is not clear where we might stop, or ought to stop. Causal arguments are, in principle, infinite in their diversity. It is equally evident that the type of causal argument one chooses to adopt is likely to affect one’s choice of research design. In this respect causal pluralists offer an important corrective to a naïve positivism.
However, the pluralist view of causation raises several difficulties. First, causal typologies such as those as sketched above may over-state the ontological, epistemological, and/or logical different-ness of causal explanations in the social sciences. More important, whatever diversity of causal logic in fact characterizes the contemporary social sciences there is little profit to be gained from a plural account of causation. If causation means different things to different people then causal arguments cannot meet. They are apples and oranges. Thus, insofar as we value cumulation in the social sciences there is a strong prima facie case for a unified account of causation. The crucial caveat is that this unified account of causation must be sufficiently encompassing to bring together all of the arguments that we refer to as causal in the social sciences. Unity is useful, but not if achieved by (arbitrary) definitional fiat.
I argue that there is an underlying concept of causation shared by all (or most) protagonists in this debate. The core, or minimal, definition of causation held implicitly within the social sciences is that a cause raises the probability of an event occurring. This understanding of causation, which is borrowed from but not wedded to Baysian inference, provides common semantic ground on which to base a reconstruction of causation. I argue, second, that rather than thinking about causation as a series of discrete types or distinct rules we ought to re-conceptualize this complex form of argument as a set of logical criteria applying to all arguments that are causal in nature (following the foregoing definition), across fields and across methods. I argue, third, that in coming to grips with causation it is helpful to distinguish between the formal properties of a causal argument and the methods by which such an argument might be tested. The two questions, What are you arguing? and How do you know it is true? are logically distinct and call forth different criteria of adequacy.
My final argument, and the core of the paper, concerns the specific criteria that are commonly applied to causal argumentation and proof. I argue that sixteen criteria apply to the formal properties of causal argument and eight apply to the choice of research design (the task of demonstration or proof). It will be argued, therefore, that causation in the social sciences is both more diverse and more unified than has generally been recognized. It is more diverse insofar as the criteria applied to causal argumentation surpasses the implications of even the broadest of the causal typologies sketched above. There are multiple dimensions by which causal arguments are rightly judged. It is more unified insofar as these criteria apply across existing fields, methods, ontologies, and epistemologies. This perspective does not dispute the diversity of empirical approaches evident in the social sciences today, including textual, ethnographic, experimental, statistical, and formal methods of analysis (often grouped into three large camps -- interpretivist, behavioralist, and rational choice). What it does is to call attention to the remarkable commonalities that underlie these apparently heterogeneous approaches.

2004 - American Political Science Association Pages: 49 pages || Words: 24101 words || 
5. Vlaicu, Sorina. and Crist, William. "The Role of Institutions and Policy Processes in Defining Health Information Privacy Frameworks in the United States and Canada" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Hilton Chicago and the Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, IL, Sep 02, 2004 <Not Available>. 2020-02-25 <>
Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Policies addressing health information privacy are important due to the damaging effects of inappropriate disclosure, and also because they revive long-standing controversies, such as prevalence of individual rights over group interests, trust in various levels of government, and the degree of governmental involvement in protecting citizens’ rights and regulating businesses.

Both Canada and the United States offer a multi-level framework of privacy protections resulting from legal precedent (common law), state/provincial laws and regulations, and federal legislation. In Canada, the federal privacy law, PIPEDA, fully implemented in January 2004 is viewed as an unprecedented intrusion into traditional provincial domains, such as regulating physicians’ practices. In the United States, HIPAA’s final health privacy rule, with a 2003-2004 implementation deadline and also disputed in courts, is complicated by partial preemption mechanisms that make uncertain the applicability of state legislation.

This study brings together issues of health law and policy development. Using legislative summaries, interest group positions, media coverage data and public opinion polls, this study will discuss sources of health information privacy protection in Canada and the United States, and analyze the policy development processes, emphasizing the role of political institutions and national culture in defining the policy directions followed by the two nations.

Pages: Previous - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 530 - Next  Jump:

©2020 All Academic, Inc.   |   All Academic Privacy Policy