As a graduate student in philosophy, Joshua Greene had the idea of asking people to undertake some well-known philosophical thought experiments while in a brain scanner, so that he could study the neural processes involved in making moral judgements. Now head of the Moral Cognition Lab in Harvard University’s department of psychology, Greene draws on results from psychology and neuroscience to argue that we should live our lives according to the precepts of utilitarianism. Many philosophers will immediately be wary – it is widely accepted that you cannot derive an “ought” from an “is” – but the argument Greene makes in Moral Tribes is subtle and deserves careful attention.
Our big problem, as Greene sees it, is the challenge of adjudicating between the different values of opposing “tribes”. On his account, we evolved a set of psychological capacities and dispositions that promote within-group cooperation: for instance, we have an aversion to committing acts of violence; we have emotions such as guilt and shame that encourage cooperative behaviour; and we have others such as anger that commit us to punish non-cooperators. These dispositions are triggered automatically.
However, the flip side of this story is that these automatic settings evolved to favour our own tribe over others. With globalisation the world has become smaller, so we need to cooperate with other tribes. Since tribes tend to coalesce around shared values, when they encounter each other there are value conflicts to which we must find solutions. But evolution did not furnish us with automatic mechanisms to promote cooperation between groups. If anything, we are programmed to be biased in favour of our own tribe, interpreting events, evidence and even moral principles such as fairness in a way that favours our group. We are designed for local and not global cooperation.
Luckily, we have another setting that can be subverted to solve this problem. Greene proposes a “dual process” theory of moral judgement: as well as an “automatic mode”, we have a “manual mode”, responsible for conscious moral reasoning. From the results of his own research programme, Greene concludes that utilitarian judgements, which favour the action with the best overall consequences, are made in the manual mode.
So far, so much psychology. But Greene argues that we can use the resources of the manual mode in order to resolve value disputes between tribes. Whatever values we endorse, we all have a capacity for happiness, defined as good experiences, and we can recognise that everyone’s happiness is equally valuable. Therefore, utilitarianism is supposed to provide a common currency for resolving disagreements. The moral psychology of the manual mode also happens to be the philosophical solution.
Many of Greene’s arguments are controversial and the parts about philosophy most of all. For starters, there is his identification of manual mode reasoning with utilitarian judgements. Scores of philosophers, who are presumably doing moral reasoning, advocate theories other than utilitarianism. Greene’s response is that they are rationalising their intuitive judgements. While this is a genuine concern about any philosophy that relies heavily on thought experiments, when it is done properly, moral philosophy takes intuitively plausible premises, such as equal respect for people, and teases out exactly what they mean and the implications for moral behaviour. This is no different to what Greene has done with his premise about the equal value of experience. Of course, he would argue that the resulting ethical theories differ in their coherence and plausibility. But both intuition and reasoning enter into making those judgements.
Greene also assumes that the manual mode leads to better moral judgements than the automatic mode, but the relative merit of reasoning versus intuition is a live question. Other proponents of dual process theories, such as Daniel Kahneman, acknowledge that we are not always good at doing the calculations (as indeed does Greene at some points in this book). Sometimes our intuitive judgement has evolved to get us to the correct result when conscious reasoning would lead us astray. We shouldn’t fetishise conscious reasoning, which can also lead us to immoral conclusions.
These debates about individual reasoning will be familiar to those who know Greene’s work, but the really novel part of this book is their application to tribal conflict.
It is not clear that different tribes will agree to use utilitarianism to solve disputes. Greene says that because he is not arguing that utilitarianism is the moral truth, he prefers to call it “deep pragmatism”. Utilitarianism is just a way for people with competing values to get along together. But utilitarianism is a theory of value. It claims that what is valuable is experience and that all people’s experiences count equally. Why would someone who thinks that experiences are not the ultimate bearers of value buy into utilitarianism as a way of resolving value-conflict? Contrast Greene’s idea with John Rawls’ proposal for a theory of justice within which people with different values could coexist. Rawls’ method was to seek the agreements that people would make from behind a “veil of ignorance”, not knowing what position in society they would occupy or what their values would be. Given this stipulation, they would agree on a schema that does not privilege any one conception of the good, imposing a separation between “the right” and “the good”. But Greene’s proposal dissolves the boundary between the right and the good, as assenting to his proposal involves accepting a utilitarian conception of value.
Nor is Greene’s idea quite as far-reaching as he hopes. He gives several examples drawn from the contemporary political scene in the US, where the tribes are conservatives versus liberals. Naturally, Greene is concerned about these apparently irresolvable political differences, but he is more convincing when talking in the abstract about the demands of global justice. (Is it really more imperative to sacrifice a $500 suit to save a child who is drowning in a pond next to me than to send a cheque for $500 to a charity to save the life of a child in the developing world?) Debates between Right and Left about the welfare state simply do not boil down to a dispute about whether the boundary of the tribe is the local community or the whole state. The disagreement is about whether there is a fundamental right to the fruit of one’s labour, which means that taxation is illegitimate and poor relief should be left to voluntary organisations. But Greene gives rights short shrift, arguing that they are simply rationalisations of our intuitions.
Moral Tribes is a hugely ambitious book, and a work of this scope is easy to criticise because it can never be possible to anticipate every counterargument – although Greene does a pretty good job via some lengthy footnotes. He is particularly strong on the psychology of moral judgement. There is a wealth of books in this area, but Greene has something new to bring to the debate. The philosophical application of the psychology, too, is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. Readers who were already well disposed to utilitarianism before reading this book will find plenty in it to support their views, while those who come to it with the view that utilitarianism is wrong, will not be persuaded otherwise. However, on the basis of Greene’s theory of tribes, that is exactly what we would predict.
Joshua Greene, the John and Ruth Hazel Associate Professor of the Social Sciences in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, was raised in Florida. But, he says, “I never felt very Floridian, and people often assume I’m from New York or Boston, presumably because the Sunshine State is not known for producing philosophy-science nerds.”
“I now live in Cambridge, Massachusetts with my wife, Andrea Heberlein, and our two kids. Cambridge is known for its philosophy-science nerds, and we feel very much at home there.”
Cambridge, observes Greene “is extremely diverse, but has a strong community spirit. It’s as close as one gets to a post-tribal town.”
A “natural sceptic” as a child, Greene is glad to have trained as a philosopher before becoming a scientist. “But the downside is that I picked up most of my quantitative and technical skills as I went along. I collaborate with people whose techie skills outstrip my own, and I’m grateful for that. But having those skills myself would not only allow me to do more with my hands, it would extend my thinking.”
Working across the boundaries of psychology, neuroscience and philosophy is a challenge, he says, “but we’ve made enormous progress bringing these disciplines together in recent years. The biggest challenge comes from traditional moral philosophers who, when confronted with the new science of morality, simply repeat the old saw that you can’t derive an ‘ought’ from an ‘is’ and then plug their ears.”
Speaking of the project at the heart of his work, Greene contends: “Studying the causes of moral problems is, in a sense, no different from studying the causes of cancer. In both fields there’s a moral purpose. And in both fields one must respect the evidence regardless of what one hopes to find.
“Unlike cancer research, the science of morality is not aimed at producing a useful mater-ial technology, such as a pill. It is about producing useful self-knowledge, what you might call ‘social technology’, ideas that can improve our lives by changing collective behaviour. It’s a much riskier endeavour. Cancer researchers will solve their problems sooner or later. Whether the science of morality will pay off remains to be seen. We’re just getting started.”
Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them
By Joshua Greene
Atlantic, 432pp, £22.00
Published 2 January 2014


Bibliographic record and links to related information available from the Library of Congress catalog.
Note: Contents data are machine generated based on pre-publication provided by the publisher. Contents may have variations from the printed book or be incomplete or contain other coding.
Contents List of Figures List of Sidebar Texts Acknowledgements Maps Introduction A. The Roman Empire B. Religion and Religions C. The Sources I. Identifying ¿Religion¿ in the Graeco-Roman Tradition A. The Nature of the Divine B. Approaches to the Divine 1. Cult 2. Myth 3. Art 4. Philosophy 5. Conclusion C. Three Problematic Topics 1. Authority 2. Belief 3. Morality D. Conclusion II. Regional Religious Traditions of the Empire A. Greece B. Asia Minor C. Syria D. Egypt E. North Africa F. Western Europe G. Eastern Europe H. Italy I. Uniformity and Diversity in the Religious Traditions of the Empire III. The Presence of the Gods A. The Gods in the World B. The Power of the Gods C. Manifestations of the Gods D. Conclusion IV. Religion and Community A. The City B. The Household C. Voluntary Associations D. Conclusion V. Religion and Empire A. Mobility of Worshippers B. Mobility of Gods C. Identifying Gods D. Emperors and Gods E. Conclusion VI. Religious Options A. Attractions 1. Esoteric Wisdom 2. Divine Inspiration B. Advantages 1. Traditional Benefits 2. Intensification 3. Salvation C. Conclusion VII. Roman Religious Policy A. Atheism and Superstition B. Religious Authority C. Three Particular Cases 1. Magic 2. Judaean Tradition 3. Christianity D. Conclusion Epilogue: Religious Change in the Roman Empire Glossary of Major Deities Glossary of Authors and Texts References Index
Library of Congress Subject Headings for this publication:
Rome -- Religion.
Rome -- Religious life and customs.
Rome -- Civilization.


- STAFF PICKS
- GIFTS + GIFT CARDS
- SELL BOOKS
- FIND A STORE
New Trade Paper
Ships in 1 to 3 days
available for shipping or prepaid pickup only
Available for In-store Pickup
in 7 to 12 days
More copies of this ISBN
Other titles in the Civilization of the American Indian series:
Cherokee Dance and Dramaby Frank Gouldsmith Speck
Synopses & Reviews
Traditionally, the Cherokees dance to ensure individual health and social welfare. According to legend, the dance songs bequeathed to them by the Stone Coat monster will assuage all the ills of life that the monster brought. Winter dance (including the Booger Dance, which expresses the Cherokeesand#8217; anxiety at the white invasion) are to be given only during times of frost, lest they affect the growth of vegetation by attracting cold and death. The summer dance (the Green Corn Ceremony and the Ballplayerand#8217;s Dance) are associated with crops and vegetation. Other dances are purely for social intercourse and entertainment or are prompted by specific events in the community.
When it was first published in 1951, this description of the dances of a conservative Eastern Cherokee band was hailed as a scholarly contribution that could not be duplicated, Frank G. Speak and Leonard Broom had achieved the close and sustained interaction that very best ethnological fieldwork requires. Their principal informant, will West Long, upheld the unbroken ceremonial tradition of the Big Cove band, near Cherokee, North Carolina.
About the Author
The late Frank G. Speck, a distinguished American ethnographer, was associated with the University of Pennsylvania throughout his academic life. Leonard Broom has conducted research chiefly on ethnic and racial minorities and no social mobility and stratification. He is Professor Emeritus in the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Australian National University, Canberra, and Research Associate in Sociology in the University of California, Santa Barbara.
What Our Readers Are Saying
Other books you might like
Arts and Entertainment » Dance » World and Ethnic


During WWII, many did what they could to save Jews – including the Latino Schindler.
José Arturo Castellanos Contreras was born on December 23, 1893, in the city of San Vicente, El Salvador to a rather well-to-do family. In 1910, therefore, they sent their 16-year-old son to the prestigious Escuela Politécnica Militar (Military Polytechnic School) where he spent the next 26 years in the Salvadoran military and became a colonel.
After becoming the Second Chief of the General Staff of the Army of the Republic, his career changed. He accepted the post of Salvadoran Consul General in Liverpool, England in 1937. The following year, he was reassigned to Hamburg, Germany.
Contreras had not chosen his new career path. He had been a critic of Salvadoran President Maximiliano Hernández Martínez who rose to power in 1931 in a coup. Martínez ran a fascist regime that executed thousands of dissidents.
Given his position in the military and his family connections, however, killing Contreras was not a good idea – Martínez did not want any more enemies than he already had. Sending Contreras far away from El Salvador was much better.
Contreras was not happy at finding himself in a new fascist country. Nor was he pleased with how minorities were being treated.
Unable to do much back home without putting his family and himself at greater risk, things changed for him on November 9, 1938. It was Kristallnacht – the Night of Broken Glass. Before then, Jews had been regularly harassed, but people thought it would fade out.
For the next two days all over Germany, Jewish buildings were attacked, while many Jews were either beaten or killed. Some 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and became the first thrown into concentration camps.
By the time it ended on November 10, over a thousand synagogues had been burned and more than 7,000 Jewish businesses had either been destroyed or ransacked. Even the most optimistic realized that things had reached a turning point, and they were right. It was the beginning of the Final Solution – the program to exterminate Europe’s Jews.
Horrified, Contreras wrote a letter on January 2, 1939, to Miguel Ángel Araujo, El Salvador’s Foreign Minister. In it, he described what was happening and asked permission to give visas to any Jew who wanted to leave Germany.
His request was refused. El Salvador had its own problems, and the last thing it wanted or needed was to rock the diplomatic boat with Germany. Nor was it the only country that felt that way; the US and Britain turned away Jewish refugees.
Fearing Contreras might just rock the boat, anyway, he was reassigned to Geneva, Switzerland in 1941 which was a neutral country.
Enter György Mandl. He was a Jew born in Lekence, Transylvania. His country had switched sides three times in the 20th century between Hungary and Romania. He had moved to Bucharest (in Romania) where he opened a textile company. He thought he would be safe as Romania had been neutral since WWI, but he was wrong.
The National Legionary State took power on September 6, 1940, and they did not like Jews, either. They allied with Germany, and on October 8, some 500,000 German troops were welcomed into Romania with predictable results. Romania’s Jewish pogrom began on January 20, 1941.
Mandl and his family fled to Switzerland where he met Contreras. Although Switzerland was neutral, it had strict refugee laws. Having a border with Germany, it was also wary of upsetting its more powerful neighbor. The Mandl family risked deportation.
Contreras made Mandl a Salvadoran citizen and changed his surname to “Mantello.” It was illegal as the El Salvadoran Government knew nothing about it, but it saved the Mandl family from deportation. What of the other Jews who could not make it to Switzerland?
Contreras again appealed to his government for visas, but they refused. Fortunately, Carl Lutz had the solution. Lutz was the Swiss Vice-Consul in Budapest, Hungary who gave out Swiss Safe-Conduct papers to Jews and opened safe houses for them.
As the Nazis were bureaucratic, they believed the documents were genuine. The Swiss government (officially) did not know about them. Lutz also worked with other diplomats who came up with their own versions of Safe-Conduct papers. Mandl-Mantello and Contreras had theirs.
In 1942, Mandl-Mantello became the First Secretary of the El Salvadoran Swiss Consul; a position that does not exist. He issued El Salvadoran citizenship papers to Jews in Eastern Europe. As most of them could not reach Switzerland, he mailed them.
Some 13,000 citizenship papers were issued to entire families. Bulgarian, Czech, Hungarian, Polish, and Romanian Jews became Salvadorans.
The documents granted holders protection under the International Red Cross and the Swiss Consul in Budapest. When Germany invaded Budapest in 1944, blank sheets were sent out to Jewish families throughout the city with instructions to stick on their own pictures and fill out the information by hand.
Fortunately, Martínez was ousted and fled El Salvador in May 1944. Even more fortunate, the new government was sympathetic to the plight of Europe’s Jews. They, therefore, asked Switzerland to recognize their new Eastern European “citizens” and extend diplomatic protection to them.
With that added legal layer, thousands were saved. After the war, Contreras did not talk about his role in saving so many lives. He died in 1977.
Yad Vashem recognized him as one of the “Righteous Among the Nations” in 2010.


Developments in snap-shot MRI (magnetic resonance imaging), organic semiconductor technology, high temperature superconductivity, and progress towards quantum computers are some of the topics being presented at a major conference organised by the Institute of Physics next month. The four-day conference, CMMP 2004, will take place from Sunday 4th to Wednesday 7th April 2004 at the University of Warwick.
Silicon microchips touch our lives in many ways they power personal computers and enable high-speed medical imaging. Inside silicon chips, electrons move along microscopic wires that form complex electrical circuits. At this conference, on Tuesday 6th April, Professor Jakob Reichel from the University of Munich will describe a revolutionary new type of microchip in which entire atoms, rather than just electrons, move around circuits. In these "atom chips", thousands of atoms hover in a cloud above the surface of the chip, and move along air wires produced by tiny magnetic fields like microscopic magnetic levitation trains floating above a track.
The atom clouds themselves are very special they are so cold that all of the atoms merge into one "superatom", known as a Bose-Einstein Condensate, which behaves like a wave and exhibits bizarre quantum behaviour. Bose-Einstein Condensates have just entered the Guinness Book of Records as the coldest ever place within a few billionths of a degree of the lowest possible temperature, absolute zero. Using atom chips to move and manipulate Bose-Einstein Condensates could enable the development of "quantum computers", which would exploit unique features of quantum mechanics, and, for certain tasks, be vastly more powerful than the conventional electronic computers available today.
There will be twenty-two symposia within the conference including 'Nanomagnetism and Spintronics', 'Quantum Fluids and Solids', 'Semiconductor Optics and Photonics', 'Applied Superconductivity' and 'Bose-Einstein Condensates'. In addition to the presentations in each symposium, there will be a series of plenary lectures by world-renowned researchers. These include 'Snap Shot MRI' by Nobel prize-winner Sir Peter Mansfield, 'Carbon Nanotube Electronics and Optoelectronics' by P Avouris of IBM USA, 'Single Photon Devices for Quantum Cryptography' by A Shields of Toshiba UK, 'Dynamic Phenomena in Magnets: Investigations over Five Orders of Magnitude' by RL Stamps of the University of Western Australia and 'Liquids, Solids and Elastic Heresy in Between - is there a 2 ½th State of Matter?' by M Warner of the University of Cambridge, UK.
Source: Eurekalert & othersLast reviewed: By John M. Grohol, Psy.D. on 21 Feb 2009
Published on PsychCentral.com. All rights reserved.
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it.
-- Pablo Picasso


Winter wheat planting will soon be starting and a number of decisions will have to be made for a successful winter wheat crop, including: the time of planting, the choice of variety to be planted, disease and pest management decisions and crop insurance. In areas where there was prevent planting or crops were lost this summer due to hail, producers may be anxious to get something else growing to replace the first crop and provide cover to the soil.
Factors affecting the success of winter wheat can be impacted by a grower’s decisions. In South Dakota, the recommended planting time for winter wheat is September 10-October 10. Areas further north may want to consider planting earlier than areas further south. Winter wheat will survive the winter better if it is planted in time to develop 2-3 leaves and at least one tiller in the fall.
Many of the seasoned winter wheat producers, plant at 1.1-1.2 million PLS (pure live seeds) per acre. Planting into abnormally dry soil may necessitate a higher planting rate to account for poor germination. Increased planting populations can also reduce the impact of grasshopper feeding in areas where grasshopper populations are at or above thresholds around the fields.
The goal with winter wheat is to produce one main head with one to two tillers. A good plant stand can decrease the tendency of winter wheat to produce late tillers, which contribute to uneven maturity in the crop and can use soil moisture and nutrients.
Choosing the right winter wheat variety for your area is a very important step for many producers. Varieties will vary in maturity, winter hardiness, disease resistance and grain quality. SDSU performs winter wheat variety trials at 14 locations across South Dakota each year. Results of the variety trials can be found on the SDSU Extension “Wheat” page. Consider as much performance information as possible when selecting a variety and give more weight to information from trials close to home, as some varieties may be better suited to certain geographic areas. Also pay close attention to relative performance over many locations. This type of performance is an indication of “yield stability”. Good yield stability refers to the ability of a variety to exhibit high yield potential at many locations over years. For example, a variety that ranks in the upper 40% at all locations exhibits better yield stability than a variety that is number one for yield at one location but ranks in the lower 40% at some other locations. Performance over multiple years is also very important. Growing conditions in a single season may favor certain varieties, providing a poor representation of yield potential over time. A good rule of thumb is to plant 65%-75% of your acres to varieties with a proven track record (i.e. a good multi-year average) and plant the remaining 25%-35% to a promising new variety.
Good Quality Seed
Using certified seed is a good option for producers. However, if producers choose to use their own wheat as seed, it is recommended that they get a germination test and seed count done. Moreover, this year saw a number of areas with heavy Fusarium head blight (FHB/scab) develop. Whereas Fusarium on the seed will not translate to FHB during the next season (infection is through spores landing on the flower), Fusarium infected seeds will have low germination and low seedling vigor. For seed coming from fields with high FHB this year, a fungicide seed treatment should be considered. For more information on seed germination and general seed health testing, contact the SDSU seed testing lab. Using good quality, healthy, clean seed is very important.
Prior to planting, insecticide seed treatments may be applied to the seed. There is evidence that the addition of the insecticide seed treatment can reduce aphid populations in the field and also reduce the incidence of Barley yellow dwarf virus, which is vectored by the aphids. However, these treatments are generally not effective against grasshopper populations, which may require a foliar border treatment immediately after emergence.
Fungicide seed treatments provide protection from soil-borne pathogens that may interfere with seed germination or plant establishment. These pathogens may cause damping off of young seedlings or may cause root rots leading to reduced plant vigor. Seed-borne pathogens such as loose smut pathogen can lead to systemic infection that result in smutted wheat heads. The greatest value of a seed applied fungicide is to prevent catastrophic loss to seed-borne pathogens. However, not every field benefits from fungicide seed treatments. A fungicide seed treatment may be beneficial in fields with a history of poor plant stand establishment, poor drainage, non-rotated, and where non-certified seed is being used. For information on fungicide seed treatment products, see the "2019 South Dakota Pest Management Guide: Wheat" (under seed treatments).
No-tilling winter wheat into stubble is a recommended crop management practice in central and western South Dakota. Snow trapped by the stubble adds moisture and insulates wheat seedlings against cold temperatures, thereby reducing risk of winterkill. Seeding winter wheat into broadleaf crop or oats residue can help reduce insect, weed and disease issues. However, seeding into wheat residue is still common because of the increased winter hardiness associated with this practice.
Breaking the Green Bridge
Management decisions are made for certain disease and insect pests of winter wheat at planting time. An example of such a disease is Wheat streak mosaic virus (WSMV). This virus is transmitted by the wheat curl mite (microscopic mites that are blown by wind) and can be devastating in winter wheat. However, this virus can effectively be managed through elimination of what is called “the green bridge”. The green bridge refers to volunteer wheat and grassy weeds within a field. These can host insect vectors and other pathogens until winter wheat emerges. To reduce the chance of WSMV and other pathogens and pests surviving on the green bridge, the volunteer wheat, grassy weeds and cover crop mixes that include grasses, within the field, should be destroyed at least two weeks before winter wheat planting. A burn down herbicide application is the best way to destroy the green bridge.
Other pests that may take advantage of the green bridge include Hessian flies as well as common aphid pests of wheat. In South Dakota, Hessian fly reports have been steadily increasing. One factor that can impact Hessian fly populations is planting date. Earlier planted wheat is at a higher risk for Hessian fly infestations.
Check Herbicide Labels
Producers should check labels of herbicides used this past year in areas intended for winter wheat this fall to ensure that there are no plant-back restrictions on wheat for those areas.
Winter wheat insurance is available to producers in all counties in South Dakota. The final planting date is 15 October.


Drosophila Are Not Fruit Flies Edition
As I have mentioned before, Drosophila are not fruit flies. Tephritids are fruit flies. Drosophila feed on rotting fruit, while true fruit flies feed on fresh fruit. That makes true fruit flies agricultural pests. Drosophila, on the other hand, are connoisseurs of the finer things in life — wine, beer, cheese, and the like.
In addition to rotting fruit, Drosophila also feed on mushrooms and crabs. Yes, crabs. Well, they don’t actually feed on the crabs, just like they don’t actually feed on the fruit. The flies and their larva are more interested in the yeast that ferment fruit or the microbes found on crabs.
Drosophilids that live on crabs can be found in two locations: the Caribbean and Christmas Island. One species of Caribbean Drosophila, D. endobranchia, was last observed in the mid-1960s. It’s placement in phylogeny of Drosophila was not well resolved, and it was thought that it may be extinct. A new paper in PLoS ONE reports the rediscovery of that species, as well as the evolutionary relationship of the crabby flies (doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001942.g001)
The geographic location of D. endobranchia and its host, the black crab, as well as the life history of these flies, is summarized in the following figure.
(A) The black crab (Gecarcinus ruricola, black morph). (B) The male holotype of D. endobranchia collected by H.L. Carson in 1966, now in the collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. (C) Grand Cayman; Numbers refer to sites were crab flies were found. Scale bar 5 km. Image courtesy of NASA. (D) Male fly courting a female fly under the watchful eye of their host (a yellow morph black crab). (E) First instar fly larvae are found in the nephric pads (yellow arrow). The larvae feed on microorganisms, which cleanse the urine (exuded from the green gland; red arrow) of nitrogenous waste compounds. (F) Second instar is spent inside the gill chambers.
The article itself (from which the preceding image was taken) is written in a colloquial style not common in scientific publications. Here’s a taste, in which the authors describe their collection protocol:
The flies strike a peculiar sight in real life. They essentially hardly move at all, are extremely reluctant in leaving their host crabs and are hard pushed to take flight. Although the flies are sluggish, the crabs on which they reside are anything but. Chasing after crabs through a pitch-black jungle (growing on a razor sharp labyrinthine limestone ground), while trying to aspirate flies from their carapaces is not trivial. Obtaining large amounts of flies in this way is simply a nightmare. The scarcity of the flies, and the nocturnal and shy nature of their hosts made it a daunting task to figure out the biology of these odd flies.
It really captures the joy (and struggle) of field work. The article goes on to describe various observation made by the researchers based on their collections. But this is Phylogeny Friday, so we’re going to skip right to the evolutionary relationships of flies that live on crabs.
The other two species of crab-living flies were pretty well placed in the Drosophila phylogeny. The Christmas Island fly, Lissocephala poweilli belongs to a primative genus closely related to Drosophila. The other Caribbean fly, D. carcinophila falls in the repleta group, which probably means nothing to most people reading this blog. For some context, the repleta group is more closely related to picture-wing Drosophila and the cactus-feeding Drosophila than it is to D. melanogaster.
Stensmyr et al. sequenced five genes from D. endobranchia in order to resolve its phylogenetic position in the Drosophila genus. Here are the trees they constructed using three of the genes (the position of D. endobranchia is indicated by the black arrow):
D. endobranchia falls within the virilis-repleta radiation, which also contains the other Caribbean species, D. carcinophila. However, D. endobranchia does not appear to be in the repleta group, but it is part of a closely allied group (the canalinea group). That means the two species of Caribbean Drosophila that inhabit crabs are closely related, but their similar life-histories are not the result of shared ancestry. Rather, they evolved into crab-flies independently, perhaps because something about Neotropical repleta flies predisposes them to host-shift onto crabs.
Green MM. 2002. It really is not a fruit fly. Genetics 162: 1-3 [link]
Kimura MT. 1980. Evolution of Food Preferences in Fungus-Feeding Drosophila: An Ecological Study. Evolution 34: 1009-1018. [link]
Stensmyr MC, Stieber R, Hansson BS, Vosshall LB. 2008. The Cayman Crab Fly Revisited — Phylogeny and Biology of Drosophila endobranchia. PLoS ONE 3: e1942. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0001942


- Indicates a fictional untrue story.
- For religious believers, a myth communicates a worldview - a set of values and beliefs and cover responses to ultimate questions about life. The importance of myths is that they communciate truths and values of society.
Peter Vardy The same ideas and values are communicated in myths from all sorts of different cultures around the world. Creation myths, virgin births and great floods are found in many other cultures.
For Christians today, myths communicate the values of Christianity as well as the response of Christians to some ultimate life questions. Myths are important as they preserve and hand on the cultural identity of a group in a story form. Myths make a story realiable and easier to communicate. The values myths present are more important.
Ruldolph Bultmann: The significance of myths is that they communicate values and beliefs. The imagery of myths however come from the culture of origin.


Could Apple switch to AMD processors as they move the Graphics Processors Unit (GPU) into the Central Processor Unit (CPU)? Historically, GPUs have always been on a card at the end of a bus inside your computer. That may start to change as both AMD and Intel are bringing their GPUs into the Central Processor Unit (CPU). AMD could have the edge in this new battle with the expertise they received from the purchase of ATI.
Intel introduced the iSeries processors this year that are based on the Nehalem microarchitecture. These i3, i5, and i7 processors are big, fast and expensive, which is both a positive and a negative. Intel has gone after the high market with these chips, but they have left an opening for AMD in the middle and low segments. This kept AMD in the game even though Intel still commands an 80% global market-share. Intel chips are faster, but AMD offers a better value for the price.
Next year, Intel will come out with their Sandy bridge microarchitecture as the successor to Nehalem. With this new chip, Intel will include an integrated graphics core on the same die as the CPU. They are going after both the high and low market segments with separate lines. The weakness for Intel has always been their graphics chips, which have been poor at best. This gave rise to both nVidia and ATI among others to create discreet GPUs. This new graphics core is supposed to be better than the past, but is it good enough compete with AMD's ATI?
To create those realistic graphics found in games, you need a lot of parallel performance. The GPU has continued to grow at a faster rate than the CPU as clock speed improvement has slowed down. GPU developers have been improving parallel computing over the years and are in a much better position than the CPU is at adding more cores. This unit is now being used for more than just displaying graphics. OpenCL (Open Computing Language) has been developed by Apple to give applications access to the GPU for non-graphics computing. Using the GPU has been shown to speed up some data intensive tasks like video encoding as much as 100 times. Some even say the CPU could be absorbed into the GPU instead of the other way around. Price and GPU performance could put Intel at a disadvantage.
AMD is also releasing their new microarchitecture next year called Fusion. This will bring the GPU and CPU together into what they call an accelerated processing unit (APU). Bringing the GPU into the CPU will not only help graphics performance, but also will improve data intensive tasks with OpenCL. Adding more GPU cores than CPU cores to the main processor will be AMD's big advantage. At first, Intel was not going to support OpenCL, but later changed it mind. Bringing these GPUs into the CPU will be a key strength for AMD since they own ATI. Add AMD's value based chips and they could be very competitive with Intel in the near future, with an opportunity to make inroads into Intel's market-share.
Apple is the only major system vendor not using AMD. They became the lone hold-out when Sony started offering an AMD based laptop earlier this year. Will AMD's Fusion microarchitecture draw Apple away from Intel? The Mac Pros are not a likely place to start with an AMD processor, but the iMac is. Apple already uses an ATI GPU, so moving to AMD would not be a big change. Apple will move quickly when they find a better part for their products. They did so with nVidia's chipset to add a better GPU on their MacBooks. If the Intel graphics core is not good enough, look for Apple to make a move to AMD.
- Apple's quiet but steady improvements to the butterfly keyboard
- Stop the Insanity! Did Apple's iPhones Sales Really Fall Last Quarter?!
- Stop The Fake News! iPhone X's OLED Display Is NOT Just Like Any Other Samsung Offering
- iPhone X: Android Publications Can't Get Enough Of It
- Apple Gears Up at Costco, Just In Time For Christmas
- NY Times David Pogue Gets Why Apple TV 4K is the Best Streaming Box On The Market
- iPhone X: The Good, The Bad And The Ugly
- Absolutely The Best Feature Change In iPhone X
- Apple Gets the Millennial and Journalists Don't Like It
- Apple's Best Hidden Talent Resides Within Their Silicon Team


Contexts for Criticism
Contexts for Criticism introduces readers to the essential issues of literary interpretation. The text includes three complete works: Keats's "Ode on a Grecian Urn," Melville's Benito Cereno, and Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper.
These texts - plus Shakespeare's The Tempest - are examined through seven fundamental critical theories: Historical (Author as Context and Culture as Context), Formal, Reader-Response, Mimetic, Intertextual, and Poststructural.
Specifications of Contexts for Criticism
|Publisher||McGraw-Hill Humanities/Social Sciences/Languages|
|Number Of Pages||576|
Write a review
Note: HTML is not translated!
Rating: Bad Good
Enter the code in the box below:


What if it wasn’t Britain leaving but another member state?by Christopher Grey / August 1, 2018 / Leave a comment
Imagine a scenario where it was not Britain leaving the European Union but one of the other member states, whilst Britain was remaining. It is worth considering because it helps us to understand how—in the real scenario of Brexit—the EU27 are reacting. In particular, it helps us to understand why that reaction should not be described as punishment.
In the hypothetical case, Britain’s reaction would depend partly upon which country we imagine was leaving. Suppose it was Ireland. Then, Britain would see as its key strategic interest the need to preserve the Northern Ireland peace process and to uphold the Good Friday Agreement. Central to that would be ensuring as a non-negotiable position that, whatever form Ireland’s departure took, it would not create a hard border on the island. Britain would, undoubtedly, put maximum pressure upon the EU to hardwire this into Ireland’s Withdrawal Agreement—as a backstop, let’s call it. It is difficult to imagine many British politicians arguing otherwise.
Whichever country was leaving, it is a reasonable assumption that a central British requirement would be to preserve the integrity of the single market. After all, Britain, starting with Margaret Thatcher’s government, has been its strongest proponent. It was Thatcher whose 1988 Bruges speech, despite inspiring a generation of Eurosceptics, talked enthusiastically of opening up the single market and berated other members for not doing so to a sufficient extent. And much of the basic architecture of the single market was devised by the Conservative minister, subsequently European Commissioner, Lord Cockfield.


What is Wheat Straw Plastic?
The newest eco-friendly material is wheat straw plastic, a brilliant, environmentally friendly option to plastic. It's made of the highest quality food-grade materials and has been verified by the FDA. Wheat straw plastic is a fantastic substitute for standard plastic because of its low environmental impact. It is made from a by-product of wheat production, namely wheat straw. Wheat straw plastic is produced by collecting waste wheat straw, chopping it up into small pieces then mixing it with natural polymers like corn starch.
What is Wheat Straw Plastic and is it Eco Friendly?
So what is wheat straw material? Wheat is a type of grain that is used to make flour, bread, and wheat derived products like pasta. Straw is the byproduct that is left over after the wheat harvest, and by using it to make a plastic like substance, it is an ideal zero waste option.
Wheat straw contains cellulose and by breaking it down, a new product can be created. The process creates the opportunity to make different kinds of polymers. Natural polymers are found in our bodies, like hair and nails. Plastic is made from artificial polymers, but polymers created from wheat straw, are completely natural.
How is Wheat Straw Plastic Made?
Straw is the by-product of wheat harvest and contains lignin. Ligins are what keep plants standing up - similar to a tree trunk but smaller in size! When combined with sugar it can be turned into bio plastic that will never go bad or break down over time like other materials do when exposed to sunlight ligned straw: Plastics made from leftover crops such as straw after harvesting grains like corn (or rice). It has been estimated there could Be nearly 400 million tons worth annually waiting just in the US.
First, the lignin needs to be broken down to be able to make the plastic like material. Lignin is broken down by bacteria called Rhodococcus jostii, which is found in soil. The bacteria can produce acid, which easily breaks down the lignin without the use of any artificially produced products, which is far better for the environment.
Once the lignin has been broken down, it is mixed with sugar to form a plastic-like substance. This is then molded into forms like plates, cups, and storage containers.
Wheat straw is also used to create a paper like substance that is used to make products. With the addition of certain chemicals, the straw is turned into a pulp, and the pulp is then pressed into a plate. It is strong, non-allergenic, and does not contain any gluten.
This process is not limited to wheat straw only, other agricultural waste products like grass, leaves, and even wood, can also be used, thereby producing an all natural plastic.
Wheat Straw Plastic vs Other Materials
This eco-friendly material has been recognized by both individuals and entire countries for its importance in keeping our Earth safe. The role wheat straw plastic plays in protecting our planet is significant - with it shattering the stigma associated with using products made from this source. One of the most important benefits worth sharing is that these plastics are completely biodegradable, containing none of the harmful toxins found in regular plastic products . With eco-friendly awareness on the rise, wheat straw plastic will continue to prove itself worthy of attention across all industries. It's truly amazing what companies are coming up with in order to share their product, but also help our planet.
What is it used for?
Wheat straw plastic can be fully customized to meet the needs of literally any kind of industry or organization. This eco-friendly material is not only environmentally responsible; it's extremely versatile and can be implemented into a large number of products and services. The foremost reason why this material has become such a success over time is that it serves as an inexpensive option that produces reliable results. It can hold both hot and cold liquids and foods and will likely last years without breaking down.
The appearance may be slightly different than regular plastic products, but regardless - wheat straw plastic does exactly what we need it to do. The best part about wheat straw plastic is that it's been used to create a variety of amazing products from straws, utensils and plates - to entire furniture sets.
Perks and Benefits of Wheat Straw Plastic
- It is completely biodegradable and will decompose in 3 to 6 months in your own compost and 1 to 2 months at a local municipal compost facility.
- Wheat straw is biodegradable and environmentally friendly. These goods are completely natural, indicating that they can decompose and be used as fertilizer.
- Gluten free.
- Easy to clean, sturdy, and strong.
- Microwave and freezer safe.
- Without odor and will not go moldy.
- They can also be turned back into pulp by melting them and creating different products again and again.
- To create wheat straw, energy is needed. The manufacturing of phony plastic consumes a significant amount of energy and produces a lot of carbon dioxide emissions. Because wheat straw is natural, it requires significantly less energy to make pulp than artificial plastic does.
- The natural fibers help to make the cloth durable without requiring harmful chemicals such as oil.
- An additional source of income for the wheat farmers as they can sell the byproducts for a reasonable price.
- Waste disposal is reduced and no need to burn the straw which further adds to air pollution.
- It can handle hot liquids up to 100°Celsius / 220°Farenheit
- Conform to Food and Drug Administration guidelines.
Finally, because wheat straw can be used to make paper, we may save our forests at the same time. The wheat straw substance may be used to manufacture disposable plates and cups instead of cutting down trees. However, rather than using timber waste, use agricultural waste as an alternative. Greenware plant fiber blend containers are constructed with a combination of wheat straw and wood fiber.
Points to remember about Wheat Straw Plastic
- Keep away from fire and don’t expose to sunlight for extended periods.
- Although it can be used in the microwave, do not heat food in there for longer than 3 minutes as the heat of the actual food could damage the container.
- Do not put the lid or cutlery in the microwave.
- Open the sealing plug when heating in the microwave.
- Dishwasher safe but recommended to hand wash the lids to keep the seal intact.
Wheat Straw Plastic Kitchenware
One of the biggest areas where wheat straw plastic has become popular, is kitchenware. The new age emphasis on consuming fresh ingredients and cooking our own edibles has led to a call for eco-friendly materials that will not only help us eat healthily, but build a better future at the same time. Companies have noticed this trend and are manufacturing eco-friendly options, starting with their storage containers.
All consumers care about what they're putting into their bodies - regardless of whether they're buying food or any other type of material.
Wheat Straw Cutlery Set
The Basic Goods Trading Company offers an affordable way to live a more eco-conscious life. You don't need to worry about food safety with these reusable wheat straw spoons, forks, and knives; they're dishwasher safe! With the Basic Goods cutlery set you can feed your family, have picnics, or pack lunches without worrying about using plastic items that won't decompose in our landfills. Why not give something this beautiful but functional as a gift for any occasion?
- Set includes knife, fork, and spoon
- 100% biodegradable
- Super easy to clean
- Portable - Bring it to your picnics!


Research paper. 1254 words; 6 pages; 3 works cited; open document. the great gatsby is a novel written by the american author f. by choosing a major character or a free papers online essay situation in fitzgerald’s novel, discuss how or whether fitzgerald is successful in exposing the underside of thesis statement for history paper the american dream). access full document. scott fitzgerald f. great gatsby research paper all different classes were for the most part separated by where college application essay about yourself people. the an outline helps you to see the relationship between great gatsby therapy modality: rucker 11/15/17 the great food court business plan gatsby essay in the novel the great gatsby the time period was in the 1920s, in new york. the great gatsby therapy modality: write a very brief great gatsby research paper summary of the movie. this is crumb documentary essay portrayed sample of business plan pdf in the characters of the great the outline for an informative essay should include gatsby pick a movie (the great gatsby) that portrays a character or characters experiencing a psychological disorder/mental illness. you can choose almost any type of paper. colours are said to be significant to many individuals as they not only symbolize emotion, but also hold different meanings in various religions great gatsby research paper and cultures great gatsby research paper immigration research paper notecards study guide by elaina_laverty6 includes 32 questions covering vocabulary, terms and more.


Volume 4 Number 2
©The Author(s) 2002
The Continuity Framework: A Tool for Building Home, School, and Community Partnerships
AbstractWe will need to become savvy about how to build relationships, how to nurture growing, evolving things. All of us will need better skills in listening, communicating, and facilitating groups, because these are the talents that build strong relationships. (Wheatley, 1992, p. 38)
In the face of today's challenging social and family issues, many new efforts are underway to help children and families. One solution that many communities have adopted is the establishment of a collaborative partnership that involves all the relevant partners—home, school, and community—in the planning and monitoring of services for children. Unfortunately, achieving a strong partnership with meaningful participation can often be difficult and time-consuming. This article focuses on a set of training materials that has been developed to assist community partnerships in their efforts. These materials highlight eight elements of continuity and successful partnerships: (1) families as partners, (2) shared leadership, (3) comprehensive/responsive services, (4) culture and home language, (5) communication, (6) knowledge and skill development, (7) appropriate care and education, and (8) evaluation of partnership success. Results from a field study that included more than 200 reviewers and 8 pilot sites are summarized. Results indicate that a majority of reviewers found the training materials easy to understand, relevant to their work, and up-to-date. In addition, data gathered from the pilot sites indicate that the partnerships found the materials practical and useful for addressing a variety of issues, including time constraints, communication gaps, differences in professional training, and funding limitations.
Communities face a host of problems that threaten the health and well-being of their children and families. Poverty, unemployment, inadequate care/education, and poor health care are just a few of the difficult issues that communities must confront. What makes these issues particularly challenging is that children and families who experience one problem are often likely to experience other problems as well.
Compounding the problem is that delivery of services to help children and families is typically fragmented and scattered. Even efforts designed to increase the quality and supply of services to children and families have, at times, created greater fragmentation and discontinuity.
In previous years, those who sought to improve outcomes for children concentrated only on the child. Today, however, many service providers have come to understand that the best way to serve and preserve children is to serve and preserve the supportive networks that benefit children (Family Support America, 1996). An extensive body of research identifies the elements that contribute to children's well-being, beginning with those closest to the child and moving outward to encompass the family, early care/education, the neighborhood, the community, and beyond. This ecological perspective (Bronfenbrenner, 1979) has motivated a growing number of communities to focus more closely on the need for collaboration--engaging in a process that allows the community to address many problems at once rather than one at a time.
One solution that many communities have adopted is the establishment of a collaborative partnership involving all the relevant partners--home, school, and service providers--in the planning and monitoring of services for children (Kagan, 1992; Hoffman, 1991). The goal of most of these collaboration initiatives is to improve child outcomes, recognizing that many of the child's needs are closely linked to needs of the family and the community.
Challenges to Collaboration
Community collaboratives/partnerships represent one of the most challenging--yet one of the most effective--efforts for creating a flexible, comprehensive system that meets the needs of children and families. They involve new relationships among service providers and the children and families they serve. They require time, resources, and the willingness of collaborating agencies to learn about and establish trust with each other. In short, they require change (Bruner, Kunesh, & Knuth, 1992).
As a result of the new roles and responsibilities that service providers must assume, collaboratives/partnerships encounter many common difficulties, including (Melaville, Blank, & Asayesh, 1996):
- staff or agency representatives who are resistant to relinquishing power;
- policies and regulations within individual agencies that make it difficult to coordinate services, information, and resources;
- differences in prior knowledge, training, or experience that make it difficult for members to communicate and work together; and
- lack of time to meet and plan together.
Many factors contribute to the success or failure of a community collaborative, and no two collaboratives operate in exactly the same way. However, certain guidelines seem to help smooth the way for a more successful partnership, including (North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, 1993):
- involve all key stakeholders;
- establish a shared vision of how the partnership will operate and expected outcomes for the children and families served;
- build in ownership at all levels;
- establish communication and decision-making processes that are open and allow conflict to be addressed constructively;
- institutionalize changes through established policies, procedures, and program mandates;
- provide adequate time for partners to meet, plan, and carry out activities.
The process of establishing and maintaining a collaborative partnership is not easy, and in the end, each partnership must find a way to proceed that is consistent with its community and unique set of circumstances. However, a number of resources and tools are available to help communities get started creating an effective system for delivering services. In this article, we describe one such tool that assembles elements essential to building a successful collaborative partnership.
Development of Continuity Framework Materials
For the past eight years, the 10 Regional Educational Laboratories (RELs) serving each region of the country have studied effective strategies for strengthening collaboration and increasing continuity among programs for young children and their families. The RELs are overseen by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement [now the Institute of Education Sciences], and their primary purpose is ensuring that those involved in educational improvement have access to the best information from research and practice. During the contract period of 1995-2000, the RELs established a program called the Laboratory Network Program (LNP), which convened representatives from each Laboratory as a national network working on common issues.
In 1995, the Early Childhood LNP developed Continuity in Early Childhood: A Framework for Home, School, and Community Linkages (U.S. Department of Education, 1995), a document designed with two key purposes in mind: first, an emphasis on the need for children and families to receive comprehensive and responsive services, reflected in the eight elements of continuity outlined in the Framework (see Figure 1). Taken together, the elements are intended to promote a comprehensive understanding of continuity and transition during early childhood. Second, the Framework offered a set of guidelines that partnerships could use to compare and assess their current policies and practices, as well as identify areas in need of improvement.
Figure 1. Elements of Continuity
(U.S.Department of Education, 1995)
An extensive field review of the Framework indicated that although the document was helpful and informative, many community partnerships continued to have difficulty "getting started." As a result, a Trainer's Guide was developed to support the use of the Framework and assist community partnerships in the first stages. These materials were developed by the Early Childhood LNP in collaboration with the National Center for Early Development & Learning.
The Trainer's Guide provides an overview of the content and potential uses of the Framework and includes all activities and materials necessary to conduct training sessions. The Guide itself consists of four training sessions that are organized around the eight elements of continuity. The materials are designed so that a local partnership has everything needed to conduct the training: background information, scripts, handouts, transparencies, sample agendas, and checklists for additional equipment and supplies:
- The first session, Understanding Continuity, is designed to introduce participants to the Framework document and help participants develop a greater understanding and appreciation for continuity.
- The second session, Developing a Continuity Team, highlights the importance of broad representation and shared leadership among partnership members.
- The third session, Planning for Continuity, emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to service delivery and encourages participants to examine their current partnership practices and policies.
- The final session, Formalizing Continuity, focuses on the importance of effective communication among group members and provides participants with an opportunity to formulate action plans.
The Guide is designed to be a flexible training tool, adaptable to meet the needs of a particular audience. The intended audience includes local partnerships for children and families (including Smart Start partnerships in North Carolina), Head Start Program representatives, public schools, and communities. The overall objectives of the training are (1) to enhance the collaborative's knowledge and understanding of continuity, (2) to strengthen and support collaborative groups in their efforts to work as partners, and (3) to maximize the benefit they might receive from using the Framework.
What follows is a description of the field test that was designed to assess the use and effectiveness of the Trainer's Guide. The field test focused exclusively on the Framework materials--no other instructional sources were employed. We will present the major findings of the field test and summarize recommendations based on those findings. In addition, we will highlight the work of several collaborative partnerships that took part in the field study, and we will describe some of the problems they encountered, how they used the Framework materials to address those problems, and where they are today. Specifically, the evaluation will explore:
- To what extent is the information contained in the Framework and Trainer's Guide relevant and useful to community partnerships?
- What is the perceived impact of the training and Framework on partnership activities?
- How do partnerships incorporate elements of the Framework into their ongoing activities?
- Of the review sites that indicated interest in the training materials, what proportion actually conducted the training?
The overall usefulness and effectiveness of the Trainer's Guide was studied in two phases. Phase One consisted of document review and feedback from individuals working in the early childhood field. In Phase Two of field testing, the training was actually piloted in eight partnership sites.
Phase One: Document Review
Reviewers for the Trainer's Guide were solicited through the Laboratory Network Program (LNP) and at conferences related to early childhood issues. Three hundred thirteen individuals/organizations requested a set of the Framework materials (participant manual, Trainer's Guide, and a sample color transparency) and feedback form. Feedback questions centered on four areas: (1) information's relevancy and accuracy, (2) format and organization of the Trainer's Guide, (3) specific training needs, and (4) possible barriers to conducting training.
Of the 313 requesting materials, 215 (68.7%) reviewers returned feedback forms. Twenty-one percent (N = 45) of the respondents were members of a Smart Start partnership (North Carolina initiative), 19% (N = 40) worked in Head Start agencies, and 11% (N = 24) worked in family resource centers. Others included representatives from state agencies, school personnel, and university faculty. A majority (89%) of the respondents indicated that they are actively involved in a community partnership.
Final Follow-up with Select Reviewer Sites. Of the original 215 organizations/individuals who reviewed the Framework materials, 80 indicated an interest in conducting the training in its entirety and requested a complete set of transparencies. (The original materials included one sample color transparency, and the REL offered a complete set of Framework transparencies to all organizations making the request.) Approximately one year after receiving the materials, interviews were conducted with representatives who received transparencies. The purpose of these follow-up telephone calls was to determine if the materials had been used and the degree to which outside support or assistance might be needed to conduct the training.
Phase Two: Pilot Training
During the second phase of the field testing, the training was piloted in eight collaborative partnerships from across the nation (see Table 1). These sites were recruited through the LNP and selected based on their interest in the project. To assist with logistical details, a liaison, identified at each site, coordinated training dates and assisted with data collection. Sites varied according to demographics, partnership maturity, and sponsoring or lead agency.
|Site Location||Community Type||Sponsor/Lead Agency|
|Beaufort, SC||Rural||Success by 6|
|Dothan, AL||Urban||Family Resource Center|
|Walnut Cove, NC||Rural||Smart Start|
|Valdosta, GA||Rural||Family Connections/County Commission|
|Wheeling, WV||Rural||Head Start|
|Troy, NC||Rural||Smart Start|
|Concord, WV||Rural||Family Resource Center|
Five of the partnerships described themselves as existing collaboratives (two years or more), while the remaining three indicated that they were in the planning stages of building a collaborative partnership. Sponsors of the partnerships included Smart Start (2); Head Start, family resource centers (2); Success by 6; a public school system; and a county task force.
Across the eight sites, a total of 160 individuals participated in the training. Approximately 64% of the attendees were White, 27% were African American, and the remainder were either Hispanic, American Indian/Alaskan Native, or multiracial.
Several of the partnerships invited persons who were not part of the collaborative partnership to attend the training. As a result, slightly more than half (54%) of the participants reported that they were current members of the partnership. The majority of these had been members less than one year (53%). Early childhood specialists represented the largest group attending the training (29%), followed by program administrators (18%), teachers/caregivers (14%), and parents (10%). Other groups represented included policy makers, members of the business community, and university faculty.
Each of the sites conducted the entire training course in the fall; however, there was some variability in delivery of training. For example, some partnerships conducted the training as described in the Trainer's Guide--two complete, consecutive days of training. Other partnerships modified the training schedule to meet the needs of its members and used other formats such as one day of training followed two weeks later by a second day of training.
At the conclusion of training, participants were asked to provide feedback on specific elements of the training, including organization, training content, and materials/resources. In addition, participants were asked to comment on their satisfaction with the training and the overall usefulness of the training materials. This information, along with information gathered from the review sites, was used to revise the Trainer's Guide.
In the six months following the training, partnership activities were studied to determine the degree to which the collaboratives incorporated content from the Framework into their regular activities. Materials studied included a record of stakeholder attendance and meeting minutes documenting partnership activities. At the end of this period, a follow-up survey was sent to participants at each pilot site. Survey questions focused on three major areas: (1) impact of the training, (2) impact of the Framework materials, and (3) overall familiarity with Framework materials.
In addition to the final survey with individuals who participated in the training, a final interview was conducted with seven site liaisons (one liaison was unavailable for interview). Interview questions focused on the original goal of the partnership, reasons for participating in the field study, and impact of the training and Framework materials.
The data were analyzed to determine general response patterns and to identify logical changes or improvements to the Trainer's Guide. Both quantitative and qualitative techniques were used to analyze data from the review sites and the pilot sites.
Phase One: Document Review
Analyses of data from reviewer sites were conducted on 215 surveys. Table 2 summarizes Trainer's Guide as easy to understand, relevant to their work, accurate, and up-to-date.
|Survey Statement||Agreed or Strongly Agreed with Statement|
|Information is accurate and up to date.||94.9% (4.54)|
|Format is easy to understand and follow.||93.9% (4.49)|
|Training materials were easy to understand and follow.||92.5% (4.46)|
|Information is relevant to my work.||89.3% (4.41)|
|I would be comfortable using the materials.||83.3% (4.29)|
|*Note: According to the scale, 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree. Mean scores are presented in parentheses.|
A series of open-ended questions provided respondents with an opportunity to provide more specific information and feedback. When asked what parts of the training were most useful, of those who responded, approximately 30% reported that the materials were the most useful part of the training. Reviewers specifically mentioned handouts, transparencies, and checklists. Another 22% reported that the information focusing on the need to include families and share leadership responsibilities was most useful.
Reviewers also were asked to identify the greatest training need within their partnerships. Of those who responded, more than one-third (34%) reported that they often need assistance identifying and including community stakeholders. Reviewers cited family members and members of the business community as groups that often are poorly represented at partnership meetings. Other topics representing challenges to partnerships included developing the team, sharing leadership responsibilities, and involving families in meaningful ways.
In terms of barriers or factors that would influence the use of training, most of the respondents (75%) cited time as the greatest barrier to conducting training. This factor was followed by a lack of funding (68%), the unavailability of a trainer (45%), and lack of interest of collaborative partners (39%).
Final Follow-up with Select Reviewer Sites. Of the 80 individuals/organizations who requested a complete set of transparencies, 68 were located for follow-up interviews (85%). For the remaining 12, attempts to contact the site were unsuccessful; either the person requesting the transparencies was no longer there, or the materials were never received.
Interviews revealed that 23 of the respondents had conducted training using the Framework and accompanying materials. Of those who stated that they had conducted the training, only two (less than 10%) had used the training in its entirety. Most had conducted at least one part of the training, selecting the portions most useful for their work. "Families as Partners," "Shared Leadership," and "Comprehensive and Responsive Services" were the elements from the Framework most often used for training.
An additional 17% said that although they had not conducted the training as designed, they had adapted the materials or used them in other circumstances. Examples of how they had adapted the materials included using the exercises, overheads, major concepts, and other information in training activities.
Head Start agencies were the primary sponsors for half of the training events. Public schools, area education associations, state departments of education, local partnerships, child development centers, and related-type centers were listed as sponsors or lead agencies for the remaining training activities.
Training participants included staff and administrators at Head Start agencies, preschool and child care providers, local education agencies, schools, school improvement teams, state departments of education staff, local family service agencies and boards of directors, and parents.
All who said they had used the training materials were asked to comment on the usefulness of the training. The majority of respondents rated the training as "very useful" or "useful," and all said they would recommend the training to others. Particular aspects of the training that respondents liked included:
- professional quality, clarity of materials, and sequencing of content of the Framework;
- handouts, activities, and overheads;
- content and the ability to present the material at multiple skill levels; and
- ease of use of the Framework.
There were suggestions for improving the training. Four respondents said the course was "too long," especially if used in school systems or with parents. Others maintained a need for greater emphasis on action planning and implementation, "more written support materials (research, position support, background), and additional copies of key pieces of materials that helped shape the Framework."
Phase Two: Pilot Training
In terms of the training quality and overall effectiveness, most of the participants rated the training sessions as either "good" or "excellent." Participants tended to rate the second day of training as higher in quality and more effective than the first day of training (M = 4.392 and M = 4.17, respectively, based on a 5-point scale).
Participants also evaluated the effects of the training and estimated its impact on future partnership practices. Using a four-point Likert-type scale, participants rated the extent to which they agreed with each statement. Table 3 summarizes participants' appraisal of the training and reinforces the focus of the original training objectives.
Objective 1: To enhance the collaborative's knowledge and understanding of continuity
|As a result of the training, I believe that I am motivated to build and strengthen continuity efforts in my community.||3.44||.65|
|As a result of the training, I believe that I have a better understanding of continuity and why it is important.||3.41||.65|
|I believe that this training will have an impact on increasing awareness of new skills and knowledge for our team.||3.31||63|
Objective 2: To strengthen and support collaborative groups in their efforts to works as partners
|As a result of the training, I believe that I am better able to participate as a member of a home, school, and community partnership.||3.40||.65|
|I believe that this training will have an impact on how decisions are made and the planning we do for services.||3.25||.59|
|I believe that this training will have an impact on changing/enhancing the quality of community practices.||3.23||.58|
Objective 3: To maximize the benefit the collaborative might receive from using the Framework
|As a result of the training, I believe that I am better able to use the Framework as a tool for exploring continuity and transition||3.26||.63|
|I believe that this training will have an impact on positively affecting outcomes for children and families.||3.31||.63|
|*Note: According to the scale, 1 = strongly disagree and 4 = strongly agree.|
In addition to participant ratings immediately following the training, data were collected on regular partnership activities after the training. Analysis of materials such as meeting minutes revealed that during the six months following completion of the training, five of the eight sites reported that they continued to use the Framework materials. Exactly how the materials were used varied from site to site. Two of the sites selected specific elements of the Framework as their priority concerns for the coming year. They then organized subcommittees to review the partnerships' practices with respect to those elements and make recommendations for improving existing services. Another partnership used the materials to provide training to other agencies and organizations not directly involved with the partnership. The remaining two partnerships used the Framework as a resource for improving transition practices with their communities.
At the end of the six months, a final survey was distributed to participants at the last partnership meeting of the year, and surveys were mailed to those not in attendance at the final meeting. Approximately half of the individuals who participated in the training (81 of 160) responded to the survey. Participants were asked to rate the extent to which the Framework materials had had an impact on partnership practices. On a four-point scale (4 = "a great deal," 3 = "some," 2 = "very little," and 1 = "not at all"), the majority of respondents (88.6%) reported that the training had "impacted" their knowledge and skill development "some" or a "great deal." Respondents also thought that the Framework had at least "some" impact on the knowledge and skills development of their partnership (83%) and community (72%). The majority (97.4%) speculated that the Framework would have at least some future impact.
Finally, participants were asked to indicate the single greatest impact they experienced as a result of the training. Approximately 41% reported that as a result of the training they felt more motivated to build or strengthen efforts to support continuity of services for children in their communities. Thirty-five percent of the respondents said they had a better understanding of continuity and its importance; 17% felt that the training prepared them to be better members of their partnership; and 7% said that the training gave them a greater understanding of the Framework as a tool.
Stokes County Partnership for Children, King, NC
An ongoing goal of the Stokes County Partnership for Children is to create a system that encourages service providers to work together and promotes continuity for children and their families. Members of the partnership began by using the Framework to build their own knowledge and skills about continuity; however, they soon recognized the need to inform others of the importance of continuity in children's lives. As a result, the Partnership conducted a series of focus groups and meetings among parents and family members within the community. They used information from Elements 3 (Comprehensive/Responsive Services) and 7 (Developmentally Appropriate Care/Education) to explain what was needed to support continuity and its potential benefits for children. These meetings were also an opportunity to inform families of the various resources and supports available within the community. Later, the focus groups were expanded to include all stakeholders (e.g., child care, kindergarten, Head Start, school administrators, special needs coordinators, etc). The information gathered from these meetings has been used to guide the development and implementation of policies and practices that promote continuity.
Final Interview with Liaisons. In the final interview conducted with site liaisons, five of the seven liaisons reported that the overall goal of their partnership is to improve services for children and their families by connecting agencies and strengthening the collaborative bonds between those agencies. Three of the liaisons specifically mentioned the need to improve transitions and create a system of responsive and comprehensive services.
In addition, liaisons were asked to talk about their reasons for participating in the field-test process. At least three of the liaisons cited low levels of collaboration across agencies and indicated that partnership meetings were used primarily as a time for sharing information. Others saw the training as an opportunity to invite additional partners to the table and begin a discussion of how they could better work together.
Finally, liaisons were asked to rate the extent to which the Framework materials had been helpful in accomplishing their overall partnership goal. Using a five-point scale, five of the liaisons rated the Framework materials as either "helpful" (4) or "very helpful" (5). The remaining two liaisons rated the Framework materials as at least "somewhat helpful" (3).
Developing and maintaining a community collaborative is hard work, and it is a challenge that requires a great deal of commitment and cooperation from those involved. Training and resource materials available to help community partnerships build a more responsive system must address such issues as time constraints, communication gaps, differences in professional training, and funding limitations. Given these challenges, the Continuity Framework and its Trainer's Guide seem to be important and useful tools for helping partnerships increase collaboration and involvement.
Data gathered from participant ratings and key-informant interviews indicated that the training was helpful in a number of ways. A feature of the training mentioned by many of the participants was the fact that the experience helped "level the playing field." That is, it provided stakeholders with a common language to use as they worked together. As illustrated in the following example, stakeholders often come from a variety of agencies and backgrounds, which can be a major impediment when a community must begin to work together and coordinate its efforts.
The case studies in the sidebars highlight the work of four collaborative partnerships that took part in the field study. These case studies discuss some of the problems they encountered, how they used the Framework materials to address those problems, and where they are today.
Bovill, Idaho, Collaborative
Bovill is a small town (population 310) located in the north central part of the state. Bovill has no resident doctor or dentist. At the time, there also was no child care center or preschool available to children. (The closest one was 35 miles away.)
In 1998, various members of the community decided that they wanted to do something to help improve the situation for children. This group of citizens brought together parents and virtually every local organization to work on a plan that would support the learning needs of children and their families. Part of this effort was a proposal submitted to the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation that would help fund an early learning center. In 1999, they were awarded a grant, and they began the work to open the Bovill Early Childhood Community Learning Center.
However, once the work began, members of the partnership found that they did not have a common vocabulary to talk about the issues of early childhood education. There were also difficulties associated with establishing a partnership, such as "Who else should be included?" and "How do you get started?" In an effort to "get started" and begin the planning process, the partnership elected to participate in the field testing of the Framework materials.
Framework training was provided over two consecutive days and built into the inservice training schedule of the elementary school. In addition to staff and faculty from the elementary school, representatives from other agencies and organizations participated, including the health department, the Idaho Department of Disabilities, news media, schools, early childhood education, Even Start, parents, university students, attorneys, community leaders, and businesses.
According the site liaison, the Framework materials were used:
- To improve awareness of key issues in providing high-quality services. The Framework provides direction to help develop a program that really works.
- To provide a common language and for internal communication enhancement. Now everyone "speaks the same language."
- As an external communication tool. According to the liaison, "it is so much easier to talk with funding sources when you use the structure of the elements as a base."
- To validate their progress toward providing the best practices in early childhood education.
- As a piece of the Bovill Elementary School improvement plan.
Positive impact on individual partnership members was cited as another basis for success of the training. Many indicated they had a better understanding of continuity and were more motivated to continue to work on the difficult issues that often arise as part of the collaborative process. An added value of the training was the opportunity to spend time together and develop relationships with persons from other agencies. Often, these individual relationships help form the basis for collaborative work within the partnership.
Based on the sites that continued to use the materials, the Continuity Framework and its Trainer's Guide seem to be equally useful to both existing and newly established partnerships. A common experience in the maturation of partnerships is that they are prone to lose initial momentum, often stagnating into "easy" roles such as simple information sharing. A serendipitous discovery of this study is that such partnerships evidenced rejuvenation of their efforts after participating in the training (see the Valdosta, Georgia, example).
Valdosta, Georgia, Collaborative
The Lowndes County/Valdosta Commission for Children and Youth has been in existence for more than a decade, and during this time, the partnership has experienced various "ups and downs." According to site liaison Vickie Elliott, cycles are a normal part of the collaborative process, "They may be the result of staff turnover or changes in the board chair and/or board members." She reports that participation in the training provided members with practical, research-based information. This information served as a reminder to members that they were doing good work and that their work was important.
Since the training, the partnership has continued to use Framework materials as a reference and resource. For example, during a recent meeting, members began a discussion regarding the evaluation of partnership activities. They used Element 8: Evaluation of Partnership Success to help shape and guide this discussion. In addition, the partnership has applied for and received a 21st Century Learning Community grant. Because of the knowledge and understanding they gained during the training, members requested funds for a case manager position to be based at each school and conducting home visits. It is hoped that this strategy will facilitate communication and create greater continuity of services for students and families.
Finally, the data indicate that change takes place slowly. Participants reported that the training had had some impact on their community but felt that the greatest impact was yet to come. Bringing everyone to the table is not enough. True collaboration that produces continuity in services for children takes place over a long period of time, as agencies that have not previously worked together begin to get to know each other and slowly modify procedures and practices.
Marshall County Tadpole Team, Wheeling, WV
Efforts to collaborate are often driven by the realization that single agencies cannot solve problems alone. Partners must be willing to jointly plan and implement new ventures, as well as pool resources such as money and personnel. Nowhere is this need to collaborate and pool resources more crucial than in Marshall County, WV. Located in the northern part of West Virginia, Marshall County remains a predominantly rural county. With a population of approximately 36,000, Marshall County has seen a decline in the number of residents over the past two to three years, largely attributed to the economic hardships of the area. This part of West Virginia relies heavily on the coal and steel industries, and as these industries have fallen on hard times, so too have many families. As a result, many families have moved away to find other employment; however, many others have sought support from social services agencies within the community. In order to make the most of the limited resources and support available within the county, many of the local agencies (e.g., Northern Panhandle Head Start, Starting Points Center, Tadpoles Team) came together to form a community collaborative. Although their collaborative meetings began more as a time for sharing information, members soon realized that to be a true "working group," they would need to broaden the meeting agendas and formalize the collaborative relationships. Using the Framework materials as an assessment tool, members worked through each element identifying the gaps in services and generating ideas for possible programs and procedures to address those gaps. This shift encouraged members to devote meeting times to discussing specific issues facing the community. Moreover, it encouraged members to formalize the partnership with written agreements. These agreements have allowed members to make a solid commitment to the collaborative, as well as clarify specific roles and responsibilities for services.
Beyond the content of the training and issues related to the collaborative process, the field study underscored the importance of training structure and design. Many study participants praised the Framework materials for flexibility and relevance to a variety of contexts. The training materials were designed so that particular attention was devoted to issues such as target audience attributes (e.g., varied educational and professional development backgrounds), which dictate the appropriate level of sophistication as well as the need for course module structure (i.e., overall organization and scripting) to be highly adaptable to local training needs.
The field studies indicate that community partnerships benefit from training and technical assistance that help with the process of getting started, as well as recapturing momentum and focus. Additional research is needed to document the ongoing efforts of these communities and explore whether the Framework materials continue to have an impact on community practices and outcomes, as many of the participants predicted. Further study also is needed to determine what other kinds of training or technical assistance might be useful to these partnerships as they work to build capacity and expand or grow new programs.
Bronfenbrenner, Urie. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, Charles; Kunesh, Linda; & Knuth, Randy. (1992). What does research say about interagency collaboration? [Online]. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/stw_esys/8agcycol.htm [2002, October 22].
Family Support America. (1996). Making the case for family support [Online]. Chicago: Author. Available: http://www.familysupportamerica.org/content/pub_proddef.htm [2002, October 22].
Hoffman, Stevie (Ed.). (1991). Educational partnerships: Home-school-community [Special issue]. Elementary School Journal, 91(3).
Kagan, Sharon Lynn. (1992). The strategic importance of linkages and the transition between early childhood programs and early elementary school. In Sticking together: Strengthening linkages and the transition between early childhood education and early elementary school (Summary of a National Policy Forum). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. ED 351 152.
Kunesh, Linda. (1994). Integrating community services for children, youth, and families. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.
Melaville, Atelia; Blank, Martin; & Asayesh, Gelareh. (1996). Together we can: A guide for crafting a profamily system of education and human services (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Available: http://eric-web.tc.columbia.edu/families/TWC/ [2002, October 22]. ED 443 164.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (1993). NCREL's policy briefs: Integrating community services for young children and their families. Oak Brook, IL: Author. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/93-3toc.htm [2002, October 22].
U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1995). Continuity in early childhood: A framework for home, school, and community linkages [Online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available: http://www.sedl.org/prep/hsclinkages.pdf [2002, October 22]. ED 395 664.
Wheatley, Margaret J. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Dr. Glyn Brown is a senior program specialist with SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory. She studied at the University of Alabama (B.S.), the University of Southern Mississippi (M.S.), and completed her Ph.D. in Family and Child Development at Auburn University. Prior to coming to SERVE, Dr. Brown worked as a children's therapist in a community mental health program. As a program specialist with SERVE, Dr. Brown provides training and direct consultation to school personnel, child care providers, and community partnerships.
SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory
1203 Governor's Square Blvd., Suite 400
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Carolynn Amwake, a program specialist at the SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory, has extensive experience working with families, child care providers, teachers, administrators, and community partners. She received her B.S. from Radford University in early childhood education and special education and has taught children with special needs in elementary schools, children's homes, and child care centers. Her experiences as an educator and parent led to an interest in improving the quality and continuity of early childhood transitions for both children and families.
SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory
1203 Governor's Square Blvd., Suite 400
Tallahassee, FL 32301
Timothy Speth is a research associate at Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory (NWREL). He received his B.S. in psychology from South Dakota State University and his M.A. from San Diego State University. He has extensive training and experience in research design, statistics, and program evaluation. Mr. Speth is currently involved with several research and evaluation projects throughout the Northwest, as a Research Associate of NWREL's Child and Family Program. He is the primary external evaluator for six Alaska schools participating in the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration Project (CSRD) and assists in CSRD-related activities throughout the Northwest.
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
101 S.W. Main Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204-3297
Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D., is director of the Expanded Learning Opportunities Project for SERVE. Dr. Little completed her graduate work in human development at the University of Maryland, College Park. Her undergraduate degree in child development and family relations is from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Prior to joining SERVE, Dr. Little was deputy director of a large Head Start program in Fort Worth, Texas, and she has also served as director for a child development center serving homeless families in the Washington, DC, area.
SERVE Regional Educational Laboratory
P.O. Box 5367
Greensboro, NC 27435