Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Food Banking
- All Subjects: Science history
- Creators: Bozeman, Barry
Description
Over the last few hundred years, best practice in some fields of human action—e.g., the treatment of heart disease, the transportation of persons, goods, and messages, and the destruction of landscapes, structures, and lives—has become dramatically more effective. At the same time, best practice in other fields, e.g., the amelioration of poverty or the teaching of reading, writing, or math, has improved more slowly, if at all. I argue that practice and technology (“know-how”) can only improve rapidly under rather special conditions: that, at any given point in time, some fields are more “progressible” than others.I articulate a conceptual framework describing several characteristics of practice in a field that may facilitate rapid progress. These characteristics, while not fixed, tend to remain fairly stable for long periods of time. I argue that know-how can improve more quickly 1) when offline “vicarious trial” of variations in practice is feasible and useful; 2) when practice is formal and standardized; 3) when practice is substantially performed by artifacts rather than by humans; 4) when outcomes of variations in practice may be rapidly evaluated; 5) when goals of practice are consistently agreed upon; 6) when contexts and objects of practice may be treated as, or have been made, consistent for the purposes of intervention; 7) when components of task systems are not heavily interdependent; and 8) when labor is finely and sharply divided.
I illustrate and elaborate this framework through comparative case studies on efforts to improve practice in three differentially “progressible” fields. I examine rapid improvement in a COVID-19 testing lab, inconsistent improvement in undergraduate algebra instruction, and ambiguous improvement in regional water modeling to support municipal water management. These cases indicate that my theory may inform judgments about the plausibility of rapid advance within a field of practice, absent disruptive change in methods or problem formulation. My theory may also shed light on which varieties of innovative effort may and may not foreseeably contribute to improving practice in a given field—more formal, theoretical, and context-independent work in high-progressibility domains, more tacit, grounded, and localized work in low-progressibility ones.
ContributorsNelson III, John Paul (Author) / Sarewitz, Daniel (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Guston, David (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
In the U.S., one of the most affluent countries in the world, hunger and food waste are two social problems that coexist in an ironic way. Food banks have become one key alternative solution to those problems because of their capacity to collect and distribute surplus food to those in need as well as to mobilize collective efforts of various organizations and citizens. However, the understanding of U.S. food banking remains limited due to research gaps in the literature. Previous public values research fails to address the key role of nonprofit organizations in achieving public values, while prior nonprofit and food bank studies suffer from insufficiently reflecting the value-driven nature in evaluating overall social impacts. Inspired by these gaps, this study asks the following question: how does food banking in the U.S. respond to public value failure?
To address this question, this study employs the interpretive approach as the logic of inquiry and the public value mapping framework as the analytic tool to contemplate the overall social impacts of U.S. food banking. Data sources include organizational documents of 203 U.S. food banks, as well as other public documents and literature pertaining to U.S. food banks.
Using public value mapping analysis, this study constructs a public value logic, which manifests the dynamics of prime and instrumental values in the U.S. food banking context. Food security, sustainability, and progressive opportunity are identified as three core prime public values. Instrumental values in this context consist of two major value categories: (1) intra-organizational values and (2) inter-and ultra-organizational values. Furthermore, this study applies public value failure criteria to examine success or failure of public values in this context. U.S. Food banks do contribute to the success of public sphere, progressive opportunity, sustainability and food security. However, the practice of U.S. food banks also lead to the failure of food security in some conditions. This study develops a new public value failure criterion based on the inherent limitations of charitable service providers. Main findings, contributions, and future directions are discussed.
To address this question, this study employs the interpretive approach as the logic of inquiry and the public value mapping framework as the analytic tool to contemplate the overall social impacts of U.S. food banking. Data sources include organizational documents of 203 U.S. food banks, as well as other public documents and literature pertaining to U.S. food banks.
Using public value mapping analysis, this study constructs a public value logic, which manifests the dynamics of prime and instrumental values in the U.S. food banking context. Food security, sustainability, and progressive opportunity are identified as three core prime public values. Instrumental values in this context consist of two major value categories: (1) intra-organizational values and (2) inter-and ultra-organizational values. Furthermore, this study applies public value failure criteria to examine success or failure of public values in this context. U.S. Food banks do contribute to the success of public sphere, progressive opportunity, sustainability and food security. However, the practice of U.S. food banks also lead to the failure of food security in some conditions. This study develops a new public value failure criterion based on the inherent limitations of charitable service providers. Main findings, contributions, and future directions are discussed.
ContributorsTsai, Chin-Chang (Author) / Bozeman, Barry (Thesis advisor) / Stritch, Justin (Committee member) / Corley, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
The three essays in this dissertation each examine how aspects of contemporary administrative structure within American research universities affect faculty outcomes. Specific aspects of administrative structure tested in this dissertation include the introduction of new administrative roles, administrative intensity (i.e. relative size of university administration), and competing roles between faculty, administrators, and staff. Using quantitative statistical methods these aspects of administrative structure are tested for their effects on academic grant productivity, faculty job stress, and faculty job satisfaction. Administrative datasets and large scale national surveys make up the data for these studies and quantitative statistical methods confirm most of the hypothesized relationships.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
In the first essay, findings from statistical modeling using instrumental variables suggest that academic researchers who receive administrative support for grant writing and management obtain fewer grants and have a lower success rate. However, the findings also suggest that the grants these researchers do receive are much larger in terms of dollars. The results indicate that administrative support is particularly beneficial in academic grant situations of high-risk, high-reward. In the second essay, ordered logit models reveal a statistically significant and stronger relationship between staff intensity (i.e., the ratio of faculty to staff workers) and faculty stress than the relationship between executive intensity (i.e., the ratio faculty to executive and managerial workers) and faculty job stress. These findings confirm theory that the work of faculty is more loosely coupled with the work of executives than it is with staff workers. A possible explanation is the increase in administrative work faculty must take on as there are fewer staff workers to take on administrative tasks. And finally, in the third essay results from multi-level modeling confirm that both role clarity and institutional support positively affect both a global measure of faculty job satisfaction and faculty satisfaction with how their work time is allocated. Understanding the effects that administrative structure has on faculty outcomes will aid universities as faculty administrative burdens ebb and flow in reaction to macro trends in higher education, such as unbundling of faculty roles, unbundling of services, neoliberalism, liberal arts decline, and administrative bloat.
ContributorsTaggart, Gabel (Author) / Welch, Eric (Thesis advisor) / Bozeman, Barry (Committee member) / Ott, Molly (Committee member) / Stritch, Justin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017