Exploring Higher Education Pathways for Coping With the Threat of COVID-19: Does Parental Academic Background Matter?

First-generation students (FGS) are more likely to feel misplaced and struggle at university than students with university-educated parents (continuous-generation students; CGS). We assumed that the shutdowns during the Coronavirus-pandemic would particularly threaten FGS due to obstructed coping mechanisms. Specifically, FGS may show lower identification with the academic setting and lower perceived fairness of the university system (system justification). We investigated whether FGS and CGS used different defenses to cope with the shutdown threat in a large sample of German-speaking students (N = 848). Using Structural Equation Modeling, we found that for all students, independent of academic parental background, high levels of system justification were associated with perceiving the learning situation as less threatening, better coping with failure, and less helplessness. However, in comparison to CGS, FGS showed small but significant reductions in system justification and relied more on concrete personal relationships with other students as well as their academic identity to cope with the threatening situation. We discuss implications for helping FGS succeed at university.

How do Chinese people perceive their healthcare system? Trends and determinants of public satisfaction and perceived fairness, 2006–2019

Background The public’s perception of the health system provides valuable insights on health system performance and future directions of improvement. While China’s health care reform was a response to people’s discontent in the health care system due to the lack of accessibility and affordability, little is known on changes in public perception of China’s health system. This paper examines trends in public perception of the health system between 2006 and 2019 and assesses determinants of public perception in China’s health system. Methods Seven waves of the China Social Survey, a nationally representative survey, were used to examine trends in public satisfaction with health care and perceived fairness in health care. Chi-square tests were used to examine differences across waves. Logistic regression models were used to explore determinants of public perception, including variables on sociodemographic characteristics, health system characteristics, and patient experience. Results Satisfaction with health care increased from 57.76% to 77.26% between 2006 and 2019. Perceived fairness in health care increased from 49.79% to 72.03% during the same period. Both indicators showed that the major improvement occurred before 2013. Sociodemographic characteristics are weakly associated with public perception. Financial protection and perceived medical safety are strongly associated with public perception, while accessibility is weakly associated with public perception. Patient experience such as perceived affordability and quality in the last medical visit are strongly associated with public perception of the health care system, while the accessibility of the last medical visit shows no impacts. Conclusion Public satisfaction on health care and perceived fairness in health care in China improved over 2006–2019. The main improvement occurred in accordance with huge financial investments in public health insurance before 2013. Financial protection and perceived quality play significant roles in determining public perception, whereas accessibility and sociodemographic characteristics have limited influence on people’s perception of China’s health system. To achieve higher satisfaction and a higher sense of fairness in health care, China’s health system needs to continue its reforms on hospital incentives and integrated delivery system to control health expenditure and improve health care quality.

“They Care, We Share”- Perceived Fairness in Performance Appraisal Systems on Knowledge Sharing

The strategic importance of knowledge especially under dynamic business conditions makes it imperative to primarily understand the creation of the knowledge base. This paper employs mixed-method approach to understand the various triggers that motivate the knowledge sharing behavior of the IT employees working in Indian firms. Firstly, a qualitative study that comprised of thirteen in-depth interviews aimed to capture the participants’ understanding of, the context and the factors that trigger knowledge-sharing behavior. The fairness in performance appraisal, manager’s support, and career success were found to be the key triggers. Then, a quantitative study of 105 IT professionals examined the effect of the identified variables. Results suggested a positive relationship between perceived fairness in performance appraisal and knowledge-sharing behavior and the mediating role of career and hierarchical success between perceived fairness in performance appraisal system and knowledge-sharing behavior. The implications for both theory and practice have also been discussed in detail.

Women’s Representation and Implications for Fairness, Trust, and Performance in Local Government: A Survey Experiment in Sri Lanka

How do quotas for women in Sri Lanka’s local government institutions affect key governance indicators such as perceived fairness, institutional trust, and perceived performance? These dimensions of governance are underexplored in the context of gender quota policies in patriarchal societies like that of Sri Lanka. The study hypothetically varied the quota provision for women (decrease to 10%, increase to 45%, or keep at the current 25%) in local government, and then tried to understand people’s opinions about the three governance indicators. When examining the results of the experiment (around 1,200 samples), it was found that perceived fairness, institutional trust, and perceived performance increased along with the greater quota provision. Possible mechanisms for the increases in institutional trust and perceived performance may be associated with the signal of fairness generated by the increase of quota provision for women.

Lay Evaluations of Restraints and Prohibitions During the 1st Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic in Lithuania

The article analyzes how, during the 1st wave of the coronavirus pandemic, participants of a study (n = 331) assessed the government-imposed restrictions, prohibitions, liabilities and penalties for non-compliance with said restrictions, and the perceived fairness of the behavior of other people during the pandemic. The article also studies the relationships among these assessments, including the related well-being and sociodemographic characteristics.

Participation Improves Collective Decisions (When It Involves Deliberation): Experimental Evidence From Kenya

Citizen participation in decision making has been widely lauded as a method for improving societal outcomes. Deliberative discussion, in particular, is believed to be more transformative than a mere aggregation of individual preferences, leading to more socially optimal decision making and behavior. I report the results from a laboratory experiment with 570 subjects in Nairobi, directly testing the effect of participation in deliberative group decision making on collective outcomes. Participants engage in a group task to earn compensation toward a shared group fund. Randomly assigned treatments vary according to whether decision making over the task to be completed involves: (1) external assignment; (2) non-deliberative majority voting; or (3) consensus through deliberative discussion. I find that deliberation improves collective decision making. Deliberation is also associated with changes in preferences, greater agreement with decision outcomes, and greater perceived fairness. Evidence for behavior change is weaker, but there is some support for further research into the relationship between preference change and behavior change.

Carbon tax acceptability with information provision and mixed revenue uses

Public acceptability of carbon taxation depends on its revenue use. Which single or mixed revenue use is most appropriate, and which perceptions of policy effectiveness and fairness explain this, remains unclear. It is, moreover, uncertain how people’s prior knowledge about carbon taxation affects policy acceptability. Here we conduct a survey experiment to test how distinct revenue uses, prior knowledge, and information provision about the functioning of carbon taxation affect policy perceptions and acceptability. We show that spending revenues on climate projects maximises acceptability as well as perceived fairness and effectiveness. A mix of different revenue uses is also popular, notably compensating low-income households and funding climate projects. In addition, we find that providing information about carbon taxation increases acceptability for unspecified revenue use and for people with more prior tax knowledge. Furthermore, policy acceptability is more strongly related to perceived fairness than to perceived effectiveness.

Assessing the quality of deliberative stakeholder consultations involving allied health professionals in pediatric palliative care and hematology/oncology in Canada

Background In this paper we assess the quality of six deliberative stakeholder consultations regarding the implementation of a precision diagnostic for life-threatening pediatric brain tumors. Decision makers who base policy recommendations on the outputs of consultative exercises can presuppose that all deliberants are well informed of the policy issue, that participation in the deliberative process was fair, and that overcoming implementation barriers will necessarily result in practice change. Additional evidence is therefore needed to substantiate the informational quality of the deliberation, measure the equality of participation and study the effects on stakeholder reasoning to appropriately guide uptake of proposed recommendation(s). Methods Using the DeVries framework for assessing the deliberative quality, we analyzed data from 44 post-consultation evaluation surveys completed by pediatric oncology and palliative care teams at two tertiary pediatric healthcare centers in Canada. We also conducted turn-taking and word-contribution analyses from the text transcriptions of each deliberation to assess equality of participation using descriptive statistics. Results Deliberants agreed the quality of the deliberative process was fair (median ratings ranging from 9–10 out of 10) and the opportunities to receive expert information and discuss with others about the implementation of a new LDT were helpful (9.5 out of 10). While the session improved understanding of the implementation barriers and opportunities, it had marginal effects on deliberants’ reasoning about whether LDTs would change their own clinical practice (3–10 out of 10). Participation was proportionate in at least four of the six deliberations, where no deliberant took more than 20% of total turns and contributed equal to, or less than 20% of total words. Conclusion The quality assessment we performed demonstrates high informational value and perceived fairness of two deliberative stakeholder consultations involving pediatric palliative care and oncology teams in Canada. Quality assessments can reveal how the process of deliberation unfolds, whether deliberative outputs are the result of equitable participation among deliberants and what, if any, stakeholder voices may be missing. Such assessments should be routinely reported as a condition of methodological rigor and trustworthiness of deliberative stakeholder engagement research.