Congress at Liege

1921 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 453-460 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Burkitt ◽  
Alfred S. Barnes
Keyword(s):  
Central Office ◽  
International Institute ◽  
National Office ◽  
Central Offices

An International Institute of Anthropology was founded in 1920, with central offices in Paris. Each country has been invited to form a National Office which would act with and be in relation with this Central Office. A Congress of the members of this International Institute was held in Liège (Belgium) in 1921 (July 25-August 1st). Being in France during July the writer decided to run over to Liege and very glad he was that he did so. Not only were there a number of new facts (not to speak of theories) brought forward, but one met again such savants as MM. Cartailhac, Capitan, Breuil, Begouen, Lalanne, Franchet, Hamal-Nandrin, Pittard, etc., etc. (to only mention a few), and discussions over lunch with such folk are worth weeks of work. Before describing the Congress and some of the papers, the writer would like to bear tribute to the extraordinary kindness and efficiency of the Belgian hosts, who were Professors at the Liege University. Everywhere we were received with the utmost kindness and no trouble was too great, if something could be arranged for us. It is impossible to mention everybody, but if ever the Congress comes to England, one can only hope that we may equal (we could not excel) such hosts (to mention only a few with whom the writer had most contact), as MM. Fraipont, Hamal-Nandrin, Servais, Max Lohest, Stockis, etc., etc. Eighteen countries were represented. The congress was divided into two parts:—(1) Work; (2) Excursions. For (1) Anthropology was divided into 8 sections, (a) What we should call Human Palæontology; (b) Prehistory; (c) Ethnography; (d) Criminology; (e) Eugenics; (f) Religions, later Archæology and Folk-lore; (g) Linguistic studies; (h) Sociology, etc. Of these the Prehistoric Section was one of the most important, there being nearly 50 people, on an average, at the Meetings.

Street-Level Bureaucracy Revisited: Frontline District Central-Office Administrators as Boundary Spanners in Education Policy Implementation

2006 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 357-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith I. Honig
Keyword(s):  
Education Policy ◽  
Public Management ◽  
Central Office ◽  
Boundary Spanning ◽  
Comparative Case Study ◽  
Boundary Spanners ◽  
Central Office Administrators ◽  
Central Offices ◽  
Education Policy Implementation ◽  
District Central Office

The designation of district central-office administrators to operate as boundary spanners among the central office, schools, and community agencies can help with the implementation of challenging policy demands. However, educational research teaches little about central-office boundary spanners in practice. This article addresses that gap with findings from an embedded, comparative case study of boundary spanners in the implementation of collaborative education policy. The study’s conceptual framework draws on public management and sociological literature on boundary spanning and neo-institutional theories of decision making. Findings reveal that the boundary spanners in this case initially were particularly well suited to help with implementation in part because they brought non-traditional experiences to the central office. However, over time, many of the resources that aided them initially became liabilities that frustrated their work. This article documents the importance of examining boundary-spanning roles in implementation and suggests how central offices might provide supports to boundary spanners to increase their potential as levers of bureaucratic change.

Evidence, Interpretation, and Persuasion: Instructional Decision Making at the District Central Office

2009 ◽  
Vol 111 (4) ◽  
pp. 1115-1161 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia E. Coburn ◽  
Judith Toure ◽  
Mika Yamashita
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
School District ◽  
Central Office ◽  
Sources Of Information ◽  
Urban District ◽  
Evidence Use ◽  
Instructional Decision Making ◽  
Central Offices ◽  
Instructional Decision ◽  
Office Level

Background/Context Calls for evidence-based decision making have become increasingly prominent on the educational landscape. School district central offices increasingly experience these demands. Yet there are few empirical studies of evidence use at the district level. Furthermore, research on evidence use among policy makers in noneducation settings raises questions about the models of decision making promoted by evidence-use policies, suggesting that they do not take into account key features of the interpretive process or the organizational conditions that shape how decision making unfolds. Purpose/Objective/Research Questions/Focus of Study The central premise of this article is that only by understanding the patterns by which personnel in school district central offices actually use information, and the factors that affect this use, can we begin to understand the promise and possibilities of evidence use. We ask: What is the role of evidence in instructional decision making at the central office level? What factors shape how decision processes unfold? Research Design We draw on data from a longitudinal case study of one midsize urban district, which we followed from 2002 to 2005. We relied on in-depth interviewing, sustained observation, and document analysis. We identified 23 decisions related to instruction that were captured in our data over the 3 years and for which we had at least three independent sources of information. We analyzed each decision using a coding scheme that was developed from prior research and theory and elaborated through iterative coding. We then used matrices to compare across decisions and to surface and investigate emerging patterns. Conclusions/Recommendations We argue that decision making in complex organizations like school districts is centrally about interpretation, argumentation, and persuasion. These processes are shaped in crucial ways by preexisting working knowledge and practices that guide how people come to understand the nature of problems and possible avenues for solutions. They are also influenced by organizational and political factors, including the organizational structure of the central office, resource constraints, and leadership turnover. We close by suggesting implications for efforts to foster substantive and productive use of evidence at the central office level.

A Tribute to the Late William J. Curran

1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Harvard University ◽  
Legal Medicine ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Institute ◽  
University Professor

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.

National Office Earns Gold LEED Certification

ASHA Leader ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (14) ◽  
pp. 3-3
Author(s):  
Marat Moore
Keyword(s):  
Leed Certification ◽  
National Office
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document