Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- Creators: Department of Marketing
- Creators: Long, Elenore
Description
This paper discusses the levels of job satisfaction amongst practicing lawyers, with a distinction between government-employed lawyers (public) and those in the private sector. The purpose of this report is to provide insight into the joys and sorrows of practicing law and provide those who are curious about becoming a lawyer with the tools to be the happiest lawyer that they can be throughout their career. The paper includes analysis of a primary research survey, comparisons with existing research, and a brief overview of happiness based research. It concludes with personal applications of the knowledge gained. Findings of the project conclude that publicly employed lawyers are, on average, slightly happier than lawyers in the private sector. On a scale from 1-7 public lawyers held an average happiness rating of 6.8, while private lawyers came in at a 6.06. Both factions were found to be satisfied in their work, which can dispel the myth that lawyers in general are unhappy with their job or field. Research into happiness shows that only 40% of an individual's overall happiness can be directly affected by their mindset and actins. The other 60% is comprised of genetic and circumstantial factors. Steps and advice to increase happiness derived from a profession or life are offered. The key to finding satisfaction in the workplace lies in aligning one's strengths with one's values. This paper concludes by imploring those who seek a job in the legal field to spend time understanding what their values are, and pursuing satisfaction in the workplace instead of prestige or pay.
ContributorsGattenio, Scott Robert (Author) / Koretz, Lora (Thesis director) / Dietrich, John (Committee member) / Department of Marketing (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-12
Description
A pressing question in public policymaking is how best to allocate decision-making authority and to facilitate opportunities for input. When it comes to science, technology, and environmental (STE) policy decisions, persons impacted by those decisions often have relevant information and perspectives to contribute yet lack either the specialized, technical knowledge or the means by which to effectively communicate that knowledge. Consequently, due to a variety of factors, they are frequently denied meaningful involvement in making them. In an effort to better understand why this is so, and how this might change, this dissertation uses an activity systems framework to examine how three factors mediate the circulation of information in STE public engagement mechanisms.
In this project, I examine the transcripts of a 2015 administrative hearing and community meeting about the Santa Susana Field Lab—a former nuclear- and rocket engine-testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles, where an experimental nuclear reactor suffered a partial meltdown in 1959. Specifically, I identify (1) who was designated as an "expert" versus a member of "the public," (2) the structural features, and (3) the stylistic features of participants' remarks at these events; and I study how these factors mediated the flow of information at each. To do so, I view "expert" and "public" as what Michael McGee has termed ideographs, and consider the structural and stylistic features that prior scholarship has identified to impact information flow.
Based on my analysis, I theorize that role designations, structural features, and stylistic features work together to mediate whose, what, and how information flows in public engagement mechanisms. Based on my findings, I also suggest that this mediation impacts policy outcomes. As such, I contend that better understanding the relationships among these mediational means, information flow, and policy outcomes is an important step towards developing public engagement mechanisms that most effectively use the relevant knowledge and other insights of all who have a stake in policy decisions.
In this project, I examine the transcripts of a 2015 administrative hearing and community meeting about the Santa Susana Field Lab—a former nuclear- and rocket engine-testing facility 30 miles from Los Angeles, where an experimental nuclear reactor suffered a partial meltdown in 1959. Specifically, I identify (1) who was designated as an "expert" versus a member of "the public," (2) the structural features, and (3) the stylistic features of participants' remarks at these events; and I study how these factors mediated the flow of information at each. To do so, I view "expert" and "public" as what Michael McGee has termed ideographs, and consider the structural and stylistic features that prior scholarship has identified to impact information flow.
Based on my analysis, I theorize that role designations, structural features, and stylistic features work together to mediate whose, what, and how information flows in public engagement mechanisms. Based on my findings, I also suggest that this mediation impacts policy outcomes. As such, I contend that better understanding the relationships among these mediational means, information flow, and policy outcomes is an important step towards developing public engagement mechanisms that most effectively use the relevant knowledge and other insights of all who have a stake in policy decisions.
ContributorsChurg, Emily (Author) / Long, Elenore (Thesis advisor) / Hannah, Mark (Thesis advisor) / Catlaw, Thomas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2016