Rhetorical Devices Essay Example for Free

Rhetorical Devices Essay The definition of an anecdote is a story that is very short that either explains or emphasizes a point that is trying to be made. In my speech when I was explaining that soccer has affected the paths that my life has taken including schools and friends, I used the short story of getting recruited for soccer at the high school and collegiate level, which is also where I met my best friends. In Bekah Diehl’s speech making the point that the saying â€Å"the only fear is fear itself† she said she not scared of the fear of baseballs, but rather the ball itself. The story she used was with her friends playing catch with the baseball around her. The conclusion is the final part of a speech that closes it and ties it all main points together. In the conclusion the thesis is stated, the main points are summarized, and a clincher is said to leave the audience with. The conclusion for my speech was that soccer has made me a well-rounded individual and has shaped the person that I am today. My favorite memories have included playing soccer and my teammates. When I step on the field I am free. I would not be the same person today if soccer was not in my life. In the closing of Bekah Diehl her conclusion that was her fear of baseballs is real and something she has to deal with. However, she takes comfort that her she doesn’t have a phobia of something else and that her phobia could be of something worse.

Continuous Personal Development Criteria

Continuous Personal Development Criteria Continuous professional development (CPD) A case study to examine why we need to have set criteria as to what constitutes continuous professional development. This paper sets out a proposal to establish the means by which certain hypotheses around Social Work CPD may be tested, through primary research. It does so substantively through a limited, ‘pilot’ survey of the views of Social Workers themselves, focusing on the value and nature of their own current and previous CPD experience. The latter were also invited to comment on proposals for alternative frameworks for SW CPD. The objective of this process was to evolve specific lines of enquiry and areas of interest for wider research. As recent research by Doel et al. argues, ‘At an individual level there is clear evidence that professional development is highly valued, and that participating in these opportunities is more likely to increase confidence, but not for everyone.’ (Doel et al., 2008: p.563) The question is, what kind of CPD is most valued by practitioners themselves, and who determines the types of development paths they follow? Does the element of c hoice determine the utility of particular CPD for individual practitioners? How far does the current atmosphere of assessment and ‘managerialism’ impinge upon self-determination in professional development? The issue of self-determination is a theme from the secondary literature which is embedded in this research. As MacDonald et al. argue, ‘†¦social work as an activity can be understood as an integral part of the modernist project of governance developed and institutionalised in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (MacDonald et al., 2003: p.195). Whilst this can be readily accepted, it arguably masks the dynamic of client age which government maintained, not only over social work, but other professional groups. The latter were invariably involved in some form of campaign to exert leverage on official circles for recognition in institutional terms. ‘In Britain, social work looked directly to the state for its legitimization†¦Accordingly, the political opportunity provided by the publication of the Kilbrandon and Seebohm Reports was seized by proponents of the professional social work project, who campaigned for the implementation of the Reports, f or example through the Seebohm Implementation Action Group.’ (MacDonald et al. 2003: p.198). As this suggests, Social Work was liable to be co-opted into the social projects of the state on a utilitarian basis, with reciprocal implications for the independence of the profession. As Jordan and Jordan point out, ‘In essence, social work is not a means of implementing policy formally and directly, but of mediating the local conflicts generated by new programmes, and engaging with service users over how to fit new measures to their needs.’ They further argue that, ‘It is a waste of its potential for these tasks to treat it as a crude instrument for the imposition of government rules or the quasi-scientific application of research findings.’ (Jordan and Jordan, 2000: p.10). What are the implications of this tension for CPD in SW? Potentially considerable, it is argued here. The debate around Social Work education has become focused on whether †¦Ã¢â‚¬Ëœthere has been the supplanting of education by training: the sequestering of discourses of depth by those of surface: the setting aside of knowledge for skills, and the general triumph†¦of ‘competencies’ over the complexities of abstraction.’ (Webb, 1996: p.186) It follows from this that the definition of ‘useful’ CPD represents a continuation of such debates through other means: another area through which to contest who exactly defines what is relevant, or ‘best’ practice, in terms of developing solutions for practitioners and service users. How far, for example, do such resources merely reflect the ideas of Lisham, that official ideas about practice ‘†¦tend to be externally imposed and based more on the requirements of managerial control and less on the professional responsibility to evaluate practice and policy and thereby increase their effectiveness.’ (Lisham 1999: p.4). Subsumed within this is a more subliminal question, which is, where is the space in which SW practitioners can express their views or develop dialogues about professional issues? It would appear that we now have a situation where the parameters defined by the GSSC represent the only ‘legitimate’ channels for debat e. Methodology and Research Issues In essence the research enquiry followed two themes, one evaluative, one predictive. Within both, it was intended to elicit views without any leading or rhetorical influence, although current conditions in public sector SW may make this difficult to achieve, as will be discussed below. The specific evaluative enquiry offered practitioners the opportunity to briefly assess their own level of satisfaction with their current and previous CPD. The specific predictive proposal made was that CPD be more focused, through the establishment of an agreed range of activities, designed to augment and enhance SW practice. The overall theme of this was to explore the idea that CPD could be more relevant to SW practice, in the perception of practitioners themselves. This proposal acknowledges the necessity for inclusion of both positivist (quantitative) and phenomenological (qualitative) elements in the enquiry. These labels are arguably less important than the characteristics they represent however. These will explored in more detail below, but it is important here to identify the positivist paradigm as supposedly value-free, and the phenomenological as (in relative terms) value bearing. Obviously, these two model absolutes represent the research ideal, and should not, in any case, be assumed to correlate with the parallel categories of objectivity and subjectivity. Research paradigms in either category would arguably rely on objectivity for their integrity and utility. It is here that the design and operation of a particular model will attract the most stringent scrutiny, especially from its assessors or counter-theorists. Also, when ascribing the different paradigm labels to particular research strands and evidence, it is perhaps important to consider Collis and Hussey’s idea of an unavoidable symbiosis between the two. ‘Although we have identified two main paradigms, it is best to regard them as the two extremes of a continuum. As you move along the continuum, the features and assumptions of one paradigm are gradually relaxed and replaced by those of the other paradigm.’ (Collis and Hussey 2008: p.48). In other words, the quantitative and qualitative paradigms become less discrete and more difficult to distinguish, once the process of interpretation begins. Absolute objectivity is maintained with difficulty, even in the context of an exacting statistical survey: meanwhile purely qualitative work starts to move along the continuum, as soon as repetitive patterns are sought for collateral in phenomenological terms. Various interpretations are possible in any statistical model, whilst even the clearest qualitative conclusions are arguably subject to bias, as soon as a possible conclusion begins to fram e subsequent enquiries. As Patton argues, ‘A paradigm of choices rejects methodological orthodoxy in favour of methodological appropriateness as the primary criterion for judging methodological quality.’ (Patton 1990: pp.38-39). In terms of this study, the methodological issues are basically two-fold. In the first instance, we have a very small sample of data in proportion to the overall scale of what is potentially a national issue. The sample employed here was obtained from one area, and so is immediately vulnerable to the charge that it fails to analyse possible regional variations in both strategy and best practice. Although it reflects differentiated levels of satisfaction with the CPD process, it does not incorporate the views of those who might express – with varying objectivity – the most exacting critiques: i.e., those who have left the profession due to dissatisfaction with the career structure, or CPD possibilities. In the second instance, we have three discrete form of data to integrate, i.e. binary yes/no questionnaire responses, written answers, and more in-depth, qualitative interviews, as well as information from secondary sources. The necessary fusion of these sources in a coge nt form inevitably becomes an editorial process, vulnerable to charges of subjectivity and bias. This is arguably what Ely refers to as the ‘teasing out’ what is considered the ‘essential meaning’ of the data obtained. (Ely, 1991,p.140). (Quoted in Wright et al 1995). This, arguably, is especially pertinent because we are researching a matter of public policy, where positivist data tends to be adapted to value judgements by governments, and governing bodies. As Denzin and Lincoln point out, ‘Qualitative research is inherently multi-method in focus†¦However, the use of multiple methods†¦reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon in question. Objective reality can never be captured. We know a thing only through its representations.’ (Denzin and Lincoln, 2005: p.5). In term of representation, the specific enquiries made here are designed to produce data at micro level, although their collective implications may have a meso function in terms of the local negotiation of control over CPD standards and access. Only a numerically wider and more varied study could produce data which might function at macro level. However, the eventual connection between micro and macro is implicitly accepted here: as Strauss and Corbin point out, ‘†¦the distinction between micro and macro is an artificial one.’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998: p.185). The point is though that this limited sample cannot establish such tautology in absolute terms, only suggest ways in which it may be researched further. To these two empirical issues may be added more complex ethical issues around confidentiality and contractual obligation. To employ the current parlance of Human Resources Management, all employees have a ‘psychological contract’ with their management, wherein informally agreed tenets of ‘fairness’ operate. As Williams indicates. ‘..this interpersonal aspect to fairness reminds us that there is a social basis to the exchange relationship between employer and employee and we might expect this to be part of the psychological contract.’ (Williams, 1998: p.183). It has to be conceded that any debate engendered around CPD has the potential to impinge upon the either side of the psychological contract, a fact which may influence and limit the format of questions. 30 brief questionnaires were sent out, of which 22 were returned: three of these respondents agreed to be interviewed, and the same interview pro-forma was employed in each context. There were 14 female respondents and 8 male: in keeping with contemporary guidelines, age was not elicited. The criteria for subject selection was that the respondent should be an established practitioner, i.e. have at least two years service, but no managerial responsibilities. The interviewees were invited to participate and the customary protocols followed in terms of permission to use the material, based on anonymity and the right to withold use of the material. Analysis and Findings The mode of analysis employed was substantially one of triangulation. The binary responses were tallied and are expressed as percentages. In Question 4 the written responses were sorted into those supportive, unsupportive and uncomitted with regard to the proposal (of an agreed ten-part choice of CPD activities). Based on this polarisation, qualitiative responses were then taken from the interview transcripts to illustrate and expand upon the themes identified. 22.75 per cent of respondents agreed that 90 hours of CPD was sufficient for SW’s over a three year period: 18.2 per cent thought it insufficient, whilst a majority, 59.15 per cent thought the whole idea of a prescribed amount of hours too arbitrary. 18.2 per cent considered that the current SW guidelines were effective, with an equal amount disagreeing with this proposition. A majority – 63.7 per cent expressed the view that some kind of change was necessary. Only 13.65 per cent of respondents thought that the CPD options available to them personally had been sufficient for their needs as a practitioner. 27.3 per cent meanwhile thought such resources had been insufficient. 22.75 per cent thought the available CPD had at least been consistent, whilst 36.4% disagreed with this idea. The written responses still produced a fairly polarised set of information. 35 per cent of those who answered supported the idea of being able to select their own CPD activities from a ten choice range. Of the latter, a majority gave some kind of indication that they saw within such a development the opportunity for gaining more control over their own professional development. This was evident from responses such as ‘Yes, great idea, assuming practitioners are involved in drawing it up’, and ‘Yes, perfect. If we get to choose what’s on the list, otherwise its just another form of management control, and we already have too much of that.’ (Appendix 3). Interestingly, the same concern underpinned the rationale of the 55 per cent who did not support the idea. As one respondent put it, ‘I don’t think it could work because CPD is all about standardisation, this idea involves too much individual choice for the ‘powers that be’ to a ccept it.’ This was expressed more directly in the views of another, who remarked that No. CPD just ticks a management box, it doesn’t really help me, so I don’t want four or ten or whatever it is boxes to tick.’ (Appendix 3). The 10 per cent who were uncommitted raised concerns about relevance and the numbers of available options. (Appendix 3) The twenty two tallied responses to Question 5, about practitioners preferences for CPD areas, produced an overwhelming choice for a specific vocational focus in the form of Multi Agency Working, at 36.4 per cent. All of the nine other activities suggested scored 9.1 and 4.5 per cent respectively. (Appendix 3) As might be expected, the interview questions produced the most detailed qualitative data. When asked to evaluate the personal importance of CPD for them, two respondents identified pressure of work rather than management imposition as the main impediment to their pursuing more professional development. The first respondent stated that it was ‘Very Important. I know I don’t spend enough time doing it very often, but that’s just the nature of the job at the moment, where we are all running to stand still. It’s very difficult to commit a worthwhile timetable of CPD when you know for a fact that you won’t actually do half of it, due to unforeseen commitments.’ . The second respondent meanwhile acknowledged that it was ‘†¦Not as important as it probably should be. It’s a box I know I should tick, but in a department where we can’t even recruit at the moment, it’s not a priority. Sorry.’ (Appendix 5). The third respondent explained their lack of commitment to CPD in terms of their lack of control over it: ‘I know it’s vital, but who is it for exactly? If it’s just stuff they think I should be doing, rather than what I want to do, then I could well live without it.’ (Appendix 5). In terms of the specific proposal, i.e. that of providing practitioners with a framework of choice for CPD, the responses were varied. Respondent 1 replied, ‘I can’t think of ten†¦.for me personally at the moment, it would be team-building, and risk assessment, plus maybe multi-agency working.’ (Appendix 5). Respondent 2 indicated ‘Communication, risk assessment, leadership, policy development’ as their preferred foci. Respondent 3 indicated interest in ‘IT skills, communication, multi-agency working, risk assessment’, adding that ‘†¦.the list is endless!’ (Appendix 5) Provisional Conclusions Concerns about who would take responsibility for more liberal and diffuse CPD should be noted here, as in the response , ‘Who would supervise it? I’ll bet it would just be an extra job dumped on somebody like me.’ (Appendix 3) Such objections reflect trends in management which have already been highlighted in the related literature. As Watson points out, ‘The drive for local and central government to modernise and become more accountable has led to a rise in responsibilities of managers for performance management and transparency in decision making.’ (Watson, 2008: p.330) The extent of interest in multi-agency working as a useful area for practitioner CPD, is something which has already been noted in the related literature. As Farmakopoulou has indicated, ‘The main inter-organizational inhibitory factors were related to structural difficulties and lack of joint training. Education and social work departments embody different statutory responsibilities†¦Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ (Farmakopoulou 2002: p.1064). Whilst this specific point is obviously vocationally limited, a wider one about inter-professional cooperation may arguably be abstracted from it. In terms of generalisability, it has to be acknowledged that this research and its findings is vulnerable to usual charges of subjectivity which may be levelled at triangulation. As Denzin and Lincoln concede, ‘Triangulation is the simultaneous display of multiple, refracted realities. Each of the metaphors â€Å"works† to create simultaneity rather than the sequential or linear. Readers and audiences are then invited to explore competing visions of the context, to become immersed in and merge with new realities to comprehend.’ (Denzin and Lincoln 2005: p.6). However, in terms of putative research questions, enough areas of potential interest have arguably been identified to warrant further investigation. Themes would be†¦ Involve a larger cohort of respondents. Involve local management as respondents, to obtain views from both sides of the ‘psychological contract’. Involve the GSCC on their views about possible change. APPENDIX ONE: Questionnaire. Are you male †¦.. female†¦.. For each question, please indicate the statement with which you agree most by ticking it. Question 1. a. 90 hours CPD is sufficient for a SW Practitioner over three years. b. 90 hours CPD is insufficient for a SW Practitioner over three years. c. 90 hours is far too arbitrary an amount of CPD for a SW   practitioner: it should be varied for individuals. Question 2. a. Would you agree that the current SW CPD guidelines are effective? b. Would you disagree with the idea that the current SW CPD   guidelines are effective? c. Do you think that changes are necessary in current SW CPD? Question 3. a. Has the available SW CPD been sufficient for your needs as a   practitioner? b. Has the available SW CPD been insufficient for your needs as   practitioner? c. Has the available SW CPD been consistent? Inconsistent? à ¯Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚   Question 4 : Please explain why you would support OR not support the idea of a ten-criteria list from which to select SW CPD activities? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Question 5 : Which areas of professional competence would you include in a ten-criteria list? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ APPENDIX 2: Tables of Questionnaire Results. Question 1. 90 hours CPD is sufficient for a SW Practitioner over three years. 90 hours CPD is insufficient for a SW Practitioner over three years. 90 hours is far too arbitrary an amount of CPD for a SW practitioner: it should be varied for individuals. 5 4 13 Question 2. Would you agree that the current SW CPD guidelines are effective? Would you disagree with the idea that the current SW CPD guidelines are effective? Do you think that changes are necessary in current SW CPD? 4 4 14 Question 3. Has the available SW CPD been sufficient for your needs as a practitioner? Has the available SW CPD been insufficient for your needs as practitioner? Has the available SW CPD been consistent? Has the available SW CPD been inconsistent? 3 6 5 8 APPENDIX 3 Question 4 : Please explain why you would support OR not support the idea of a ten-criteria list from which to select SW CPD activities? Why ten? It should be about relevance, not a number. Yes I would, but only if I got to choose them, so they were relevant to my needs. No, because it would expand what is already a drain on my time. I don’t think it could work because CPD is all about standardisation, this idea involves too much individual choice for the ‘powers that be’ to accept it. No: who would enforce or administer it? Yes, although why settle on that number? Yes, great idea, assuming practitioners are involved in drawing it up. Yes, perfect. If we get to choose what’s on the list, otherwise its just another form of management control, and we already have too much of that. Yes, if we can get everyone to agree on it. No. It sounds to me like the thin end of a very large wedge which I’ll have to fit into my diary. No. I’m still trying to catch up with my existing CPD, so I definitely don’t need any more. No. One CPD target is enough, I wouldn’t want any more than that. Yes, if it happens, but I can’t see it. No. Wouldn’t this just be more ‘big brother’ stuff from the GSSC? No. I imagine the bureaucracy the government would create around it. No. Who would supervise it? I’ll bet it would just be an extra job dumped on somebody like me. I like the idea in principle, but I think a smaller number of options would be more helpful. No, because I think the current system is OK, and manageable within realistic constraints of time. No. CPD just ticks a management box, it doesn’t really help me, so I don’t want four or ten or whatever it is boxes to tick. Yes, its just what we need to give us more of a voice in our own professional development. The 20 written responses obtained for Question 4, though qualitative in nature, have been sorted into three categories: supportive, unsupportive, and uncommitted. Supportive: 35% 2.Yes I would, but only if I got to choose them, so they were relevant to my needs 6. Yes, although why settle on that number? 7. Yes, great idea, assuming practitioners are involved in drawing it up. 8. Yes, perfect. If we get to choose what’s on the list, otherwise its just another form of management control, and we already have too much of that. 9. Yes, if we can get everyone to agree on it. 13. Yes, if it happens, but I can’t see it. 20. Yes, its just what we need to give us more of a voice in our own professional development. Unsupportive 55% 3. No, because it would expand what is already a drain on my time. 4. I don’t think it could work because CPD is all about standardisation, this idea involves too much individual choice for the ‘powers that be’ to accept it. 5. No: who would enforce or administer it? 10. No. It sounds to me like the thin end of a very large wedge which I’ll have to fit into my diary. 11. No. I’m still trying to catch up with my existing CPD, so I definitely don’t need any more. 12. No. One CPD target is enough, I wouldn’t want any more than that. 14. No. Wouldn’t this just be more ‘big brother’ stuff from the GSSC? 15. No. I imagine the bureaucracy the government would create around it. 16. No. Who would supervise it? I’ll bet it would just be an extra job dumped on somebody like me. 18. No, because I think the current system is OK, and manageable within realistic constraints of time. 19. No. CPD just ticks a management box, it doesn’t really help me, so I don’t want four or ten or whatever it is boxes to tick. Uncommitted 10% 1.Why ten? It should be about relevance, not a number. 17. I like the idea in principle, but I think a smaller number of options would be more helpful. Question 5 : Which areas of professional competence would you include in a ten-criteria list? Team Building skills 2 Leadership skills. 2 Multi-Agency Working. 8 IT skills. 1 Risk Assessment. 2 Intercultural Skills. 2 Communication Skills. 1 Policy Development. 2 Strategic Development. 1 Self-Reflection: being a reflective practitioner. 1 APPENDIX 4: Interview Pro-Forma. Time in SW†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Current Post†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Question 1. How important is CPD to you as a Practitioner? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚ ¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Question 2. Would you change any aspect of current CPD practice? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚ ¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ Question 3. What do you see as the principal issues in current SW CPD practice? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚ ¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. Question 4. Could you identify some of the areas you would include in a ten-item range of activities for SW CPD? †¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚ ¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦ APPENDIX 5: INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPTS. Question 1. How important is CPD to you as a Practitioner? Respondent One: Very Important. I know I don’t spend enough time doing it very often, but that’s just the nature of the job at the moment, where we are all running to stand still. It’s very difficult to commit a worthwhile timetable of CPD when you know for a fact that you won’t actually do half of it, due to unforeseen commitments. Respondent Two: Not as important as it probably should be. It’s a box I know I should tick, but in a department where we can’t even recruit at the moment, it’s not a priority. Sorry. Respondent Three: I know it’s vital, but who is it for exactly? If it’s just stuff they think I should be doing, rather than what I want to do, then I could well live without it. Question 2. Would you change any aspect of current CPD practice? Respondent One: Not all of it, as some of it can be very good. I would definitely give people more choice, and the group/team learning idea is a very good one. Respondent Two: Personally, I think it’s all about resources: I mean, I’d let people timetable for it, and relate it closely to what they needed as practitioners†¦but†¦that would cost money: money which, as far as I can see, we just don’t have at the moment. Respondent Three: Yep†¦I’d I either get rid of it†¦.or do it properly†¦I can’t see either happening at the moment though. Question 3. What do you see as the principal issues in current SW CPD practice? Respondent One: Time. All the time it’s an add-on, when it really needs to be a practice-centred activity which you could timetable for, and really concentrate on. Respondent Two: For me its all about relevance and real value. I can spend any amount of time becoming a more reflective practitioner, but that doesn’t help me if my case-load is increasing while I’m doing it. Respondent Three: Well, I can only comment on what they are for me†¦.the real issue is, a lot of what I get given – or I should say, is inflicted upon me – as CPD, has very little to do with my case-load and the real problems I face. Maybe its because I’m old-school, pre-graduate and all that. Yes it’s all very interesting, but, well, I’m not an academic! There, I’ve said it! This is what I do, and no amount of CPD seems to change that. Question 4. Could you identify some of the areas you would include in a ten-item range of activities for SW CPD? Respondent One: I can’t think of ten†¦.for me personally at the moment, it would be team-building, and risk assessment, plus maybe multi-agency working. Respondent Two: Communication, risk assessment, leadership, policy development. Respondent Three: IT skills, communication, multi-agency working, risk assessment†¦.the list is endless! Bibliography Brown, K., and Keen, S., (2004), ‘Post Qualifying Awards in Social Work (Part 1): Necessary Evil or Panacea?’ Social Work Education, vol. 23, No 1: pp.77-92. Bryman, A., (1998), Doing Research in Organisations, London Routledge. Bryman, A., (2007), Social Research Methods Oxford, Oxford University Press. Bryant, A., Charmaz, K., (2007), The Sage Handbook of Grounded Theory, London, Sage Publications. Collis, J and Hussey, R., (2003), Business Research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students, London, Palgrave Macmillan. Crombie I 1996 Pocket Guide to Critical Appraisal London BMJ Publication Group Department of Health (1998) Modernising Social Services London H.M.S.O www.doh.gov.uk Accessed 19-01-2006 Department of Health, (2000), Strategy for Social Car,e H.M.S.O., London www.doh.gov.uk Accessed 01-11-2006 Denzin, N.K., and Lincoln, Y.S., (eds), (2005), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications. Doel, M., Nelson

Unilever and Coke: Impact on the Environment and Workers

Unilever and Coke: Impact on the Environment and Workers A multinational corporation or MNC is a large joint stock company or a firm that has operations and assets in at least one foreign country other than its home country. They are characterized by having multi product portfolio, worldwide market, selling billions of worth goods services, large consumer base, worldwide competitors, global perspective, large RD base, employing thousands of workers globally, with only one motive i.e. Profit making. According to recent statistics the combined sales of top 200 MNC’s were around 28% of world’s GDP. Least developing country, or LDC’s, symbolise the weakest section of the international economic community comprising of almost 12% of world population, about 880 million people, accounting for only 2% world GDP 1% global trade (UN-OHRLLS). These countries are lacking in infrastructure, have poor economy inadequate industrial base, large population below poverty line. As per the 2012 UN list, there are 48 least developed coun tries in the world with countries like Africa, Latin America being a part of the list. A multinational companies’ primary motive is to reap profits by employing cheaper, efficient and reliable resources, for which LDC’s or developing economies are ideal as they are economically weak, burdened by unemployment, debt and structural instability. To woo these investors and bring in FDI, the governments lower trade restrictions and give a free reign to the country’s resources to boost their weak economy. While MNC’S are perceived as a positive force that bring employment, economic growth, better technology living standards in the developing economies, but their greed for profit maximisation has led them to exploit the natural resources, human resource, and environment of these developing countries. Coke and its Impact on India’s Economy, Natural resource (water), Environment India’s Reliance on Coke: The worldwide markets in 1990’s for soft drinks industry was shrinking and Coca Cola faced a shrinking market in the US and EU as the western consumer got more health conscious and started banning such products. The market focus shifted to India as it was a developing market with a large middle class population base. Coke returned back to India in 1993 and invested more than 1 billion US$ in 10 years’ time making it the country’s top international investor. With a record growth of â€Å"16% sales volume in India in 2012, 59 bottling operations, 21 contract packers manufacturers, 700,000 retail outlets†, (The Coca-Cola Company) Coke has created millions of jobs through its contract manufacturing, procurement, supply, and distribution networks. The company plans to â€Å"invest another $5 billion† to double its revenue and volume by 2020 making it one of the most promising MNC to boost the Indian economy. (The Coca-Col a Company) Access to natural Resources: Coca Cola, the American multinational invested in India to reap heavy profits and gets access to cheap ground water, low extraction and labour cost. Coca-Cola extracts about 2.5 million litres of water/day, equivalent to meet the basic needs of 100,000 residents every day (India Resource Centre).The use of ground water for bottling Coke and its products in various regions in India has led to drought leading to inability of farmers to continue farming. Indians face extreme water shortages due to unequal distribution of water and also because it’s a highly agrarian economy where 70% people rely on agriculture (Srivastava, 2008). Coke’s plant in Kala Dera, Rajasthan, has caused severe water shortages resulting in depletion of groundwater levels. TERI (The Energy Resources Institute), India’s largest NGO, in its report in 2008 said that in the peak summer months of its production, the plant accounted for using 8% of water extraction with in 2 km radius of the plant making it non-sustainable. Another bottling plant in Kerala, Palakkad, draws 1.5 million litres of water daily (Arjun Sen, The Statesman) resulting in drying up of irrigation wells and producing thousands of gallons of toxic sludge (BBC). Hindustan Coca-Cola Beverages Private Limited (HCCBPL), the bottling partner of Coke India, has a plant near Mehdiganj, UP. The plant’s annual requirement is 50,000 cubic metres of water, and uses 2 bore wells of depths 103 and 137 meters, drawing almost 12,290 cubic meters/month of water during its peak season (Central Groundwater Authority, India). As part of ‘Replenishment Policy’, the company has initiated 400 rainwater harvesting projects to restore groundwater resources, provide potable water to over 100 schools, restored traditional water bodies and is pioneering sustainable agricultural practices. Coca Cola also installed Rain Water Harvesting systems in 39 SOS children’s villages in it s bid to give back the water they are using. Environmental impact – A multinationals’ primary aim is profit and utilisation of production practices that are cheap and efficient, even though they might have a negative impact on environment. The contaminated farmlands comprising of toxic-laden waste and unacceptable levels of pesticides in Coke products, leaves toxic environmental footprints in India. Coca Cola has been discharging its waste and effluent into the fields, rivers around the plant areas indiscriminately resulting in the pollution of ground water and soil, making the water of wells and hand pumps unfit for consumption. In Plachimada and Mehdiganj areas Coke distributed its waste to farmers as Fertilisers. Tests conducted by BBC found traces of cadmium and lead in the waste proving its toxicity. Coke products have been proved to have high level of pesticides including DDT, lindane and Malathion with the pesticides and insecticides averaging 0.0150 mg/l, 30 times higher than the European Economic Commissi on (EEC) limit (Pollution Monitoring Laboratory), infact Coke’s Ballia plant is located in an area with a severe contamination of arsenic in its groundwater. Coca-Cola has introduced various initiatives for sustainable supply of agricultural crops, green manufacturing and packaging practices to support the farmers in improved yields and to protect the natural resources across the supply chain. Project ‘Unnati’ in Chittoor, has piloted ultrahigh-density plantations (UHDP) in mango cultivation, to raise productivity, conserve water land resources and increase the incomes of around 25,000 small farmers covering 50,000 acres. Unilever and its Impact on Workers and Environment Impact on Workers: The Unilever can be found across 150 countries, it’s a trusted name in nutrition, hygiene and personal care. They have been in 3 key countries (Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya). Unilever has made an employee programme called, Lamplighter employee programme to improve the fitness, nutrition, and mental health of employees. (Employee Health, Nutrition Well-being.) This programme had already been used in 30 countries, reaching 35,000 people. In 2012, they restricted Smoking for employees whilst at work due to health issues, reaching a â€Å"100% compliance by 2013† (Employee Health, Nutrition Well-being.) According to the labour act, the maximum working hours is 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week. Also the employers working engaged in the harvesting the oil palms need to work on Saturdays but are paid twice the daily wage for working on Saturday. The wage paid to the workers in Ghana is relatively good as their â€Å"daily minimum wage in Ghana is  ¢13,200 (about â⠀š ¬1.25)† (Enu-Kwesi). Unilever’s labour act strictly prohibits the employment of children but the Ghana Employers Association (GEA) found children working in oil palms and rubber plantations. These children confront hazards like exposure to toxic substances, sexual abuse, violence, snake bites and accidents, such as from falling fruits, and cuts. Impact on Environment: Unilever is highly dependent on the environment as the raw materials it requires directly come from nature. According to Greenpeace, Unilever drives deforestation in Borneo by buying palm oil. Unilever is clearing the countrys rainforests, threatening native people and wildlife. Borneo is very important to Unilever because of the presence of palm oil, a common ingredient used in soaps and many other personal care products. Unilever purchases â€Å"1.3 million tons of palm oil each year.† (Hance, Jeremy.) Deforestation is endangering species and resulting in climate change through greenhouse gas emissions (GHG). In Sumatra and Borneo, palm-oil expansion threatens elephants, tigers and rhinos, as well as orang-utans. (The Other Oil Spill.) However, Unilever has taken various initiatives to save the environment by reducing their emissions GHG in the atmosphere, with acts like reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport, they will achieve this by reduci ng truck mileage, employing alternative transport such as rail or ship. There has been â€Å"18% improvement in CO2 efficiency since 2010 and 7% reduction of CO2 emissions in 2013 compared to 2012.† (TARGETS PERFORMANCE.) As Unilever is the largest producer of ice cream, making their consumption of refrigerators very high, they have tried to reduce gas emissions from refrigerators by using the hydrocarbon climate friendly refrigerators. Unilever has already bought â€Å"1.5 million refrigerator, exceeding their target of 850,000 units.† (TARGETS PERFORMANCE.) Conclusion: While MNC’S are perceived as a positive force that bring employment, economic growth, better technology living standards in the developing countries, but their greed for profit maximisation has led them to exploit the natural resources, human resource, and environment of these developing countries. The overwhelming data proves that the MNC’s are indeed taking due advantage of the weak regulatory authority of these countries at the cost of human health, well-being global environment. In India, Coca Cola may claim to ‘replenish water’ but the glaring truth is reflected by drying hand pumps, bore wells, ponds low ground-water levels and the drying agricultural farms because of lack of irrigation water. The environmental initiatives taken by the company are motivated by the intent to improve the productivity and yields, rest are all side benefits. Rather than bringing in economic prosperity, Coca-Cola has managed to bring in environmental degradat ion, toxic dumping, economic and health problems in Indian communities. Similarly Unilever boasts of many environmental human initiatives but it cannot balance out the damage it’s causing to the environment and the human labour, especially children of these developing countries. Is blatant liberalisation the answer to all the problems of these developing countries? Does the blame of over exploitation lies only at the doorsteps of the MNC’s and not the local governments, who give a free reign to these MNC’s to boost their economies? Who is accountable for the human and environmental damage these companies are incurring? When will we see the real â€Å"Responsible Corporate Citizen MNC’s† that are dictated by a moral code and not just the profit mode?

Tsunami disaster, implication on economy Essay -- essays research pape

TSUNAMI DISASTER, WHAT IMPLICATION ON ECONOMIC SYSTEM IN THIS REGION? We view with awe a release of power on this scale. We know that this power is greater than that of our species — nature holds us in its hands. We may be able to mitigate some of the consequences; in some cases we may be able to give advance warning of the threat; but we are not in control; the tsunami has demonstrated this ancient truth. William Rees-Mogg INTRODUCTION 1. On the morning of December 26, 2004 a magnitude 9.3 earthquake struck off the Northwest coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The earthquake resulted from complex slip on the fault where the oceanic portion of the Indian Plate slides under Sumatra, part of the Eurasian Plate. The earthquake deformed the ocean floor, pushing the overlying water up into a tsunami wave. The tsunami wave devastated nearby areas where the wave may have been as high as 25 meters (80 feet) tall and killed nearly 300,000 people from nations in the region and tourists from around the world. The tsunami wave itself also traveled the globe, and was measured in the Pacific and many other places by tide gauges. Measurements in California exceeded 40 cm in height, while New Jersey saw water level fluctuations as great as 34 cm . 2. Named the biggest earthquake in 40 years struck off the coast of North Sumatra, creating the greatest human catastrophe in living memory. The epicenter of the quake, on the shallow ocean floor, caused a major tsunami to sweep through the Bay of Bengal, the Andaman Sea, and the Indian Ocean. Human casualties exceeding 260,000 and massive damage to property had been reported in Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Myanmar), South Asia (India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh), Eastern Africa (Somalia and Tanzania) and the Maldives. AIM 3. The aim of this paper is to examine Tsunami disaster that happened on December 26, 2005, in brief, and its implication on economic system particularly to the impact of South East Asia region. Subsequently, I will further examine the destruction of economy on short and long term impact. In realizing this, the yardstick that is use is the measurement index created by World Bank. The paper will focus in brief to the whole country that affected by the disaster but main focus will be on South East... ...e [http://www.shoa.cl/oceano/itic/Master.html]). Tsunami The Great Waves on-line (English, French, Spanish on-line [ http://www.shoa.cl/oceano/itic/frontpage.html ]). Post Survey Tsunami Guide UNESCO, 1998, IOC Manual and Guides NÂ ° 37 on-line [ http://www.shoa.cl/oceano/itic/field.html ]). Tsunami Glossary on-line [ http://www.shoa.cl/oceano/itic/pdf-docs/ glossary.html ]. Tsunami Newsletter (ITIC) 1965-1999 vol I to XIX online [ http://www.shoa.cl/oceano/ itic/newsletter.html ]. Rosenthal, Anne M. "The Next Wave." California Wild (Spring 1999):24-32. Also: http://www.calacademy.org/calwild/1999spring/stories/tsunamis.html Seismic Sea Waves Tsunamis , T. S. Murty Fisheries and Environment, bulletin NÂ ° 198, Canada, 1977. Tsunamis : Their Science and Engineering , International Tsunami Symposium (1981) Advances in Earth and Planetary Sciences, D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1983. Tsunamis : 1992-1994, Their generation, dynamics, and hazard, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 144, 1995. Tsunami (2nd edition) W. Dudley and Min Lee's , (University of Hawaii Press, 1998). Tsunamigenic earthquakes and their consequences, Advances in GEOPHYSICS, vol 39, Academic press, 1998.

asian am health :: essays research papers

I’ve commonly encountered my whole life how spiritual the â€Å"Asian culture† can actually be. Christianity, Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism underlie the value system in asian culture. As for my generation, Asian Americans have been influenced by western beliefs to express your opinion and to work towards fighting for your right, extreme liberalism. That culture alone varies when it comes to value systems. Their experiences in America determine what someone values, and how their origin of race promotes that. Because they usually are raised by parents who will demand nothing less than utmost respect, they are brought to initially adhere obediently to authority. My mother made that part clear to me at a very young age. My mom always emphasized the importance of obtaining good morals – 90% because it was a Christian belief, but the rest of the 10% she really did want me to seek for myself why I should be the way I am. Model minority myth is founded on the fact t hat Asians are self persevering, self disciplining, educates and excels in every situation because of their hard work. This is something I do agree with and is the most accurate part of asian characteristics. But it’s because from a ancestor historical stance, they’ve had hard times and it is self perseverance that gets your through it. They pass on the importance of keeping your head up high and maintaining pride; as the opposing shame and guilt lingers along when the contrary occurs.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  We’ve all, one time or another felt like we were being stereotyped – usually about our ethnicity or culture. Minority groups in my opinion experience racism, usually because the person feels threatened or insecure, and by ordering or bringing them down puts them on a superior pedestal.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  I’ve never really fully experience the concept of â€Å"ethnic identity† and how it’s one’s sense of belonging. Growing up bilingual, I picked up Korean culture, however I never considered it my sense of belonging. I wasn’t really embraced by the Korean community, and felt that I will never fit into these little fine categories.

Article 62 of the Vienna Convention Essay

The doctrine of fundamental change of circumstances, (rebus sic stantibus) is a principle of customary international law allowing a part to an agreement to withdraw or terminate it where there has been a fundamental change in circumstances. The main justification for this principle is that treaties often remain in force for many years, during which time fundamental changes may occur in the political or international environment which may require a departure from the provisions set out in the treaty. However, this principle has also been criticized for disrupting the binding force of obligations taken by states, particularly when bearing in mind that there is no compulsory jurisdiction forcing states who terminate a treaty on this ground, to have the legitimacy of their decision scrutinised before an international tribunal. Nevertheless, this principle has been codified in Article 62 of the VCLT, although its scope has been severely restricted. Article 62 (1) is drafted it negative terms, stating that a fundamental change of circumstances which has occurred since the conclusion of a treaty, and which was not foreseen by the parties, may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from the treaty unless: (a) the existence of those circumstances constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty; and (b) the effect of the change is radically to transform the extent of obligations still to be performed under the treaty. This is further restricted by Article 62 (2) which states that fundamental change of circumstances may not be invoked as a ground for terminating or withdrawing from a treaty if the treaty establishes a boundary or if the fundamental change is the result of a breach by the party invoking it either of an obligation under the treaty or of any other international obligation owed to any other party to the treaty. If these conditions are met, Article 62 (3) allows a state to suspend the operation of the treaty if it does not wish to terminate it or withdraw from  it. Therefore, in order for Article 62 to apply, five conditions must be met. First, the change must be of circumstances existing at the time the treaty was made. Second, the change of circumstances must be â€Å"fundamental†. Third, the change must not have been foreseen by the parties. Fourth, the existence of those circumstances must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty in the first place. Fifth, the effect of the change must be radically to transform the â€Å"extent† of obligations still to be performed under the treaty. The possibility of terminating a treaty on grounds of fundamental change of circumstances was recognised in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, but was not held to be applicable on the particular facts of that case. In this case, Iceland and the UK entered into an agreement to limit their fisheries jurisdiction to within their 12 mile continental shelf limit. However, as the law of the sea developed, greater fishing zones became permissible, and Iceland argued that these developments where a fundamental change of circumstances allowing them to withdraw from the treaty. The ICJ held that a change in the law is not sufficient to constitute a fundamental change of circumstance. A change in international law could however terminate the treaty on grounds of supervening impossibility of performance if the change made the carrying out of the treaty illegal. It was stated that changes in circumstances will only be regarded as fundamental if they â€Å"imperil the existence or vital development of one of the parties.† Moreover, it was added that â€Å"the change must have increased the burden of the obligations to be executed to the extent of rendering the performance something essentially different from that initially undertaken†. As these requirements had not been met, Iceland could not withdraw from the agreement. Similarly, the scope and application of Article 62 was also examined in the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Danube Dam) case. Here the ICJ stated that â€Å"The changed circumstances advanced by Hungary are, in the Court’s view, not of such a nature†¦that their effect would radically transform the extent of the obligations still to be performed in order to accomplish the Project. A  fundamental change of circumstances must have been unforeseen; the existence of the circumstances at the time of the Treaty’s conclusion must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the Treaty. The negative and conditional wording of Article 62 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is a clear indication moreover that the stability of treaty relations requires that the plea of fundamental change of circumstances be applied only in exceptional cases†. This reasoning was followed by the ECJ in the Racke v Hauptzollamt Mainz case. In this case, the ECJ considered whether the EC could suspend the operation of a trade concession agreement between itself and the former Republic of Yugoslavia on the grounds that the break-up of Yugoslavia into several new States were factors to be regarded as a political change, involving a fundamental change in the material circumstances underlying the consent of the contracting parties bound by the agreement. It was held not to be, because the change did not fundamentally alter the extent of the obligations under the agreement, which was essentially an economic agreement to promote the development of trade between the contracting parties. These cases demonstrate the severe restriction which is place on the scope of Article 62, and that it will require a truly exceptional case for the ICJ to conclude that the requirements of Article 62 have been met. In relation to the provisions of Article 62, a question has arisen as to whether these provisions could apply to the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the USA and the USSR in 1972, which was concluded in the circumstances of the Cold War. Can it be said that there has been a fundamental change in the circumstances which determined the parties to accept the treaty and which has resulted in a radical transformation in the extent of their obligations still to be performed under the treaty? In 2001, President Bush announced that he had given formal notice to Russia, that the US is withdrawing from the Treaty. The treaty sought to limit the development and deployment of nationwide ballistic missile defence systems. Explaining the withdrawal, President Bush referred to the terrorist events  of September 11 as a fundamental change of circumstances which have resulted in the US now being put in danger from rogue states or terrorists who may have acquired nuclear weapons. Consequently, US wants the freedom to develop effective defenses against missile attacks from such sources, and this can be done only if the restrictions of the ABM Treaty are removed. A further argument that can be made is that the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the removal of the Cold War threat may also constitute a fundamental change in circumstances allowing the US to withdraw from the treaty. However, the problem here is that despite the end of the Cold War and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, both the US and Russia have continued to regard the treaty as remaining in force between themselves. The most obvious resolution to this problem would be for Russia to grant its consent to the US to withdraw from the treaty, or for both states to terminate the treaty by mutual agreement, according to Article 54 of the VCLT. However, it is unlikely that Russia will grant its consent for the USA to withdraw from the treaty. Therefore, the question of whether the US can unilaterally withdraw from the treaty arises. The only provision under the VCLT which may provide the US with the opportunity to unilaterally withdraw from the treaty is fundamental change of circumstances, under Article 62. In order for Article 62 to apply, five conditions must be met. First, the change must be of circumstances existing at the time the treaty was made. The first condition is clearly met as there certainly has been a change of circumstances from the height of the cold war in 1972 to the present post-cold war era. The Cold War has now subsided, and the Iron Curtain and the Soviet Union no longer exist. Second, the change of circumstances must be â€Å"fundamental†. This change can be said to be fundamental because in 1972, the threat from the Soviet Union was real and vivid, whereas the improvement in relations since then has greatly reduced this threat. This disparity between US and Russian military power  can be seen by the fact that the US spends more on its military than the next ten military powers (including Russia) taken together. Furthermore, few countries other than the US and Russia had nuclear weapons in 1972, and the majority that did were allies of the US. Any threat from other countries (let alone terrorists) was mostly a distant threat, not yet a reality. Third, the change must not have been foreseen by the parties. It is questionable whether the change in circumstances was not foreseen by the parties. It can be argued that the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other countries, some of which are a threat to the US was foreseeable. However, the threat from terrorists who may have now acquired nuclear weapons cannot reasonably be said to have been foreseeable. Fourth, the existence of those circumstances must have constituted an essential basis of the consent of the parties to be bound by the treaty in the first place. It can be said that the circumstances which constituted an essential basis of the US’s consent have changed, because the Soviet Union no longer exists, and Russia is no longer the threat it used to be. The only reason why the US signed the treaty was because of the threat from Russia, if there was no threat, it would not have consented. Furthermore, the persisting ideology of the two states at the time the treaty was signed was world supremacy, and so both states sought to limit the military and nuclear aspirations of the other by consenting to this treaty. It would now seem that the original nuclear arms race which instigated the treaty is over, since neither the US nor Russia are seeking to increase their arsenal of nuclear weapons, and it is doubted whether Russia would have the financial means to do so even if it wanted to. Therefore, it seems that the object and purpose of the ABM Treaty has ceased to be relevant in today’s world. On the other hand, it may be argued that despite the developments of the last 30 years, Russia has still not submitted to the emerging realisation that we are living in a US dominated world. It continues to maintain links with rogue governments and has nuclear parity with the US. Therefore, although it  is less of a threat than it used to be, it is still nevertheless a threat. Consequently, the counter-argument may be that the original threat which instigated the US to sign the ABM Treaty still exists, albeit in a weaker form. Therefore, it is a matter of debate whether the existence of the circumstances which initially formed the basis of the US’s consent have been fundamentally changed. Fifth, the effect of the change must be radically to transform the â€Å"extent† of obligations still to be performed under the treaty. This is the most difficult condition to satisfy and it is questionable whether it has been satisfied. It must be remembered that both the US and Russia have continued to regard the treaty as remaining in force between themselves, and the treaty has continued to carry out its purpose, i.e. the restriction of nuclear weapons. However, the justification given by the US is that the Treaty enshrines the past and should not prevent it from addressing the threats of today, or to pursue technology to defend itself. This argument may have some support from the statements made in the Fisheries Jurisdiction case, where it was stated that changes in circumstances will only be regarded as fundamental if they â€Å"imperil the existence or vital development of one of the parties.† Moreover, it was added that â€Å"the change must have increased the burden of the obligations to be executed to the extent of rendering the performance something essentially different from that initially undertaken†. It can be argued that preventing the US from developing technology to protect itself from the threat from rogue nations and terrorists may indeed â€Å"imperil its existence or vital development†. Moreover, as Professor Mullerson points out, the purpose of the ABM Treaty and the extent of its obligations were not to prohibit national missile defence systems in abstract against all possible threats, but to prohibit such defence from the other party to the Treaty. Therefore, by preventing the US from defending itself from new nuclear threats, it can be said that the fundamental change has now altered the extent of the obligations of the US. This is because its obligations will have been transformed from an obligation not to defend itself against Soviet missile threats, to an  obligation not to defend itself from missile threats from rogue states or terrorists. Therefore, the fundamental change of circumstance provision in Article 62, when combined with the provision in Article XV of the ABM treaty itself which allows a state to withdraw where extraordinary events arise, and where its supreme interests are threatened, may give the US a legitimate basis for unilaterally withdrawing from the treaty. As Professor Mullerson points out, â€Å"it is clear that US-Soviet (Russian) legal relations cannot, by definition, remain the same as they were at the height of the military-strategic competition which was the axis of world politics†. On the other hand, it may be argued that despite the developments of the last 30 years, although Russia is less of a threat than it used to be, it is still nevertheless a threat. Consequently, the counter-argument may be that the original threat which instigated the US to sign the ABM Treaty still exists, albeit in a weaker form. An alternative solution to the situation is advanced by Professor Mullerson, who states that the doctrine of change of fundamental circumstances should be used not only as a method of upholding or terminating treaties, but it should be used more flexibly as a process for initiating renegotiation or modification of a treaty whose object and purpose no longer correspond to the needs of changed circumstances. Despite the arguments either way, if Russia ultimately acquiesces in the US justification for withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, it is possible that the reasons given by the US may be regarded as supplying a precedent for withdrawal by the United States or other countries from other arms control treaties on similar grounds. As we have seen from the above discussion, although Article 62 lays down the general criteria which may allow a state to terminate a treaty on grounds of fundamental change of circumstances, the scope and application of Article 62 remains very problematic. The fact that there is no compulsory jurisdiction forcing states who terminate a treaty on this ground, to have the legitimacy  of their decision scrutinised before an international tribunal further adds to these problems. In the few cases where Article 62 has been ar5gued before the ICJ, we have seen that a very strict approach has been adopted and that no state has ever successfully pleaded Article 62 before the ICJ. This may discourage states from testing the legitimacy of their decision to terminate a treaty on the basis of Article 62 before the ICJ, as will probably occur in the ABM Treaty debate. Perhaps an alternative solution would be to not only use Article 62 as a method of upholding or terminating treaties; but more flexibly as a process for initiating renegotiation or modification of a treaty whose object and purpose no longer correspond to the needs of changed circumstances.

Muscle Cross Sectional Area Health And Social Care Essay

Strength has been documented to hold a positive relationship with the cross sectional breadth of the musculus ( Knuttgen, 1976 ) . Those jocks with the ability to bring forth a greater maximum voluntary contraction will hold advantages over rivals during featuring events associated with strength. The neuromuscular system of the human organic structure is by and large the most antiphonal to developing ( McArdle et al, 2001 ) . Muscle is really basic in the manner that it increases with size and strength when being exercised, but will diminish in size and strength when non being trained. When the musculus additions strength, it is normally accompanied by a addition in the size of the musculus, likewise, when a musculus loses strength, it loses musculus size ( Marieb et al, 1999 ) . Although musculus size does impact the strength of the musculus, nervous factors such as motor unit enlisting and the frequence of the stimulation of the motor units are besides of import to strength addition. When a musculus additions in size after long term opposition preparation it is known as chronic hypertrophy. This occurs when structural alterations within the musculus are made due to the addition in size of the bing musculus fibers. This fiber hypertrophy occurs due to an addition in sarcostyles and actin and myosin fibrils, which will let a greater sum of force to be produced due to the greater sum of cross-bridges available, ( McArdle et al, 2001 ) When opposition preparation, the bizarre constituent of preparation is of import in seeking to enable the maximal addition in the cross sectional country of each musculus fiber. It is good documented that greater hypertrophy can be gained from merely utilizing bizarre contractions, in comparing to concentric contraction preparation, or a combination of both homocentric and bizarre contraction preparation ( Higbie et al, 1996 ) . An bizarre contraction occurs when the opposition applied to the musculus exceeds the musculus force, hence intending the musculus would lengthen, while staying under tenseness ( McArdle et al, 2001 ) . The absorbing action of the manus uses isometric contractions of the forearm to bring forth the tight clasp. An isometric contraction is when a musculus generates a force despite the deficiency of noticeable prolongation of shortening of the musculus ( McArdle et al, 2001 ) . The articulations of the manus do non travel, nevertheless, the manus could bring forth sufficient force, so as to non drop the object. The purpose of this paper was to analyze the effects of the cross sectional country of the forearm, on the maximum voluntary contraction of the manus executing a absorbing action in male topics. Based on old research it was hypothesised that there will be a positive correlativity between the maximum voluntary contraction of the manus and the cross sectional country of the forearm in males. Method Thirty seven healthy, male voluntaries ( Aged 20 +/- 3years, Height 1.7meters +/- 0.2meters ) participated in a survey, all were pupils. First, all topics had their forearm cross sectional country recorded. This was done by mensurating the subjectaa‚ ¬a„?s largest country of the forearm utilizing a tape step. The perimeter of the forearm was so used to work out the radius, utilizing the equation C = 2Pi r. Once the radius of the forearm was recorded, this figure was so used to work out the cross-sectional country of the forearm utilizing the equation 2pi2. Each topic performed three, maximum voluntary contractions, gripping the digital ergometer utilizing their right manus, while their forearm would be perpendicular to their organic structure. When the topic felt they had reached their maximal contraction, they would allow travel of the ergometer. Forty-five seconds remainder was given to the topics between each test. Out of the three figures produced by the ergometer, the highest figure was recorded to be analysed ( see appendix 1 ) Data was analysed utilizing a goodness of fit value, and was tested for significance utilizing a studentaa‚ ¬a„?s t trial. Consequences The information shows a little positive correlativity between the cross sectional country of the forearm, and the maximum voluntary contraction of the manus ( R2 = 0.0334 ) . T-tests on the information gathered, concluded that the forearm cross sectional country did non hold a important impact on the MVC recording ( p=0.180 ) .Figure 1 illustrates the information collected.Figure 1. Exemplifying the relationship between forearm cross sectional country, and the maximum voluntary contraction during the hand-grip motionDiscussion The preset survey shows that although there was a little positive correlativity between strength and the cross sectional country for male topics, there was besides a considerable sum of incompatibility between persons. However, the informations gathered was non statistically important when analysed utilizing t-tests. Studies into the relationship between cross sectional country and the maximum voluntary contraction have produced contradictory consequences. Maughan et Al ( 1983 ) besides found that there was a positive correlativity between cross sectional country and the maximum voluntary contraction, but likewise to the present survey, there consequences showed a really high degree of variableness. In the present survey, there is an anomalousness, where one of the topics with the smallest transverse sectional country, was able to bring forth one of the highest maximum voluntary contractions, and likewise, how the largest cross sectional country measured, produced a comparatively wea k contraction in comparing. This could be explained by taking into consideration the single differences of the topics. When mensurating cross sectional country of the forearm, this was done merely by mensurating the perimeter of the widest portion of the forearm. This would therefore take into history any fat tissue environing the musculus, which would differ from each topic. As it is merely the skeletal musculus which is bring forthing the contraction which is being measured, the fatso tissue which has non been accounted for is impacting the information. Another consideration would be the single difference in the physique up of the musculus between the different topics. The musculuss of the human organic structure are composed of a varied ratio of the two chief types of musculus fibers, each holding different contractile features ( Brooke & A ; Kaiser, 1970 ) . Athletes that participate in endurance activity have been shown to hold predominately type I muscle fibers, in comparing to rush and strength jocks with tend to hold largely type II fibers ( Saltin et al 1977 ) . It has been documented that there is a positive correlativity between the strength of the musculus and the proportion of type II musculus fibers present within the on the job musculus, Tesch & A ; Karlsson ( 1978 ) . This would bespeak that the strength of the type II musculus fibers was greater than that of the Type I muscle fibre, and this would in bend reflect the maximum voluntary contraction that could be produced by each topic. This is supported by a study by Bu rke Edgerton ( 1975 ) , & A ; who agreed that musculuss with a higher proportion of type II musculus fibers could bring forth a greater isometric contraction than musculus with a composing of chiefly type I fibres. In footings of associating the consequences of the Tesch & A ; Karlsson survey to the present one, their survey had no comparing to the cross sectional country of the on the job musculus, and hence no comparing would be able to be drawn against the information in this survey. The motive of the topics to work at an absolute maximum degree may hold besides impacted upon the truth of the consequences. It was hypothesised that there will be a positive correlativity between the maximum voluntary contraction of the manus and the cross sectional country of the forearm in males. The survey found that although there was a little positive correlativity, the information was undistinguished, and could non be drawn upon to do a concluding decision. One decision drawn from this survey is that there was a considerable degree of discrepancy in the subjectsaa‚ ¬a„? maximum voluntary contraction, with some of the smaller cross sectional countries, bring forthing some of the highest voluntary contractions. This could be due to the manner in which we measured the forearm cross sectional country, taking into history fatty tissue, or could besides come down to the single difference in musculus fiber types, reflecting the ability of the musculus to bring forth a higher contraction than others. Word Count aa‚ ¬ † 1357 Appendix 1CapableAge ( Old ages )Height ( centimeter )Computer Dynamometer: MVC ( millivolt )Forearm cross sectional country ( cm2 )1 20 182 11.32 71.3 2 22 174 10.697 62.4 3 20 163 11 27 4 20 187 16.7 30.5 5 20 177 13.2 63.8 6 19 177 13.5 64.7 7 19 186 14.7 55.91 8 20 179 14.5 69.29 9 19 166 12.5 48.17 10 20 174 15.6 40.69 11 23 179 14.649 62.4 12 18 185 8.83 53.818 13 18 176.5 14.105 67.42 14 19 176 11.34 62.44 15 19 186 15.263 66.92 16 20 186 13.36 76.57 17 19 175 9.536 63.585 18 19 176 17.95 67.02 19 20 176 14.8 81.67 20 19 186 12.911 58 21 19 178 14.181 62.5 22 18 176 16.81 67.02 23 19 176 11.2 62.44 24 19 176 13 62.44 25 19 187 12.1 86.7 26 19 186.5 17.775 68.7 27 19 180 16.05 86.35 28 19 170 15.562 55.38 29 19 173 12.432 49.73 30 19 176 13.468 53.818 31 19 167 12.576 57.38 32 21 177 10.864 49.74 33 18 180 11.97 49.74 34 19 178 10.57 55.91 35 19 175 11.3 54 36 18 181 14.6 62.31 37 19 178 12.8 49.7 Mean 19.32432 177.8648649 13.34376 60.20165 South dakota 1.028863 5.859048852 2.231944 12.69697 Minute 18 163 8.83 27 Soap 23 187 17.95 86.7