the gatekeepers challenge saga 2 eva pohler The Gatekeeper's Challenge ( Gatekeeper's. Saga #2) Series: Gatekeeper's Saga, epub mobi pdf lrf pdb txt html. Read The Gatekeeper's Challenge (Gatekeeper's Saga #2) by Eva Pohler for free with a 30 day free trial. Read unlimited* books and audiobooks on the web. gatekeepers: an introduction - teen challenge of southern. cohabitation within the rising to the challenge: re-envisioning public libraries (pdf) - rising to the.
|Language:||English, Arabic, Japanese|
|ePub File Size:||15.71 MB|
|PDF File Size:||15.17 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
This authority renders the FDA the gatekeeper of the American .. approval for his products as the fundamental challenge facing his company. And he would. the book the gatekeeper's challenge (the gatekeeper's saga book 2) [site edition] by eva pohler in pdf format, then you have come on to the. gatekeepers challenge widows walk trilogy book 2 pdf related documents: pdf book share ebook solution manual download saints orson scott card elementary .
Instead of seeing these reasonable reasons for his absence, she a entertains Pete, knowing she will never feel the same way; b whines about being mortal, ignoring all the good people in her life [I love her adopted parents! I don't know about you, but love should bring out the best in people. Not this.
And so, to me, Therese was immature. Also, the language in the Thesese POVs wasn't consistent. Sometimes she sounds like a fifteen year old, sometimes older not wiser. But then, as I read through Than's perspective, I started thinking about whether that was deliberate.
I mean, every character has a Fatal Flaw and a Saving Grace, right? Because in my mind, Therese's childishness enhanced Than's awesomeness. I definitely liked him better in this book.
He reflected on Therese's actions and realized that she was being unfair-- not grovelling for forgiveness because she's the love of his life or anything melodramatic like that. He acknowledged that he was indeed bothered by Therese's decision in the last book which, if she'd decided differently, he wouldn't have to suffer for eternity just so they could be together. After that misunderstanding, the books started to pick up.
I love the idea of Hades' challenges. Although the challenges themselves weren't new, a lot of it was similar if not exactly the same with what we read about in Greek Mythology, there was a lot of God-politics going on alongside it where some gods are on Therese's side and others aren't.
Then there are gods who, even though they're both on Therese's side, don't get along. So, I love the meandering of favors and allegiances.
ID, In this example, the researcher was attempting to take a much more inclusive approach in order to produce outcomes that were more usable for those that they were working in partnership with. While these methods helped in achiev- ing engagement with the gatekeeping organization due to an enhanced ability of the research to contribute toward their primary goals, the method also became a threat to engagement with some individuals within the organization who did not value the method of knowledge construction.
Representation As demonstrated earlier, gatekeepers have political interests. They, just like researchers, make value judgements about the social world. Where political representation is important to the gatekeeper, then the gatekeeper needs to be sure that the researcher and the research project can represent a reality that is congruent to the one held by the group in question.
If there is a perceived inability to do this then any agreements between the researcher and the gate- keeper can become unstable. For instance, this researcher noted: [the gatekeeper had] had some previous experience of researchers and they found that they completely disagreed with their findings, and they had no means for come-back. So they had a very poor experience of research and were distrust- ing as a result.
US, Downloaded from qsw. Intrusion Related to these issues of representation, and even though the gatekeeper does not directly provide the data for the research, there is still the potential for intrusion. This occurs when the gatekeeper in question perceives the focus research project to be entering into areas of interest that they also have an interest in protecting and managing.
SG, More specifically, researchers highlighted that intrusion could become particu- larly problematic if the project is perceived as being critical toward the gate- keeper in question or if it threatens to reveal an area of practice that the gatekeeper does not want to be represented within the public domain.
This does not, in itself, mean that the family, group or organization has something to hide that needs to be revealed, but does indicate an element of risk for the gatekeeper involved in that they can lose control of the representation of their reality. Disruption: Costs and Efficiency Research engagement is rarely financially reimbursed and any costs associated with engagement often have to be absorbed by the gatekeeper.
If this cost is perceived to be sufficiently high to disrupt the accomplishment of the primary aims, purposes and interests of the gatekeeper in question then researchers recog- nized that there could be a threat to engagement. SM, The disruption and effort associated with engagement was perceived to be too high when considered alongside the benefits of that engagement. Indeed, this Downloaded from qsw. Given the project was not perceived to be able to do this, a significant challenge to engagement followed.
This threat to engagement can also work in the opposite direction. Some researchers reported that decisions concerning which gatekeepers to engage were based upon practical concerns of efficiency.
SS, The costs of utilizing a particular gatekeeper were perceived to outweigh the benefits so the researchers looked elsewhere for their participants. The emphasis the school placed on other priorities, a potential lack of organization and poor channels of communication, as well as a perceived lack of interest amongst staff, dissuaded the researcher from involving them.
So if the schools said you have to get parental consent to do this. SS, The ethical prescriptions that were required by the schools were perceived to be too cumbersome by the researcher who wanted to employ an opt-out approach rather than an opt-in one.
An opt-in method, it was felt, would take too much time and result in a limited sample of parents actually responding to the call for participation. The costs of agreeing to these requests were seen to outweigh the benefits of using the school because it would result in a limited level of participation. These are not necessarily immediately tangible or even articu- lated by either the researcher or gatekeeper. For instance, any risk associated with engagement is not immediately tangible or applicable in every case.
The perception of risk is highly subjective and what is perceived as a risky venture for one gatekeeper may not be considered risky for another Lee and Renzetti, The baseline assessment exercise, for example, mapped the range of research that is conducted in social service departments within the UK and found a wide variety of different levels of research activity and willingness to provide access in what are similar environments with similar concerns see for a review Boddy et al.
Similarly, gatekeepers do not necessarily seek immediate gratification and engagement decisions are not necessarily made on straightforward rational calculations of benefit made by the gatekeeper Hornsby-Smith, Indeed, future research needs to explore the more specific issues involved in feed-back and dissemination which are not covered here but are likely to be important in the analysis of the researcher—gatekeeper relationship.
Similarly, the needs and requirements of gatekeepers across different areas of the social care remit will vary considerably.
Further investigation is necessary in order to more fully articulate the mechanisms that support and challenge engagement in these particular contexts. Additionally, this article does not attempt to articulate the views of the gatekeepers that were involved in these studies.
As a result, any perspectives are being filtered through the reflexivity of the researchers and future research needs to specifically explore gatekeeper viewpoints directly see for instance Clark and Sinclair, The focus of the study also centred on projects where engage- ment with gatekeepers was not hugely problematic.
All the projects were, broadly speaking, successful in terms of their research relationships and their desired outcomes. Cases where difficulties have been more noticeably encountered are likely to be revealing, particularly in terms of the challenges to engagement. More research in all of these areas is likely to be particularly important for researchers working within qualitative social work research contexts.
It is already apparent within the literature that without the co-operation of gate- keepers, research opportunities in the social care field would be limited due to the increases in time, expense and energy that are required to carry it out Emmel et al.
However, the findings presented here not only demonstrate the mechanisms by which gatekeepers decide who should, and who should not, be given access to potential research participants, they also begin to suggest how gatekeepers may seek to shape research engagements according to their needs.
Indeed, Broadhead and Rist argue that the pivotal concern for the Downloaded from qsw. While many of these issues are likely to be applicable to quantitative as well as qualitative research, the amount of time and involvement that qualitative methods require make them particularly sensitive to these issues.
Indeed, the influence of gate- keepers in this regard is likely to become increasingly significant to researchers working within qualitative social work contexts.
For many years within the social work field, any decisions regarding engagement with research have been largely dependent upon the individual gatekeeper and often upon particular individuals within that particular group or organization. While some gatekeepers may have had specific procedures to support and control the research process, others have been less well developed. This has effectively meant that researchers can, and frequently do, select gate- keepers according to their needs and interests rather than fulfilling the require- ments of a more demanding gatekeeper.
Any demands that are seen as problematic from the perspective of the researcher can be negotiated by contact- ing other potential gatekeepers until they find one with less onerous require- ments.
However, the introduction of standardized ethical regulations is changing this landscape. For example, in the UK the Research Governance Framework RGF see Department of Health [DoH], and the resultant Implemen- tation Plan for the RGF see DoH, has meant that many gatekeepers within the social work field have had to alter their arrangements for research coordination and governance in line with a national framework.
There- fore, many gatekeepers within the field that would have previously responded to any research requests individually, and were previously limited in their ability to gain fees, are now following standardized procedures.
Responses to research requests are, in effect, becoming more collectivized and there is some evidence that a product of the RGF currently being applied within social care is a more uniform response to research requests from social work environments Clark and Sinclair, Indeed, this is also likely to have some resonance with the experience of many qualitative researchers working under the gaze of Insti- tutional Review Boards IRBs in the USA see for example Leisey, While some have argued that ethical regulations of this type are unethical see Dingwall, ; see also Haggerty, , as well as making research increas- ingly difficult and bureaucratic see Reed, ; see also McDonach et al.
These developments come at a time when calls to develop the knowledge-base within social care are growing see Marsh and Fisher, Shaw and Norton , for instance, have highlighted that much recent debate within the social work research community has been directed toward discussing how to develop both the knowledge and resource base within the discipline.
As current levels of research activity within social care are likely to grow yet further, gatekeepers that are supportive of present and future engagements are, therefore, likely to be increasingly important to the development of the knowledge base.
The relative paucity of current research concerning how gatekeepers understand research engagement is, therefore, problematic as researchers need to be sympathetic to the interests and needs of gatekeepers in order to maintain current levels of research. Indeed, the growth of collectivized responses to research requests enhances the capacity of gatekeepers to influence and shape the research process according to their needs.
This shift to a structural advan- tage in favour of gatekeepers may limit the type and nature of research that is supported — particularly as projects that do not resonate with the interests of gatekeepers may be unwelcome.
As a result, developing a more systematic understanding concerning the issues presented in this article is necessary in order to understand the mechan- isms that support and challenge engagement throughout the research process, and to consider the impact of these mechanisms on any research that is conducted. A better understanding of these mechanisms can help to reveal how research engagement can be better maintained in both local and national arenas, as well as helping to assess the validity of that research.
If qualitative research within social work is to continue at its current levels, the development of this work is likely to be essential to the continuing success of the research enter- prise and a wider, and more inclusive, knowledge base. I would also like to thank all those who gave up their valuable time to discuss their experiences with me.
Thanks also to two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments regarding this article. Previous experience of research engagement can influence future decisions concerning whether to engage or not.
The Gatekeeper's Challenge: The Gatekeeper's Saga: Volume 2 por Eva Pohler
References Adler, P. London: SAGE. Boddy, J. Brewer, J. M Renzetti and R.
On the burden of the black public intellectual
Lee eds Researching Sensitive Topics, pp. Broadhead, R. Burgess, R. Lewes: Falmer Press. Cassell, J. Burgess ed.
Studies in Qualitative Methodology, pp. Clark, T. Corra, M. Curran, D. Renzetti and R. De Laine, M. London: Department of Health. Din, I. Dingwall, R. Fraser, V. Lewis, S.
Ding, S. Kellett and C.
Glaser, B. Chicago, IL: Aldine. Haggerty, K. Heath, S. Hornsby-Smith, M. Gilbert ed. Researching Social Life, pp. Horwood, J. Kennedy Bergen, R. Lee eds Researching Sensi- tive Topics, pp. Lee, R. Leisey, M.
The Gatekeepers Challenge Saga 2 Eva Pohler
Marsh, P. London: Social Care Institute for Excellence. McDonach, E. Miller, T. Mauthner, M. Birch, J. Jessop and T. Miller eds Ethics in Qualitative Research.
Munro, E. Murray, C. Quinn-Patton, M. Reed, K. Sixsmith, J. Tidmarsh, J. Wallis, R. Bell and H. Newby eds Doing Sociological Research, pp. London: George Allen and Unwin. Weber, M. New York: Free Press Tom Clark has worked on a variety of projects concerning the utility of social research and has recently completed his PhD on how qualitative researchers negotiate their research relationships.
He has wider interests in methodological innovation, research ethics, and the politics of social research.However, method- ological politics are not necessarily confined to researchers and funding agencies and some gatekeepers will also often value certain forms of knowledge over others. Indeed, not all gatekeepers will agree to research requests and in some instances they may even attempt to block access.
After emancipation, black colleges began training generations of scholars, writers, and artists who broadened black intellectual life. This occurs when the gatekeeper in question perceives the focus research project to be entering into areas of interest that they also have an interest in protecting and managing.
Miller, T. It was a twenty-first-century version of Frederick Douglass vs. Because of the lack of inputs from the primary level, most of the health programs in India fall short of their objectives to improve the widely prevalent problems of malnutrition, anemia, tuberculosis etc.
These fees may include: assisting with service development, gaining representation, or, helping to develop staff skills see Clark and Sinclair, ; see also Boddy et al.