نتائج البحث

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
تم إضافة الكتاب إلى الرف الخاص بك!
عرض الكتب الموجودة على الرف الخاص بك .
وجه الفتاة! هناك خطأ ما.
وجه الفتاة! هناك خطأ ما.
أثناء محاولة إضافة العنوان إلى الرف ، حدث خطأ ما :( يرجى إعادة المحاولة لاحقًا!
هل أنت متأكد أنك تريد إزالة الكتاب من الرف؟
{{itemTitle}}
{{itemTitle}}
وجه الفتاة! هناك خطأ ما.
وجه الفتاة! هناك خطأ ما.
أثناء محاولة إزالة العنوان من الرف ، حدث خطأ ما :( يرجى إعادة المحاولة لاحقًا!
    منجز
    مرشحات
    إعادة تعيين
  • الضبط
      الضبط
      امسح الكل
      الضبط
  • مُحَكَّمة
      مُحَكَّمة
      امسح الكل
      مُحَكَّمة
  • مستوى القراءة
      مستوى القراءة
      امسح الكل
      مستوى القراءة
  • نوع المحتوى
      نوع المحتوى
      امسح الكل
      نوع المحتوى
  • السنة
      السنة
      امسح الكل
      من:
      -
      إلى:
  • المزيد من المرشحات
      المزيد من المرشحات
      امسح الكل
      المزيد من المرشحات
      نوع العنصر
    • لديه النص الكامل
    • الموضوع
    • الناشر
    • المصدر
    • المُهدي
    • اللغة
    • مكان النشر
    • المؤلفين
    • الموقع
254 نتائج ل "Hansen, Randall"
صنف حسب:
Benefits and Problems With Student Teams: Suggestions for Improving Team Projects
Business school faculty have been placing students into teams for group projects for many years, with mixed results. Obvious benefits accrue in using teams, but so do numerous problems. One of the main issues is that many business faculty often place students in teams with little or no guidance on how teams properly function. In this article, the author synthesizes a detailed review of the literature on teams and teamwork, examining the benefits and problems of using student teams and then suggests processes business faculty can put in place to maximize the benefits of group projects, while minimizing the problems. A preliminary study of student perceptions of team projects is also included in this review.
Disobeying Hitler
A brilliant examination of German disobedience to Hitler after the failed July 20, 1944 assassination attempt by Colonel Stauffenberg, considering its extent, nature, and effect on the conduct of the war.
Why Both the Left and the Right Are Wrong: Immigration and Multiculturalism in Canada
Trevor Phillips (the black British Labour Party member and head of the Commission for Racial Equality), David Cameron (Conservative former prime minister of Britain), and Angela Merkel (Christian Democratic chancellor of Germany) all declared it \"dead\" (Joppke n.d.). The first, a state-driven explanation, is historical: since Quebec has long forced the country to cope with diversity, Canadians are more tolerant of immigrants than Europeans and less insistent on assimilation than Americans (see Government of Canada 2012). If Canada and Canadians had any particular talent for coping with diversity, then the country's oldest \"minority\"--aboriginal Canadians--would be well incorporated into Canadian society and the Canadian economy. The situation of aboriginals (\"First Nations\") is in fact a disaster: the unemployment rate among aboriginals is twice the national average (2011 figures: 15% vs. 7.5%); annual income in 2005 was $23,889 vs. $35,872 for non-aboriginals; and high school completion rates are 62% vs. 80.6% for non-aboriginals (2011 figures) (National Aboriginal Economic Development Board 2015, 17, 26, and 33, respectively). Aboriginal people in Canada occupy a worse socio-economic position than African Americans in the United States, and there is no aboriginal equivalent of a visible black middle class or of massive cultural influence, as with African Americans in the United States (Gilmore 2015). [...]commentators pointed to widely available data showing terrible outcomes in employment, education, and (something that matters least) neighborhood segregation, the Netherlands pursued a thick multicultural policy that subsidized foreign languages, separate faith schools, foreign radio and television programs, and so on (on this,...
The poverty of postnationalism: citizenship, immigration, and the new Europe
Over the last decade and a half, in a literature otherwise obsessed with citizenship in all its forms, a broad array of scholars has downplayed, criticized, and at times trivialized national citizenship. The assault on citizenship has had both an expansionary and a contractionary thrust. It is expansionary in that the language of citizenship is no longer linked with nationality, but rather protest politics. An earlier generation of social scientists would have described these actions as lobbying; they have now become \"citizenship practice.\" It is contractionary in that what one might have thought to be the core of citizenship; nationality, the possession of a nationstate's passport is viewed as less and less relevant to citizenship. Scholars have dislodged both the substance of citizenship, what it is, and the location of citizenship, where it \"happens,\" from the nation-state and national citizenship. The article challenges this devaluation of citizenship and the nation-state on empirical, conceptual, and normative grounds. Empirically, scholars, whom I link together under the umbrella term \"postnationalists,\" have based their anti-statist arguments on evidence that, when subjected to further inspection, wholly fails to support the arguments advanced. Conceptually, postnationalists rely on categories that are confused and untenable, being that national variables are cited as evidence of transnational developments. Normatively, postnationalists have lost the emancipatory thrust that once gave concerns with citizenship real-world purchase.
Immigration and Public Opinion in Liberal Democracies
Although ambivalence characterizes the stance of scholars toward the desirability of close opinion-policy linkages in general, it is especially evident with regard to immigration. The controversy and disagreement about whether public opinion should drive immigration policy are among the factors making immigration one of the most difficult political debates across the West. Leading international experts and aspiring researchers from the fields of political science and sociology use a range of case studies from North America, Europe and Australia to guide the reader through the complexities of this debate offering an unprecedented comparative examination of public opinion and immigration. part one discusses the socio-economic and contextual determinants of immigration attitudes across multiple nations part two explores how the economy can affect public opinion part three presents different perspectives on the issue of causality – do attitudes about immigration drive politics, or do politics drive attitudes? part four investigates how several types of framing are critical to understanding public opinion and how a wide range of political factors can mould public opinion, and often in ways that work against immigration and immigrants part five examines the views of the largest immigrant group in the U.S. – Latinos – as well as how opinions are shaped by contact with and opinions about immigrants in the U.S. and Canada. An essential read to all who wish to understand the nature of immigration research from a theoretical as well as practical point of view.
Tensions of refugee politics in Europe
Electoral, welfare-state, and demographic politics are obstacles to refugees Globally, there are at least 65 million displaced persons, made up of 41 million internally displaced persons (those fleeing violence and/or persecution within their state's borders), 21 million refugees (those fleeing persecution beyond those borders), and 3 million asylum seekers ( 1 ). Europe is not bearing the main brunt of the refugee crisis. Roughly 85% of the world's refugees today are in the global South, and half of them are in countries with a per capita Gross Domestic Product of less than U.S. $5000 ( 2 ). The continent is nonetheless in the center of a political and social storm from the roughly 1,255,600 people who applied for asylum in the European Union (EU) in 2015 ( 3 ).
Making Immigration Work: How Britain and Europe Can Cope with their Immigration Crises (The Government and Opposition/Leonard Schapiro Lecture, 2015)
This article provides a review of the economic, demographic and welfare effects of immigration in contemporary Europe. It argues that the economic benefits of migration are small but positive, its welfare effects minimal if not non-existent, and its demographic effects modest but real. It then provides a series of recommendations for governing migration policy in Europe: keeping the borders open but controlled; keeping employment high and income support low, and keeping speech free but fair. The most important policy recommendation centres on work: immigration policy will only work when immigrants work.
Eugenic Ideas, Political Interests, and Policy Variance: Immigration and Sterilization Policy in Britain and the U.S
A burgeoning literature in comparative politics has sought to incorporate ideas into political analysis. In this article the authors categorize the main ways in which this incorporation has occurred—ideas as culture, ideas as expert knowledge, ideas as solutions to collective action problems, and ideas as programmatic beliefs—and explicate the different assumptions about causality and the permanence of ideas implied by these different frameworks. This theoretical exercise is then applied to an empirical examination of eugenic ideas about sterilization and immigration and their influence on public policy in Britain and the United States between the world wars. Given that ideational ideas were (broadly) equally powerful in both countries, the cases provide a basis for shedding light on when and how extant ideational frameworks influence public policy. Employing primary sources the authors conclude that ideas remain powerful expressions of societal interests but depend upon key carriers to realize such expressions.
Dual nationality, social rights and federal citizenship in the U.S. and Europe
Dual nationality has become one of the most divisive issues linked with the politics of migration in Germany and the US. This volume, the first one in decades to focus on this issue, examines the history, consequences and arguments for and against dual citizenship, and uses dual nationality as the basis of a reflection on important issues closely related to it: social rights, European citizenship and federal citizenship. It pays particular attention to questions such as: What are the major arguments in favor and against dual nationality? Why has dual nationality provoked such contrasting responses, being a non-issue in the UK, for instance, and an extremely controversial one in Germany? How is dual nationality used by states to influence politics and policy in other states? How does it relate to the aim of integrating ethnic migrants and to broader issues in social policy and European integration?