Being Different with Dignity: Buddhist Inclusiveness of Homosexuality
Nonviolence and Religion: Creating a Post-Secular Narrative with Aldo Capitini
MDPI — Social Sciences
Heslop, B.
Bailey, K.
Paul, J.
Stojanovski, E.
CATME
peer assessment
inter-rater bias
Benjamin Heslop
Kylie Bailey
Jonathan Paul
Elizabeth Stojanovski
Soc. Sci. 2018, 7(3), 49; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci7030049
The PILAR Model as a Measure of Peer Ratings of Collaboration Viability in Small Groups
Benjamin Heslop 1,* , Kylie Bailey 1 , Jonathan Paul 1 and Elizabeth Stojanovski 2
School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 2308, Australia
Received: 20 February 2018 / Accepted: 13 March 2018 / Published: 20 March 2018
The PILAR (prospects, involved, liked, agency, respect) model provides a dynamical systems perspective on collaboration. Two studies are performed using peer assessment data, both testing empirical support for the five Pillars that constitute members' perceptions of collaboration viability (CoVi). The first study analyses peer assessment data collected online from 458 first-year engineering students (404 males; 54 females). A nine-item instrument was inherited from past year's usage in the course, expanded with four additional items to elaborate upon the agency and liked Pillars. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on student responses to test whether they thematically aligned to constructs consistent with the five Pillars. As anticipated, twelve of the thirteen items grouped into five components, each aligned with a Pillar, providing empirical evidence that the five Pillars represent perceptions of collaboration. The second study replicated the first study using a retrospective analysis of 87 items included in the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) peer assessment tool. The associated factor analyses resulted in five components and conceptual alignment of these components with Pillars was evident for three of five CATME components. We recommend a peer assessment instrument based upon PILAR as potentially more parsimonious and reliable than an extensive list of behaviours, such as employed by CATME. We also recommend including items that target inter-rater bias, which is aligned with the liked Pillar, that instruments such as CATME exclude.
PILAR; CATME; collaboration; peer assessment; inter-rater bias
Egalitarian collaboration within hierarchical organisations leads to employee retention and organisational responsiveness (Baker et al. 2016). Long-term benefits to the organisation have been demonstrated by Appreciative Inquiry, an intervention that creates collaboration outside normal workflow processes, across organisational units, and between levels of hierarchy (MacCoy 2014). However, unless culturally embedded and hierarchically supported, collaboration outside normal workflows may eventually cease, as participants fail to see an impact for their efforts (Edmondson 2004; Leana and Buren 1999). Yet, it is not advisable to mandate or incentivise collaboration, since participants may halt once either is removed (James et al. 2007; Wageman and Gordon 2005). To embed viable collaboration within the organisation, we postulate the importance of establishing a definition that serves both participants' bottom-up, and policy designers' top-down, requirements and perspectives. This research aims to attain empirical evidence for a model of collaboration designed to measure collaboration viability (CoVi). Such a model may also aid design of pro-collaboration organisational policies, based upon how collaboration is perceived by its members.
2. PILAR Model of Collaboration
Only a generically applicable theory of collaboration can reliably inform wider organisational policy. While numerous theorists have expressed their desire for a universal, generic model of collaboration (Salas et al. 2015), currently no agreed version exists (Keyton 2016), and some contend that such a model will never exist (Green 2015). Designed to be consistent with organisational psychology (Heslop et al. 2018a) and social psychology (Heslop et al. 2018c), the PILAR model of collaboration is a contender for universality.
PILAR considers that humans have an array of perceptions that guide their decision to engage in a group, or to withdraw when membership of the group is no longer in their interest (Wilson et al. 2013). A perspective of tension between the member's pro-social engagement with the group, and self-interested withdrawal, indicates a potential evolutionary basis of collectivism and individualism (Huang and Bargh 2014). The team work engagement that each member feels as a result of assessing their peers, the external environment, and other factors, influence their preparedness to commit personal resources to the team (Costa et al. 2014).
The PILAR model asserts that its Pillars (prospects, involved, liked, agency and respect) provide some of the basis upon which the typical collaborating actor is instinctively prompted to remain within, or leave, a team (Oakley and Halligan 2017). Since these perceptions will influence an employee's willingness to collaborate, they should be considered in the organisation's design of any policy or scheme designed to foster collaboration (Table 1).
2.1. Perception of Prospects
The prospects Pillar is the likelihood of the collaboration achieving its goal, and the team member subsequently receiving the anticipated benefit, for instance, produce from a community garden. When the member feels that their group is likely to fail, low prospects are experienced as uneasiness and foreboding. Even when the group itself is performing well, if the member suspects their share is at risk, then that member perceives prospects as low (Heslop et al. 2016).
2.2. Perception of Involved
The involved Pillar encourages two members to cooperate in providing knowledge or physical assistance to complete a task. It is experienced by the member as an openness to, and comfort working with, a specific colleague, which at high levels is experienced as enthusiasm to participate (Quinn and Dutton 2005). Lack of the involved perception is experienced as general trepidation and unease, due to the potential risk of cooperation, such as embarrassment at needing help, an unappreciative recipient of advice, or their becoming a competitor for expert status (Klein et al. 2004).
2.3. Perception of Liked
The liked Pillar is associated with belonging and security, whereas being disliked leads to feelings of social isolation and insecurity. Those who perceive they are poorly liked may reduce the unpleasant feeling by mending relationships, or if this is not practical or desired, leaving the group entirely. This behavior is prominent for those who hold an identity linked to their group, who therefore cannot tolerate being disliked by in-group colleagues, and willingly engage in out-group exclusion (Meeussen et al. 2014).
2.4. Perception of Agency
The agency Pillar describes feeling empowered to suggest change to the collaboration, for example, a strategy change based upon foreseen dangers (Spânu et al. 2013) or suggesting that task responsibilities between members be adjusted.
2.5. Perception of Respect
The respect Pillar reflects the member's perception of a colleague's competence and character (Ibrahim and Ribbers 2009). High respect is faith and trust in colleagues' dependability, compared to low respect, associated with distrust and vigilance (Ko 2010).
3. Hypotheses Related to Peer assessment Data
Peer assessment is a survey of employees' opinions of their colleagues, commonly implemented by organisations as an adjunct to supervisor-assessment. Peer assessment data may exhibit themes reminiscent of the five Pillars because members' perceptions of CoVi are highly dependent upon perceptions of their collaborators (Heslop et al. 2018d). The presence of themes within peer assessment that align with the five Pillars may therefore constitute empirical support for PILAR. Using peer assessment data, both of the studies in this article will test both of the following hypotheses.
3.1. Hypothesis One
Consistent with the effect of colleagues' attributes on group affect (Barsade and Knight 2015), we hypothesise that all Pillars will be evident in peer assessment data due to an indication of the respondent's desire to collaborate with each assessed peer. For instance, a respondent will prefer to engage with a group populated by peers that they assess highly (Fulmer and Ostroff 2015). Since Pillars are also theorised to cumulatively predict CoVi and hence engagement (Heslop 2018), peer assessment data is postulated to thematically align with perception of Pillars when averaged over all peers, within each Pillar category. For instance, a respondent's disengagement from the group resulting from a single rude peer (liked), might be counterbalanced by another colleague's (or even the same person's) trustworthiness (respect). Thus, each member's perception of each Pillar may be influenced by the behaviour and attributes of any peer. This leads to the first hypothesis that respondents will give each peer a similar assessment to items that thematically align with each Pillar.
3.2. Hypothesis Two
A further implication of PILAR is that the respondent's decision to increase or reduce engagement in the group depends upon the relative importance they place on each of the five Pillars. Relative weighting will vary depending upon the collaboration context, and the personalities prevalent within the cohort (Breevart et al. 2012; Salas et al. 2005). Weighting may vary according to the situation, for example, a military team focussing on prospects of surviving, compared to a gardening club wishing to maintain relationships (liked). Weighting of Pillars may also vary according to the member's personality and psychological resources (Luthans et al. 2007), for instance, a confident member is less concerned with being liked, and those with less optimism in others' intentions might be less interested in demonstrating agency (Heslop et al. 2018c). This leads to the second hypothesis that the personalities present in the cohort will predict the priority given to Pillars within the peer assessment data.
4. First Study
In the first study, both hypotheses were tested using an exploratory factor analysis of engineering student responses to the peer assessment instrument. To test hypothesis one, we predict that factor analysis will be consistent with thematic categorisation of peer assessment questions categorised into the five Pillars. To test hypothesis two, we predict which of the above Pillar-aligned factor analysis components will explain the most variance in student response data, based upon engineering students' personality profile.
4.1. First Study Method
4.1.1. Participants
In teams of three to six, engineering students from an Australian university participated in a design project as part of their 2016 first semester's coursework. At the end of the semester, 458 first-year engineering students completed a peer assessment instrument (404 males, 54 females; mean age 20.1 years, S.D. 4.6 years; and 91.9% Australian national) for each of their teammates, using the SPARKPLUS online platform1 (Willey and Gardner 2010), which is henceforth referred to as the PILAR instrument.
4.1.2. Instructions to Survey Participants
Before attempting the survey, students received written instructions on how to use the survey interface and how the group's data might be used to adjust their mark. Students were cautioned by the lecturer that overestimating their own contribution at the expense of others may result in their evaluations being omitted from the analysis. Students were also advised that the total pool of marks available to the group members was fixed, and if they chose to rate another member highly, they were therefore in effect giving permission to the lecturer to take some of their own marks and award them to the high-performing member of the group. Students were also asked to mark 'average' behaviour at 70 out of a possible 100, and to use very low or very high marks for exceptionally poor or favourable teamwork behaviours, respectively.
4.1.3. PILAR Peer Assessment Instrument
This research built upon a nine-item peer assessment instrument from the previous year's application by the lecturer, Dr. Simon Iveson (Heslop et al. 2018d). While the original instrument contained items related to peers' competence (respect), motivation (prospects) and teamwork (involved and liked), at the authors' request, the instrument was expanded to include four additional items that aligned with agency, involved and liked (Table 2).
Although inheritance of the first nine, unmodified items prevented the authors from specifically designing questions to align with Pillars, data were nonetheless assessed for evidence of consistency with Pillar perceptions within this cohort. As it does not necessarily indicate a peer or respondent's perception of the group, Q3 as a measure of punctuality was not considered to align logically with a Pillar. Apart from commitment to the project, punctuality is influenced by a range of factors, such as whether the peer is organised, cultural background, and schedule conflicts (Back et al. 2006; Basu and Weibull 2002). Q3 was therefore considered a control question, and the factor analysis was expanded to six components to accommodate it. The purpose of Q3 as a control is to demonstrate that the components derived from the factor analysis align with the Pillars, even with the inclusion of an item that does not conceptually align to a Pillar.
4.1.4. Removal of Outliers
As part of standard instructions given by the instrument, for each item students were instructed to rate the average collaborator as 70/100. We therefore contend that a rating five or less out of 100 may be influenced by inter-rater bias (Magin 2001; Viswesvaran et al. 2005). Inter-rater bias occurs where a personal relationship between peer and respondent bias peer assessments ratings made by the respondent, leading to rating on a primarily subjective basis, rather than on the peer's objective behaviour. For this reason, we remove from analysis any set of 13 ratings that includes any rating of five or less. We consider it highly unlikely that such a low rating is an objective assessment and is rather prompted by the respondent's antipathy for the peer.
5. First Study Hypothesis Predictions:
5.1. Predicted Alignment of Items with Pillars
Hypothesis one predicts that factor analysis will be consistent with thematic alignment of instrument items and Pillars. Q1 and Q2 align with the respondent's perception of group prospects, which are reduced by unmotivated and free-riding peers. Q4–Q6 align with the respondent's perception of respect, because all three competencies relate to the respondent's view of the peer's abilities. Q7 asks if the respondent feels liked by the peer, based upon how comfortable their interaction was. Q13 considers whether a peer feels disliked, which may be inversely related to whether the respondent feels disliked by that peer. Q8 and Q11 align with the peer's perception of agency, and whether they felt able to express an opinion or contribute to the discussion. Q9, Q10 and Q12 align with the peer's perception of involved, in terms of whether they are willing to help, or be helped by, colleagues. For example, Q9 asks whether a peer asks for a colleague's opinion, which necessitates the peer's willingness to accept assistance.
5.2. Predicted Component Priority Due to Cohort Personality
In their survey of 4876 engineers and 75,892 non-engineers, Williamson et al. (2013) discovered that engineers' personality could be classified as more tough-minded (assess problems logically) and intrinsically motivated (seeking challenge, meaning and autonomy), but lacking assertiveness (ability to speak up), service orientation (meeting collaborator's needs), emotional stability (resilience), extraversion (sociability), optimism (positive outlook), image management (control one's presentation to others), visionary style (forward thinking) and work drive (dedication to project goals).
Considering these attributes of engineers, we posit that respect will be of primary importance because it requires logical assessment of colleagues' competence, whereas the remaining assessment items are more qualitative. We consider that prospects will also be important, since the engineer's intrinsic motivation will produce a preference for collaboration in which colleagues are also highly dedicated. It is difficult to be autonomous, find meaning and be challenged when colleagues require oversight because of their poor skills and motivation.
Conversely, lack of assertiveness, visionary style and optimism indicates that agency will be a lower-priority perception, and therefore, the component less relevant. Taking optimism as an example, without believing that change is possible, there is no point suggesting it (Heslop et al. 2018b). A desire to be involved would require a service orientation and work drive; the latter because aiding colleague's places project goals above one's own interests. Finally, we consider that liked would be important to those with extraversion and concerned with image management. Hence, within this cohort, we expect that respect and prospects will feature among the first two components, with involved, agency and liked among the latter three.
6. Results of First Study
In teams of between three and six, 458 first-year engineering students completed the PILAR peer assessment instrument (404 males; 54 females, mean age 20.1 years, S.D. 4.6 years, and 91.9% Australian national). Descriptive statistics and correlations between the 13 items are shown in Table 3. Each item's mean is over 80, and the distribution of each item is negatively skewed. As expected, components were highly correlated (r = 0.67 to 0.80; the least being component six; r = 0.54 to 0.65) due to the positive feedback contended to exist between Pillars, noted previously.
Factor analysis was permissible as the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was above the recommended cut-off of 0.6 (KMO = 0.97) and Bartlett's test of Sphericity was statistically significant (p < 0.05). The factor analysis was set at six, based upon five Pillars plus a control component. Kaiser Normalisation was applied, using Promax rotation due to the high correlation coefficients (r > 0.6) between items (Brown 2009). Promax was also chosen because Pillars are theorised to be correlated as a result of positive reinforcing feedback between four pairs (prospects and involved; involved and respect; liked and involved; and respect and prospects), with stabilising feedback between the remaining six pairs of Pillars (Heslop et al. 2018c).
The factor analysis converged in six iterations and the resulting factors cumulatively explained 90% of the variance of student responses. Each of the resulting factors had strong scale reliability (Cronbach's alpha > 0.8) indicating that items making up each factor were closely related. Only items with factor loadings over 0.5 were considered for inclusion in each scale.Eleven of the twelve possible PILAR items aligned to one of the five components as predicted by PILAR (Table 4). The single exception was Q10's loading of 0.40 (below the 0.5 cut-off) in component three. Nevertheless, Q10 still has its largest loading aligned with involved. The non-Pillar control item regarding punctuality, Q3, dominated the sixth component. We therefore conclude that the first study supports hypothesis one, and that Pillars are a parsimonious classification of perceptions of collaboration.
6.1. Discussion of First Study
Factor analysis of the PILAR data partially supported hypothesis one that peer assessment data can be parsimoniously captured through the PILAR perceptions of collaboration. However, with the first component explaining almost three quarters of the variance, later components are susceptible to small permutations in the data. Therefore, further work is required to develop an instrument that might generate data with more variance-balanced, but less correlated, components that can claim to represent the five Pillars. However, the extent of balance achievable may be limited by inter-rater bias, which Viswesvaran et al. (2005) estimated to explain 60% of peer assessment rating variance.
Hypothesis two concerned component order, and whether it suggests teamwork priorities of the cohort. Capturing more variance may indicate that respondents placed greater importance on answering the component's constituent items accurately. The first two components were respect followed by liked, which only partly supports Hypothesis two; that predicted respect followed by prospects.
One potential explanation for the liked component being second priority is that inter-rater bias was captured by items aligned with liked. This may have been exacerbated by interpersonal conflict arising from engineers' lack of emotional stability (resilience), extraversion (sociability) and image management (control one's presentation to others) (Williamson et al. 2013).
The fourth place for the prospects component may have been a result of this cohort not being representative of professional engineers. The attrition rate of first-year undergraduate engineers is typically over 50% (Felder et al. 1998), implying that half of this cohort will choose a different career. Due to the Dunning–Krueger effect, this may have led to unusual interpretations for items aligned with prospects, since less-competent members evaluate peer's performance less accurately (Schlösser et al. 2013). Since prospects-aligned questions in the instrument are more subjective than respect-aligned questions, they may have suffered from greater inaccuracy from those students destined to not achieve an undergraduate engineering degree.
6.2. Limitations of First Study
There are numerous limitations to our approach that might be remedied in future. First, to reduce signalling that may have artificially induced respondents to answer in alignment with Pillars, the first six items would ideally be mixed among the remaining items rather than sequenced (Fowler 1995). Second, to reduce respondents' superficially giving identical answers to similarly phrased items, items would ideally be phrased differently, for example respect-aligned. Third, a future replication of this research would improve question design (Fowler 1995). For instance, Q1 and Q2 both have multiple concepts in one item. A separate investigation of the PILAR instrument found that eight items were poorly designed, and potentially led respondents to disengage, hence reduce its reliability (Heslop et al. 2018d). This may have contributed to the emphatic capturing of variance within the first component.
Another limitation was mixing peer- and respondent-based perceptions of collaboration within Pillars of the first study instrument (Table 2). A future study might consider focusing solely upon one locus of perception. For instance, in other work, we have proposed an instrument exclusively based upon peer's perception, designed to measure CoVi. We consider that this instrument may also be used for peer assessment purposes (Heslop et al. 2017). To address limitations of the first study, our second study now compares its findings with those of a highly-cited (114 citations) study that employed a similar, factor analysis-based method to create a peer assessment instrument.
7. Second Study
This second study is a reconsideration of Loughry, Ohland, and Moore's (2007) original approach to developing their Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) peer assessment instrument. CATME is a well-established and widely used online instrument designed for group projects in educational settings (Ferguson et al. 2016). Re-examining hypothesis one, we consider whether the CATME components that Loughry et al. (2007) produced through factor analysis, conceptually align with the five Pillars. To investigate such an alignment, we first make post-hoc 'predictions' by conceptually associating each CATME item either with a Pillar perception of collaboration, or otherwise with a non-Pillar, control construct.
CATME has been selected for this study because it suffers less from limitations present in the PILAR instrument. CATME questions are well designed as they are drawn from previously validated instruments. Additionally, we observe that CATME's items are similarly worded. However, we are unsure if aligned CATME items appear randomly or sequentially, since the original instrument given to respondents is not published.
Summarising the Approach Taken by Loughry, Ohland & Moore
Loughry et al. (2007) developed CATME by first formulating a list of 392 items, drawn from pre-existing instruments, for example measuring team potency and Team Climate Inventory (Anderson and West 1998). Fifteen colleagues of Loughry et al. (2007) then selectively reduced these 392 to a shorter list of 218 by removing poorly formed and unclear items. Eighty-seven of the most significant were then identified by surveying 2777 students, who were asked to rate the importance of each peer behaviour to team success. Finally, and similar to the first study, 1157 students were each asked to rate a collaborator they remembered on each of the 87 items (listed in (Loughry et al. 2007)).
The variance of this data was tested first via an exploratory-, followed by confirmatory-, factor analysis with a one-, five- and seven-component model. Five components best explained the variance, however, they exhibited high inter-correlation (r = 0.77 to 0.93) that the authors claimed required further investigation. While Loughry et al. (2007) found that five components were superior to one and seven, it is possible that the data could be better explained by fewer components than five; by six components; or by more than seven.
8. Second Study Hypothesis Predictions
Predicted Alignment of CATME Items with Pillars
Our examination of the 87 CATME items suggests that 66 items align with four Pillars. The remaining 21 items align with leadership, which we considered to be a control. No CATME items align with liked, and only three align with agency: "Made important contributions to the team's final product," "Provided insights and ideas that improved the team project," and "Made recommendations that improved the team's performance." Given this, we predict that three CATME components will separately align with involved, respect and prospects, and a control component will align with leadership. We cannot predict how the fifth component might be constituted, given the sparcity of agency-aligned items, and lack of liked-aligned items.
9. Results of Second Study
As expected, items contained within two smaller CATME components clearly align with respect and prospects, while the largest component with 30 items aligns with involved (Table 5). One of the remaining two, larger components, that with 24 items, aligns with all three Pillars just mentioned, and additionally agency. The medium-sized component, with 21 items, aligns with leadership, which we consider to be control items that should enter its own component.
9.1. Discussion of Second Study
9.1.1. Inter-Rater Bias Causing Intercorrelation
One limitation of study two is sparsity of items aligned with liked and agency, which may also explain high correlations between CATME components. Following on from the first study, with liking reaching second place, and the first component explaining over 70% of the variance, we consider that these correlations might have been a result of a lack of liked items. The PILAR instrument had two items related to liked, which were included in the second component, potentially indicating its importance.
No CATME items refer to the relationship between peer and respondent, whether from their own, or the peer's perception. Lack of liked-aligned items may have encouraged respondents to distribute inter-rater bias felt towards the peer amongst the remaining items, rather than within liked-aligned items. This uses the rationale of Freud's emotional displacement (Fenichel 1946), since inclusion of items specifically targeting inter-rater bias may otherwise reduce its effect on the rest of the items, because respondents have a safe, approved channel for their negative or positive affect for the peer.
Relative to the first study, inter-rater bias in the second study may have been exacerbated by numerous factors. The respondent is rating a historical rather than a current colleague, and details of their behaviour may have become uncertain. Further, CATME's 87 items is a long instrument given the wide range of item phrasing adopted, which prompted its later reduction to 33 items (Loughry et al. 2007). Whether from exhaustion from a long instrument, or uncertain recall, it is an understanding that inter-rater bias would increase correlation between components.
Also, potentially reducing inter-rater bias, the first study used 13 items, repeated for multiple peers, whereas CATME had 87 novel items, which may have increased respondent's cognitive load, and increased the influence of affect in rating peers (Morewedge and Kahneman 2010). Finally, the first study collected information on current rather than historical peers, presumably allowing sharper details to inform ratings. A shorter instrument, applied to current peers, and with some items aligned to liked, may have reduced intercorrelation between components in the first study, otherwise higher in Loughry et al. (2007), perhaps due to inter-rater bias.
9.1.2. Lack of Agency and Liked in the CATME Instrument
Rather than reflecting an inherent lack of importance of agency and liked, we consider it an artefact of the author's process for deriving the 87 items. Agency is only a comparatively recent construct, having been initially proposed as participative safety, before being popularised by psychological safety (Edmondson 1999). Therefore, agency may not have been strongly represented by the instruments from which the 392 items were derived. This sparcity may have been compounded by an introspective, conformist student cohort ascribing less value to peers' agency in rating the 218 items to arrive at 87 (Arnett 2006). The CATME cohort were equal parts engineering and business students, neither of which are noted for empathy that otherwise allows appreciation of others' agency (Levenson et al. 1995).
In contrast to agency, liked is a relatively longstanding construct, originally in the form of interpersonal attraction; an aspect of social cohesion (Back 1951), and in the negative sense, interpersonal conflict (Exline and Ziller 1959). A lack of liked-aligned items may have been the result of prioritising behaviours rather than perceptions. Of the five Pillars, we consider that liked is the most subjective and intangible, followed by agency. While the original list of 218 items is not published, there is also selection bias of original selection of items to consider. For instance, 30 items were extracted from Anderson and West's (1998) 60-item Team Climate Inventory. It mapped on to five components, two of which respectively align to agency ("participative safety") and liked ("interaction frequency"), both of which have over ten constituent items.
There is no published list of the 392 items originally chosen by Loughry et al. (2007), and no published list of the subsequent list of 218 derived by 15 colleagues. Hence, we cannot know at what point agency- or liked-aligned items were excluded. Nevertheless, their lack obviously prevented a CATME component being aligned with agency and liked. More broadly, it and inter-rater bias may explain why there was a single CATME component that encapsulated a range of Pillars, and why the inter-correlation between CATME components was high.
10. Overall Discussion
We note that CATME focusses on peer behaviour, rather than perceptions of the group that influence peer behaviour, yet this approach to peer assessment may offer advantages. First, since perceptions are less diverse than behaviours, a shorter instrument is possible. Second, perceptions are not limited by natural ability, whereas behaviours are, which the respondent must evaluate. Evaluating behaviours may be more prone to inter-rater bias than evaluating peer's perceptions, since the latter require an empathetic rather than judgmental perspective (Oakley and Halligan 2017). Finally, since behaviours may be difficult to calibrate between respondents, to improve accuracy of a survey, training to use a behaviour-based peer assessment instrument is recommended (van Zundert et al. 2010). By contrast, a perception-based instrument, if based upon familiar, universal perceptions, may not require training for respondents before use (Heslop et al. 2017).
While behaviour-based peer assessment cannot ignore personality variation; a perception-based instrument founded upon universal perceptions must do so. In other words, for PILAR, personality is a confounder, whereas for CATME, perceptions of collaboration become confounders. For instance, the item: "Provided insights and ideas that improved the team project" might be due to a peer's lack of imagination, or from the Pillar perspective, not feeling they had agency. The item "Kept trying when faced with difficult situations" if answered in the negative, might have arisen from a peer perceiving that the group's prospects are sufficiently poor to not warrant their continued investment (Graham and Sloan 2016). Many CATME items can be interpreted as either the respondent's valid judgement of the peer's behaviour, or alternatively the peer's behaviour being justified based upon their perception of the group.
PILAR has taken a different approach to creating an instrument, by encapsulating social psychology theory directly, rather than incorporating instruments currently in use. Since both approaches provide five constructs, we contend that inducing their nature directly from empirically validated theory is potentially more robust than utilising existing instruments; not only because of changing trends in the field (Green 2015), but also due to potential biases within CATME's original creation (Simmons et al. 2013). We therefore contend that PILAR may offer a more parsimonious basis upon which to survey respondents' assessment of peers on the team (Heslop et al. 2017). Indeed, if perceptions are causal to behaviour, it may be that CATME is largely measuring peer's perceptions.
11. Conclusions
This article presents empirical evidence for the PILAR (prospects, involved, liked, agency, respect) model of collaboration. Over 400 engineering students participated in peer assessment as part of their course requirements. Assessment of their responses using factor analysis revealed almost-perfect alignment of the first five components with predicted Pillar-aligned items. The sequence of components may indicate that the cohort prioritise respect, followed by liked. The latter being unexpected, we considered that either the cohort was not representative of engineers, or that the priority given to the liked-aligned component was due to capturing inter-rater bias.
The second study only partially supports PILAR by demonstrating that three Pillars align with three components of CATME's more extensively developed instrument. Lack of CATME items aligned with liked and agency, and only examining one, five and seven components, may have precluded potentially stronger endorsement of PILAR. We postulated that methodological biases, and historical trends in literature, may have limited the numerousness of items aligned with agency and liked, leading to high intercorrelation between CATME components.
Despite respective limitations of each study, our findings encourage further exploration of perceptions of collaboration, whether peer's or respondent's, as a method of assessing collaboration viability (CoVi). Should future studies demonstrate alignment with Pillars, it will constitute further theoretical support for PILAR as a parsimonious model of collaboration. Such a universal model may not only enable organisations to measure the viability of their constituent collaborations with a brief instrument, but also provide guidance for developing policy that fosters egalitarian, voluntary and intrinsically motivated collaboration, and thereby innovation.
Simon Iveson from the Engineering Faculty, University of Newcastle collected the data, which he then anonymised before providing it to Benjamin Heslop. The School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, supplied Heslop's PhD scholarship.
Benjamin Heslop designed both studies and wrote the draft manuscript. Benjamin Heslop analysed the data acquired from Simon Iveson. Elizabeth Stojanovski advised on statistical treatments and presentation of statistical results. Kylie Bailey advised on structuring the manuscript for publication. Jonathan Paul edited the manuscript for logical consistency.
Anderson, Niel R., and Michael A. West. 1998. Measuring climate for work group innovation: Development and validation of the team climate inventory. Journal of Organizational Behavior 19: 235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Arnett, Jeffrey Jensen. 2006. Suffering, Selfish, Slackers? Myths and Reality about Emerging Adults. Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36: 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Back, Kurt W. 1951. Influence through social communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46: 9–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Back, Mitja D., Stefan C. Schmukle, and Boris Egloff. 2006. Who is late and who is early? Big Five personality factors and punctuality in attending psychological experiments. Journal of Research in Personality 40: 841–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Baker, William E., Amir Grinstein, and Nukhet Harmancioglu. 2016. Whose Innovation Performance Benefits More from External Networks: Entrepreneurial or Conservative Firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management 33: 104–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Barsade, Sigal G., and Andred P. Knight. 2015. Group Affect. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 21: 21–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Basu, Kaushik, and Jorgen W. Weibull. 2003. Punctuality—A Cultural Trait as Equilibrium. In Economics for an Imperfect World: Essays in Honor of Joseph E. Stiglitz. Edited by R. Amott, B. Greenwald, R. Kanbur and B. Nalebuff. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, pp. 163–82. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=317621 (accessed on 12 March 2015).
Breevaart, Kimberley, Arnold B Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, and Jorn Hetland. 2012. The Measurement of state work engagement: A multilevel factor analytic study. European Journal of Psychological Assessment 28: 305–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Brown, James D. 2009. Choosing the Right Type of Rotation in PCA and EFA. Shiken: JALT Testing & Evaluation SIG Newsletter 13: 20–25. [Google Scholar]
Costa, Patricia L., Ana M. Passos, and Arnold B. Bakker. 2014. Team work engagement: A model of emergence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 87: 414–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Edmondson, Amy. 1999. Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 350–83. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2666999 (accessed on 29 October 2014). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Edmondson, Amy C. 2004. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. In Trust and Distrust in Organizations: Dilemmas and Approaches. Edited by Roderick Kramer and Karen Cook. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 239–72. [Google Scholar]
Exline, Ralph V., and Robert C Ziller. 1959. Status Congruency and Interpersonal Conflict in Decision-Making Groups. Human Relations 12: 147–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Felder, Richard M., Gary N. Felder, and E. Jacquelin Dietz. 1998. A Longitudinal Study of Engineering Student Performance and Retention V. Comparison with Traditionally Taught Students. Journal of Engineering Education, 469–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fenichel, Otto. 1946. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis. London: W. W. Norton and Company. [Google Scholar]
Ferguson, Daniel M., Chad Lally, Hilda Ibriga Somnooma, Olivia Murch, and Matthew W. Ohland. 2016. Using frame-of-reference training to improve the dispersion of peer ratings in teams. Paper presented at Frontiers in Education Conference, Erie, PA, USA, October 12–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Fowler, Floyd. 1995. Improving Survey Questions: Design and Evaluation. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
Fulmer, C. Ashley, and Cheri Ostroff. 2015. Convergence and emergence in organizations: An integrative framework and review. Journal of Organizational Behavior 17: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Graham, Alan, and Karlin Sloan. 2016. Resilience at Work: Negotiating a Dynamic World. Sloan Group White Papers. Available online: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/541bbbe3e4b07b5243b1543f/t/57acebb959cc684a27ecb697/1470950336028/RAWA+White+Paper.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2018).
Green, Christopher D. 2015. Why Psychology Isn't Unified, and Probably Never Will Be. Review of General Psychology 19: 207–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heslop, Benjamin. 2018. Selfish engagement: Consilience of evolutionary theories? submitted for publication. [Google Scholar]
Heslop, Benjamin, Bailey Kylie, Paul Jonathan, Anthony Drew, and Roger Smith. 2016. Collaboration Guidelines to Transform Culture. Interdisciplinary Journal of Partnership Studies, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heslop, Benjamin, Elizabeth Stojanovski, Jonathan Paul, and Kylie Bailey. 2017. Are We Collaborating Yet? Employee Assessment of Peer's Perceptions. International Journal of Human Resource Studies 7: 175–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heslop, Benjamin, Jonathan Paul, Anthony Drew, Kylie Bailey, and Elizabeth Stojanovski. 2018a. Organisational Psychology Versus Appreciative Inquiry: Unifying the Empirical and the Mystical. AI Practitioner 20: 69–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Heslop, Benjamin, Elizabeth Stojanovski, Kylie Bailey, Anthony Drew, and Jonathan Paul. 2018b. Wellbeing through collaboration. submitted for publication. [Google Scholar]
Heslop, Benjamin, Elizabeth Stojanovski, Jonathan Paul, and Kylie Bailey. 2018c. PILAR: A Model of Collaboration to Encapsulate Social Psychology. Review of General Psychology. in press. [Google Scholar]
Heslop, Benjamin, Elizabeth Stojanovski, Jonathan Paul, Simon Iveson, and Kylie Bailey. 2018d. Respondent disengagement from a peer assessment instrument measuring Collaboration Viability. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Huang, Julie Y., and John A. Bargh. 2014. The Selfish Goal: Autonomously operating motivational structures as the proximate cause of human judgment and behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 38: 121–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ibrahim, Mohamed, and Pieter M. Ribbers. 2009. The impacts of competence-trust and openness-trust on interorganizational systems. European Journal of Information Systems 18: 223–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
James, Kim Turnbull, Jasbir Mann, and Jane Creasy. 2007. Leaders as Lead Learners: A Case Example of Facilitating Collaborative Leadership Learning for School Leaders. Management Learning 38: 79–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Keyton, Joann. 2016. The Future of Small Group Research. Small Group Research 47: 134–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Klein, Katherine J., Beng-Choing Lim, Jessica L. Saltz, and David M. Mayer. 2004. How Do They Get There? An Examination of the Antecedents of Centrality in Team Networks. The Academy of Management Journal 47: 952–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ko, Dong-Gil. 2010. Consultant competence trust doesn't pay off, but benevolent trust does! Managing knowledge with care. Journal of Knowledge Management 14: 202–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Leana, Carrie, and Harry J. Van Buren. 1999. Organizational social capital and employment practices. Academy of Management Review 24: 538–55. Available online: http://amr.aom.org/content/24/3/538.short (accessed on 3 June 2014). [Google Scholar]
Levenson, Michael R., Kent A. Kiehl, and Cory M. Fitzpatrick. 1995. Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68: 151–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Loughry, Misty L., Matthew W. Ohland, and DeWayne D. Moore. 2007. Development of a Theory-Based Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness. Educational and Psychological Measurement 67: 505–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Luthans, Fred, Carolyn Carolyn Youssef, and Bruce Avolio. 2007. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
MacCoy, David J. 2014. Appreciative Inquiry and Evaluation—Getting to What Works. The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation 29: 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Magin, Douglas. 2001. Reciprocity as a Source of Bias in Multiple Peer Assessment of Group Work. Studies in Higher Education 26: 53–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Meeussen, Loes, Ellen Delvaux, and Karen Phalet. 2014. Becoming a group: Value convergence and emergent work group identities. British Journal of Social Psychology 53: 235–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Morewedge, Carey K., and Daniel Kahneman. 2010. Associative processes in intuitive judgment. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 14: 435–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Oakley, David A., and Peter W. Halligan. 2017. Chasing the Rainbow: The Non-conscious Nature of Being. Frontiers in Psychology 8: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Quinn, Ryan W., and Jane E. Dutton. 2005. Coordination as Energy-in-Conversation. The Academy of Management Review 30: 36–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Salas, Eduardo, Dana E. Sims, and C. Shawn Burke. 2005. Is there a "Big Five" in Teamwork? Small Group Research 36: 555–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Salas, Eduardo, Marissa L. Shuffler, Amanda L. Thayer, Wendy L. Bedwell, and Elizabeth H. Lazzara. 2015. Understanding and Improving Teamwork in Organizations: A Scientifically Based Practical Guide. Human Resource Management 54: 599–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Schlösser, Thomas, David Dunning, Kerri L. Johnson, and Justin Kruger. 2013. How unaware are the unskilled? Empirical tests of the "signal extraction" counterexplanation for the Dunning-Kruger effect in self-evaluation of performance. Journal of Economic Psychology 39: 85–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Simmons, Jospeh P., Leif D. Nelson, and Uri Simonsohn. 2013. Life after P-Hacking. NA—Advances in Consumer Research 41. Edited by S. Botti and A. Labroo. Duluth: Association for Consumer Research. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Spânu, Florina, Adriana Băban, Mara Bria, Raluca Lucăcel, Ioan Ştefan Florian, and Lucia Rus. 2013. Error Communication and Analysis in Hospitals: The Role of Leadership and Interpersonal Climate. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences 84: 949–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
van Zundert, Marjo, Dominique Sluijsmans, and Jeroen van Merrienboer. 2010. Effective peer assessment processes: Research findings and future directions. Learning and Instruction 20: 270–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Viswesvaran, Chockalingam, Frank L. Schmidt, and Deniz S. Ones. 2005. Is There a General Factor in Ratings of Job Performance? A Meta-Analytic Framework for Disentangling Substantive and Error Influences. Journal of Applied Psychology 90: 108–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Wageman, Ruth, and Frederick M. Gordon. 2005. As the Twig Is Bent: How Group Values Shape Emergent Task Interdependence in Groups. Organization Science. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Willey, Keith, and Anne Gardner. 2010. Investigating the capacity of self and peer assessment activities to engage students and promote learning. European Journal of Engineering Education 35: 429–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Williamson, Jeanine M., John W. Lounsbury, and Lee D. Han. 2013. Key personality traits of engineers for innovation and technology development. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management—JET-M 30: 157–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Wilson, David S., Elinor Ostrom, and Michael E. Cox. 2013. Generalizing the core design principles for the efficacy of groups. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
www.sparkplus.com.au.
Table 1. Definition of each Pillar.
Member's Perception of Collaboration
prospects Your opinion of whether the group will succeed, and if so, whether you will receive your anticipated share of that success
involved Your willingness to cooperate with colleagues, either providing or receiving assistance: in the form of knowledge and physical aid
liked Your sense of popularity and security based upon your perception of colleagues' warmth and affection toward you
agency The permission you feel to suggest change to the group's norms, processes, task allocation and strategy
respect Your opinion of a colleagues' task-relevant competence, and general trustworthiness
Table 2. Peer assessment questions administered by the online PILAR instrument. For each question, alignment with Pillars, and locus of perception, is nominated.
PILAR Instrument Item
Locus of Perception
Q1 How much work and effort has the person put into the project? Have they done their fair share and pulled their weight? prospects respondent
Q2 How well did the person get their work completed by the agreed upon time? prospects respondent
Q3 Did the person regularly attend team meetings on time? control
Q4 How good is the quality of the person's research and their understanding of what they have read? respect respondent
Q5 How good are the person's analytical and problem-solving skills? respect respondent
Q6 How good are the person's reporting writing and editing skills? respect respondent
Q7 Did you find this person easy to interact with? liked respondent
Q8 How well did the person contribute to discussion during team meetings? agency peer
Q9 How well did the person encourage others and value their ideas? involved peer
Q10 How well did the person assist others when asked? involved peer
Q11 Did this person express their opinions with confidence? agency peer
Q12 Did the person constructively challenge other people's opinions? involved peer
Q13 Was this person well-liked by the group? liked peer
Table 3. Mean and Standard Deviation of each item's ratings, and Pearson correlations between items. All correlations are significant (p < 0.01) and each item has 2228 scores.
Pearson Correlation Coefficients
Q1 82.9 11.9 1
Q2 82.9 12.2 0.83 1
Q3 85.8 11.4 0.64 0.62 1
Q4 83.3 11.6 0.83 0.74 0.60 1
Q5 83.1 10.6 0.78 0.74 0.60 0.84 1
Q6 82.6 11.8 0.79 0.71 0.56 0.82 0.79 1
Q7 85.9 11.3 0.69 0.63 0.55 0.70 0.69 0.67 1
Q8 84.0 11.6 0.76 0.69 0.59 0.77 0.79 0.74 0.77 1
Q9 83.8 10.8 0.68 0.61 0.52 0.68 0.73 0.66 0.76 0.76 1
Q10 84.1 10.8 0.76 0.70 0.60 0.77 0.76 0.74 0.73 0.78 0.77 1
Q11 84.5 10.4 0.68 0.64 0.56 0.71 0.76 0.67 0.68 0.80 0.73 0.75 1
Q12 81.9 11.4 0.69 0.62 0.52 0.72 0.76 0.70 0.65 0.75 0.75 0.74 0.76 1
Q13 85.6 11.5 0.72 0.67 0.59 0.72 0.73 0.69 0.83 0.77 0.75 0.76 0.71 0.68
Table 4. Pattern matrix (loadings > 0.5) resulting from exploratory factor analysis (six components). Cronbach's Alpha and percentage of variance is included. The control question (Q3) represents a sixth component.
Component Loadings
Control (Q3)
Q1 0.58
Q10 (0.40)
Q11 0.96
Alpha 0.93 0.91 0.85 0.90 0.89
Variance (%) 73.24 5.24 4.06 3.34 2.32 2.10
Table 5. Five CATME components and their alignment of constituent questions with Pillars. Also, the locus of perception of the CATME component (but not necessarily of all constituent questions).
CATME Component
No. items
Contributing to the team's work 24 agency, respect, involved, prospects Peer
Interacting with teammates 30 involved Peer
Keeping the team on track 21 leadership
Expecting quality 6 prospects Peer
Having relevant knowledge, skills and abilities 9 respect Respondent
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Soc. Sci. EISSN 2076-0760 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert


Start Over You searched for: Collections Drugs and Devices, 1940-1963 ✖Remove constraint Collections: Drugs and Devices, 1940-1963 Adjudicating Courts Eastern District of Missouri ✖Remove constraint Adjudicating Courts: Eastern District of Missouri
11. 1456. Adulteration of rhubarb root. U. S. v. 1 Barrel of Rhubarb Root. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
J. L. Hopkins & Co.
12. 1481. Adulteration and misbranding of prophylactics. U. S. v. 38 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
Donald Beaumont
13. 1489. Misbranding of Major Brand B Complex Vitamin Tablets. U. S. v. 15 Cases of Major Brand B Complex Vitamin Tablets. Default decree of condemnation. Product ordered delivered to a charitable institution.
Major Vitamins, Inc.
14. 1490. Misbranding of Walban Vitamin B Complex and Walban A, B1, D, G (B2) Vitamin Pearls. U. S. v. 35 Display Units of Walban Vitamin B Complex and 23 Display Units of Walban A, B D, G (B2) Vitamin Pearls. Default decrees of condemnation. Products ordered delivered to charitable institutions.
Walban Corporation
15. 1527. Adulteration of prophylactics. U. S. v. 49 Gross of Prophylactics. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
Berg Sales Co.
16. 1646. Misbranding of ChaRem, Chamberlain Dry Dip, and Chamberlain 'Worm Expeller. U. S. v. F. B. Chamberlain Co. Pleas of nolo contendere on counts 1 and 3; plea of guilty on count 2. Fine, $625.
F. B. Chamberlain Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo.
17. 1688. Misbranding of Sep-Tone. U. S. v. Donald D. Dolan (Dolan Laboratories). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $200.
Donald D. Dolan, trading as the Dolan Laboratories, St. Louis, Mo.
18. 1702. Adulteration and misbranding of boric acid ointment. U. S. v. S. Pfeiffer Manufacturing Co. and John A. Mueller. Pleas of nolo contendere. Corporate defendant fined $200; individual defendant fined $20.
S. Pfeiffer Manufacturing Co., a corporation, St. Louis, Mo., and John A. Mueller, plant manager for the corporation.
19. 1706. Adulteration of flaxseed. U. S. v. 14 Barrels of Flax Seed. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.
Bisbee Linseed Co., from Chicago Heights, Ill.
20. 1832. Misbranding of Finley's Ginseng Compound. U. S. v. Samuel Eugene Williams (Finley Medical Co.). Plea of nolo contendere. Fine, $50.
Samuel Eugene Williams, trading as the Finley Medical Co., St. Louis, Mo.
Drugs and Devices, 1940-1963✖[remove]67
1003. Adulteration and misbranding of Kelson's Antacid Powder and misbranding of B-M Cold Caps and Fero-Tona. U. S. v. 30 1/2 Dozen Vials of B-M Cold Caps, 12 1/2 Dozen Bottles of Fero-Tona, and 17 Packages of Nelson's Antacid Powder. Default decrees of condemnation and destruction.1
1062. Adulteration and misbranding of sodium phosphate. U. S. v. 5 Cases of Sodium Phosphate. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.1
1107. Adulteration and misbranding of carbon tetrachloride. U. S. v. National Package Drugs, Inc. Plea of guilty. Fine, $2,000.1
115. Adulteration and misbranding of cotton swab applicators. U. S. v. 75 Cartons of Cotton Swab Applicators. Default decree of condemnation and destruction.1
1156. Misbranding of Balm and Kru-Lax. U. S. v. Carl Fred Krueger (Oriental Laboratory) Plea of guilty. Fine, $200. Sentence of 6 months in jail suspended and defendant placed on probation for 3 years.1
Hale Drug Co.2
Adams Laboratories, Inc.1
Allan & Co., Inc., St. Louis, Mo., and John G. Ayars1
American White Cross Laboratories, a corporation, Cape Girardeau, Mo.1
Ber-Mel [or 'Mels'] Inc.1
prophylactics3
absorbent cotton2
pessaries2
"Be" Plex vitamin B-complex with minerals and Iron1
Balm and Kru-Lax1
Eastern District of Missouri✖[remove]67


Leeds International Summer School opens applications for 2017
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences news Tuesday 22 November 2016
Applications are now open for the 2017 Leeds International Summer School (LISS), an exciting opportunity to study at the University of Leeds while becoming immersed in British culture.
LISS is a four-week programme that offers international undergraduate students a chance to spend summer studying abroad at the University of Leeds, which has been named UK 'University of the Year 2017' by The Times and The Sunday Times' Good University Guide.
The Faculty of Engineering, among other faculties from the University of Leeds, will be offering academic subjects that students may take as part of the programme. This provides the opportunity for international students to study two academic modules with credit that may be transferred to their home university degree.
Introduction to Robotics and Autonomous Systems, taught by University Academic Fellow Dr Syed Ali Raza Zaidi, will be available for students to study as a credit-bearing module. The module provides an introduction to robotics, covering the fundamentals of mechanical design, electronics, and programming.
The module's lectures will give an insightful background to the extensive, hands-on practical work achieved using the excellent laboratories in the Faculty of Engineering. Renewable Energy Systems: The Big Debate, will also be offered as a credit-bearing module as part of the LISS programme.
A previous student has described their experience studying at the Faculty of Engineering as part of the LISS summer school:
"The mini excursion to the robotics facility on campus was amazing. So much new technology that I hadn't seen before, and we were given a live demonstration of nearly all of them. It gave a further behind-the-scenes understanding of commercial robotics."
Participants will also be invited to take advantage of the rich history, culture, and natural beauty the vibrant, student-friendly city of Leeds has to offer. The summer school combines world-class tuition with local knowledge, academia-related field trips, and a variety of stimulating social activities.
LISS will run from Saturday 1 July to Sunday 30 July 2017, and the all-inclusive programme fee is £2,995. This includes tuition, on-campus accommodation, field trips, and weekend excursions, as well as an extensive social programme and premium fitness centre membership.
Visit the LISS website for more details about the programme, scholarships, and application process.
See all Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences news
Professor Melvin Hoare wins Royal Astronomical Society award
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences - Thursday 20 January 2022
The Astbury Conversation 25 -26 April 2022
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences - Monday 17 January 2022
Unintended consequences of mask mandates
Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences - Wednesday 12 January 2022


Deep dive: inside Strange Horticulture's delightful Steam success
Cozy puzzle detective games for the win.
[The GameDiscoverCo game discovery newsletter is written by 'how people find your game' expert & company founder Simon Carless, and is a regular look at how people discover and buy video games in the 2020s.]
Welcome to the working week, folks. And I'm also grinning and waving to all of you attending GDC this week in San Francisco - sounds like it's going to be a busy one. In the meantime, we'll be keeping you well-stocked for newsletters.
Oh, random 'music while working' mix suggestion to start your week? This early jungle mix from LDLN on NTS, inspired by the exhibit Sweet Harmony: Radio, Rave & Waltham Forest, 1989-1994, is great if you dig proto-UK drum and bass. (If you want something more downtempo, may I recommend Mixmaster Morris' Mixcloud?)
[FYI: we're still doing a 30% off the first year of GameDiscoverCo Plus deal for the next 30 paid subs. You get data-rich exclusive newsletters (what's really selling and why?), custom Steam/console charts to rank and data-export, two eBooks, a member-only Discord & more.]
Strange Horticulture - behind its Steam success?
We've recently been talking to Erik Schreuder, CEO of indie publisher Iceberg Interactive - and we're delighted to share insights and outcomes from the late January 2022 release of the Bad Viking-developed 'occult puzzle game' Strange Horticulture on Steam/PC, which has racked up almost 1,700 Overwhelmingly Positive Steam reviews since then.
The game was sitting at around 20,000 Steam wishlists at launch. But what's been really impressive is its first-week results (about 5x as good as median, according to our Plus data), and its long term sales. It's now the 18th best performing new January 2022 title by total Steam reviews to date - which is great for such a small title.
The game was made by a two brothers based in the UK, whom GameDeveloper.com got to discuss the creation of the game just after its debut, btw. (They've been making Flash games like Bad Eggs Online for almost a decade before creating this, so have a lot of experience shipping titles!)
Anyhow, Erik from Iceberg was kind enough to share both lifetime Steam revenue to date (below), as well as talk pre-release wins & lots more in the below Q&A. Let's go:
Q: When you signed this title, what things specifically appealed to you about it? Why did you think it might do well on Steam?
Erik: Strange Horticulture had a really great demo. The art is adorable, the characters are charming and the mystery is really intriguing. It's also an oddly relaxing game that captures the vibes of tabletop classic like Sherlock Holmes: Consulting Detective, a real rainy-day experience with a wonderful pace, we just loved it.
In commercial terms, the game gave us a bit of a Potion Craft vibe, which is a great market to tap into, as well as elements of other favorites of the team, such as Papers Please. We felt it was destined to be a success - in fact, we can't remember a time when the entire team was so in agreement about a title.
Q: How do you feel about the Next Fest inclusion for the game, and Next Fest in general for your games? Was that a major reason why the game picked up interest - the demo?
Honestly, we're a bit mixed now about Next Fest. When Steam started to run these events in 2020 they were fantastic. We saw a lot of engagement across all our participating titles - store visits, wishlists, and follower. In some cases, this was well beyond the other digital events we did during the pandemic.
However, we're finding each event is worse than the last across these metrics - likely due to both too many games participating, and less excitement from audiences to really get engaged. October traditionally and this February in particular were busy periods, with more exciting AAA releases to soak up the limited attention.
Strange Horticulture was an outlier though, and did perform well during the October '21 Next Fest. But that was more thanks to the external traffic generated by a very positive Rock Paper Shotgun feature than through the event itself.
That said, we can credit the demo (which we premiered at Gamescom) for catching the eye of RPS originally. This opened the door for us to send them a bigger preview build with an embargo timed for Next Fest. So the demo was critical - but we could debate if Next Fest in particular is a reason for our success.
Q: Is there anything specific about the community management or marketing for this game that you think helped?
On the surface we think Strange Horticulture is a wonderfully "hooky" game. It has superficial qualities that aren't played out and generic, but are still quite universal and have a strong audience appeal. Books, cats, plants, old maps - they gave us a lot to work with in our marketing to stand apart, and to help target our messaging at different and diverse communities.
We wanted to reach folks on Reddit, but had our doubts about development-focused subreddits like r/indiedev and the like. Sure, a pretty gif of the map unfurling might have performed well, but it wasn't exactly the audience we were trying to reach.
Instead, we focused on subreddits like r/MapPorn, r/ImaginaryMaps, r/IndoorGarden, and r/Houseplants (above). We wanted to make sure our posts reached people who would 'get' the beauty of Strange Horticulture, rather than throwing stuff at every proverbial wall and seeing what sticks.
A big factor in this, though, was authenticity. Bad Viking's Rob, who was the one posting on Reddit, genuinely enjoyed using the site, and would also post random pictures of his plants and terrarium. It helps when you can show you're a part of a community, rather than using it for self-promotion.
After launch, we continue to monitor mentions of the game through F5bot, occasionally popping into threads. The game is even mentioned on D&D subreddits, urging DMs to pick it up and use its puzzles and plants in their own games.
The post-release Steam wishlist surge for Strange Horticulture shows very strong 'word of mouth', in GameDiscoverCo's view.
Q: Directly after release, the game seems to have done very well vs. expectations. We have its first week 'Hype to Reality' score as about 5x as good as a normal game. Were there things directly after release that you can point to?
Following her preview in October, Alice Bell from Rock Paper Shotgun recommended the game in a full review at launch. After that we started to get love from many more press outlets - helped in part by being able to send review keys out more than a month ahead of launch, which isn't very typical.
The game was released in January, and before the December holiday, we sent out keys to press and gave them a longer time to review the game than we normally do. We were lucky that the developers were completely ready in time to allow us to do so, and that the game was relaxing and cozy to play over a holiday.
As a publisher, we've never had a true Game of the Year contender, and that's what this is. It's still one of the best reviewed PC games of 2022 so far, even after an especially fruitful Q1 for quality releases. It's also important that the actual players agreed with the press, quickly voting the game into Outstandingly Positive on Steam, which has perpetuated our visibility and sales there for much longer than usual.
Launching on a Friday also served us very well. It can be a double-edged sword - the downside, of course, being that your first couple days after launch are stressful as any bugs need to be addressed quickly.
On the other hand, the larger Friday crowd on Steam can potentially boost initial sales enough to keep a game in the New & Trending section on the front page, which turned into a positive algorithm feedback loop that worked very well for Strange Horticulture. Of course, the more games that do this, the less often it will work!
Wow, long tail! As Iceberg notes: "[sales] have not declined as much as one would expect over time, and it's still never done under 300 units per day."
Q: The game seems to have good long-term 'word of mouth' support. Why do you think that is?
Strange Horticulture is so cozy. It's relaxing, but has an intense buildup and a feeling that something dark is just around the corner. The puzzles are not necessarily difficult, though every time they feel rewarding to complete. There is no time pressure and failure just makes you want to go back and try again. Solving a mystery or objective gets more rewarding as the story branches deeper, and the player is introduced to new personalities, locations and plants.
The game has a very strong theme, and that helps people identify friends and family members who would enjoy it. Everyone knows someone who would enjoy running an occult plant shop, whether they are into Harry Potter and other whimsical fantasy media, or are just big fans of plants.
You won't believe the sheer amount of people with "cat dad" or "plant mom" in their Twitter bios, tagging other plant and cat parents because they were 100% convinced they'd love Strange Horticulture too!
We got a bit lucky as well with a current trend that seems to be just ramping up, in cozy witchy games. Strange Horticulture (as well as Potion Craft and Songs of Glimmerwick, for example) was perfectly positioned to appeal to fans of this content. And right now, as we're all recovering from 2+ years of the COVID pandemic and other global stressors, a bit of magical cozy escapism is just what we all need.
[Thanks to Erik and the Bad Viking crew for letting us chat. We think the game's doing so great - and it'll easily sell 250,000-500,000+ units over time - because it's incredibly well made, feels high-value, and as they say, has the right vibe and genre for the right time. Congrats.]
Dispatches from GameDiscoveryLand.. c. 2009?
Looking back into the deep, dark history of digital console/mobile and PC game sales, we found an interesting artifact. Can you believe that some idiot was trying to estimate these sales all the way back in 2009? And it was… me. (*muted applause*)
Somebody pointed out that a couple of my old GDC presentations were still available over on Slideshare. And so I made this GDC 2009 presentation, 'Independent Games Sales & Stats 101', available in slide form via Google Drive.
This is interesting and fun because heck, it was early times for digital console and mobile games. Xbox Live Arcade - as it was called then - was fairly new, and even iPhone had only launched in June 2007. Some takeaways from the slides:
Oh, the lack of digital games! There were only 60 downloadable games total (?!) on PlayStation 3 in early 2009 & very few were not via first-party or big publishers. And just 196 Xbox Live Arcade games overall, all of which had compulsory free demos (remember that?)
We even have leaderboard-derived XBLA sales estimates for 2009, which are fascinating in hindsight: "R-Type Dimensions = 40,000 units, Castle Crashers = 553,000 units, Braid = 278,000 units, Penny Arcade Adventures Vol. 2 = 17,000 units, Space Giraffe = 24,000 units, N+ = 229,000 units." This was with 'only' 28 million Xbox 360s sold at the time, btw - but a relative lack of XBLA releases.
As for the iPhone, this was before F2P took over, of course. On the high end, the stats were pretty good: "iShoot was #1 in the App Store on January 11th 2009 with 17,000 downloads at $2.99 each - in one day - [which was] $35,700 to the developer." But the open platform made success trickier: "Of 25+ daily games, speaking to iPhone indie developers and looking online, I estimate only 1-2 sell more than v.low hundreds of copies."
So there you go. Oh, and this was even early for Steam itself. This is why it's listed as a 'core' PC game portal alongside things like Direct2Drive (!), and direct selling PC games via your own website was still discussed first in the slides. Ah, halcyon days…
(There's also a wider GDC China 2009 slide set of mine, for 'Independent Games In The West - Market Trends' that I also ported to GDrive - the source of the above image.)
The game discovery news round-up..
Time to go through the notable game platform and discovery news since the last time we caught up, eh? And one thing that we particularly wanted to highlight to kick off was Epic's very generous pledge to donate all Fortnite proceeds from March 20th to April 3rd to Ukraine relief. Wow.
Look, it's already $36 million after just one day - so who knows how high it will go? The Epic/Fortnite team absolutely did not have to be so generous, but they did - and I hope we all take note and think about how we can do better too. Onward:
Leading the 'we love charts with numbers' news for this week is Ars Technica's Kyle Orland trying to rank Elden Ring's launch against other major games (above). There's multiple charts in there - we just extracted the longer-term one. Also: "As far as FromSoftware's recent catalog is concerned, Elden Ring is already in a class by itself… [it] has outsold each individual game in the Demon's/Dark Souls series, as well as… spiritual successors Bloodborne and Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice."
The subject of 'are publishers responsible for making sure the developers they've signed have a healthy workplace environment?' came up loud and clear twice late last week - both in this video discussing Mountains, Fullbright and Funomena, and this article on Moon Studios. (The primary responsibility is the dev studio itself. But thinking about checks and balances at a funder level is also good.)
VGInsights tried some high-level number crunching in asking what we can learn from higher-grossing games on Steam. Not sure I agree with all of these, because there's so much data to wade through here. But some like 'top developers pick the right genres' and 'successful developers specialize' are things we can wholeheartedly agree with.
In Steam Deck and Xbox news, two of the most functional platform dev teams combined "to bring support for Xbox Cloud Gaming (Beta) with Xbox Game Pass Ultimate through Microsoft Edge Beta for the Steam Deck." Good stuff, and Ars Technica tested it out, noting: "both Stadia and Xbox Cloud Gaming performed admirably via a wireless 5GHz Wi-Fi signal in terms of both image quality and button-tap latency."
Publisher/funder notes: funder (and NOT publisher) Kowloon Nights is still funding new games, and hit $150m in lifetime revenue on the back of Sifu's success; Humble Games actually bought the Monaco IP and is funding a sequel, showing the continued publisher move to boost company value via owned IP.
Some interesting Game Pass data - the /ID@Xbox Game Showcase via Twitch had some great-looking titles last week, with a fairly large percent also coming to Game Pass. There were both multi-title Game Pass deal showcases (Fellow Traveller) and surprise 'it's out and it's on Game Pass right now!' (Tunic) reveals in there. Seems like Game Pass content marketing is getting more sophisticated.
Ubisoft made a cloud announcement, but it's not cloud streaming for players. It's Ubisoft Scalar, which is "a new foundational technology that enables Ubisoft titles to utilize the power of the cloud to ensure that developers aren't limited by time or hardware." Only for internal Ubisoft studios, but promises "more players in a single shared world", as "the processing power for a game isn't tied to a single machine, but a decentralized computation system."
As game subscription services continue to grow, they will use metrics - sometimes changing metrics - to decide what games to commission and fund. The mid-2020 Apple Arcade pivot is a great example of this. Which is why I read this post-cancellation interview with the Netflix 'Baby-Sitters Club' TV producer with interest: "When you only have your numbers in a vacuum and you don't know the numbers of anything else, you don't know what you're trying to hit." Different media and model, but lots of interesting questions raised.
Finally, we Tweeted this at the weekend, but below is a slightly updated version. It's our GameDiscoverCo Plus-exclusive monthly Steam chart, showing the best-performing new games of March 2022 on Steam - time-adjusted for total reviews in Week 1. Gives you a good idea of trends and performance:
Three minor caveats/details, btw. 1. F2P games are excluded. 2. Any game with a red * hasn't finished its first week yet, so will rise in the rankings further. 3. The 'Hype Score to First Week Ratio' figure is based on pre-release Hype (followers, wishlist ranking, etc), with an approximate median of 0.15 for medium/larger games. Data!
[We're GameDiscoverCo, an agency based around one simple issue: how do players find, buy and enjoy your premium PC or console game? We run the newsletter you're reading, and provide consulting services for publishers, funds, and other smart game industry folks.]


Drakenguard 3 Collector's Edition Announced
April 2, 2014 by Adam Neaves
Square Enix have today revealed details for a special collector's for their upcoming title, Drakenguard 3.
There are only 2000 units available and will come containing a number of exclusive goodies. It can be pre-ordered today via the official Square Enix Europe Store and will cost €69.99.
The collector's edition includes the game as a digital PSN code, will comprise a hardback Novella, CD soundtrack selections, double-sided poster; and four DLC items: the Caim costume, Prequel stage, Giant Baby hat and the Japanese Voiceover. The contents will be encased in clamshell packaging.
Drakenguard 3 will be available for the PlayStation 3 digitally on May 21st. Those who pre-order from mid-April will also get the Japanese Voiceover DLC. Larry Sparks, Vice President – Brand at Square Enix Europe stated:
The Collector's Edition has been produced in response to fans' requests for it to be made available across PAL territories, We always listen to our audience and investigate what can be done. The new methods of digital publishing allow us to deliver games directly to fans and for Drakengard 3 – it means we can offer a core fan base something they requested – the opportunity to own the game in a boutique physical Collector's Edition.
Let us know if you will be getting the Collector's Edition via the comment section below.
drakenguard 3


Fri, Sep 28, 2007 page4
Matsu Islands to host summit on marine goddess
Academia Sinica is organizing an international conference next month to discuss belief in the goddess Matsu and her connection with the Matsu Islands, officials with the Lienchiang County Government's Cultural Affairs Bureau said yesterday.
The officials said that Academia Sinica's Institute of Ethnology would invite 40 academics from Taiwan and abroad to participate in the conference on Oct. 17 and Oct. 18 at the Matsu Folklore Culture Museum in Nangan (南竿), one of five major islands in the Matsu archipelago.
Altogether, 15 papers will be presented at the conference on different aspects of the belief in the "Goddess of the Sea" and the historical relationship with the Matsu Islands.
Matsu was born in 960AD to a fisherman's family in China's Fujian Province during the Sung dynasty and was given the name Lin Mo-niang (林默娘).
Legend has it she was a genius with supernatural powers, including the ability to calm storms at sea. The numerous miracles ascribed to her include rescuing sailors in distress and curing the sick with her vast knowledge of Chinese medicine.
One day, at the age of 28, she told her parents it was time for her to leave them. After reaching the top of a mountain near her home, she was encircled by clouds and carried into the heavens in a golden glow amid enchanting celestial music.
She was deified and referred to as Matsu. Emperors in the Ming and Ching dynasties referred to her as the "Heavenly Empress."
Residents on the Matsu Islands, however, have a different version of the story. They believe that Lin Mo-niang drowned while trying to rescue her father from a storm at sea, and that her body was washed ashore on the island of Nangan.
A temple named the Palace of the Heavenly Empress was built on Nangan. The temple is said to contain her sarcophagus.
The local people also named the archipelago Matsu in memory of the goddess, but the first character in the name was later changed to give it a different tone so as to make it sound more masculine.
Today, Matsu has become the most widely worshipped deity in Taiwan, with temples dedicated to her seen in almost every township and city.
Academia Sinica is the nation's most prominent academic institution, with more than 1,000 full-time research fellows undertaking in-depth academic research on various subjects.


BACK OFF
Sharon Osbourne pulls out of X Factor auditions with painful back problem, forcing Britain's Got Talent star Alesha Dixon to step in
The popular TV judge has flown back to Los Angeles for medical treatment - but hopes to be back soon
By Andy Halls, TV Editor
Updated: 25 Mar 2019, 16:58
X Factor judge Sharon Osbourne has been forced to pull out of today's auditions in Edinburgh due to a bad back.
The television star, 64, flew back to Los Angeles to see a doctor, after a recurring injury following surgery returned.
Sharon Osbourne has been forced to fly back to LA with a painful back problemCredit: Splash News
She will be replaced by Britain's Got Talent judge Alesha Dixon, 38 - who also filled in for Nicole Scherzinger on the panel on Saturday.
An X Factor spokeswoman told The Sun's Bizarre column: "Unfortunately, Sharon is suffering from niggling back problems following surgery earlier in the year and will be unable to take part in the Edinburgh auditions.
"Alesha will be guest judging on the panel today."
She is facing further surgery to fix a trapped nerve which has been causing her incredible pain in recent months.
Sharon - married to Black Sabbath rocker Ozzy, 68 - hurt her back playing with her grandchildren earlier this year and was forced to undergo surgery.
She was left unable to wear heels for over a month, and had to go under the knife to have it fixed.
Aleesha Dixon seemed pretty confident at the X Factor auditions in Edinburgh todayCredit: Splash News
Today Scherzy and Aleesha got to work together on the panel for the first timeCredit: Splash News
Louis looked ready for a busy day of auditions... and probably some oddball chancers, tooCredit: Splash News
She said at the time: ""I was on the floor with them playing with toys and I got up. As I got up from the floor, my back — I just felt this twist in my back at the base of my spine.
"They tried to do it with an epidural to ease the pain – that didn't do any good, so I had to go in and have surgery. And I've been in bed doing nothing. My life has just been like nothing."
A show source said: "Alesha was brilliant at the weekend when filling in for Nicole - and will do a great job again.
"Sharon's back and health is the most important thing - so hopefully she feels better soon."
Viewers might be pleased to see Aleesha is a bit less scantily clad for X Factor than BGTCredit: Splash News
The 2017 X Factor panel features Simon Cowell, Louis Walsh, Nicole Scherzinger and Sharon Osbourne
The Sun revealed last week how Alesha had been drafted in to replace former Pussycat Doll Nicole after the auditions clashed with a prior work commitment agreed before she returned to the show's panel.


OKC stumbles in San Antonio, 103-99 - Photo Gallery
Oklahoma City Thunder's Steven Adams (12) shoots against San Antonio Spurs' LaMarcus Aldridge, right, and Dejounte Murray during the first half of an NBA basketball game Thursday, March 29, 2018, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Darren Abate)
Oklahoma City Thunder's Russell Westbrook (0) drives around San Antonio Spurs' Dejounte Murray during the first half of an NBA basketball game Thursday, March 29, 2018, in San Antonio. (AP Photo/Darren Abate)
San Antonio Spurs forward LaMarcus Aldridge dunks during the second half of the team's NBA basketball game against the Oklahoma City Thunder, Thursday, March 29, 2018, in San Antonio. San Antonio won 103-99. (AP Photo/Darren Abate)
Oklahoma City Thunder guard Russell Westbrook (0) passes to center Steven Adams (12) as he is pressured by San Antonio Spurs' Kyle Anderson (1), Dejounte Murray (5) and Patty Mills during the second half of an NBA basketball game Thursday, March 29, 2018, in San Antonio. San Antonio won 103-99. (AP Photo/Darren Abate)
San Antonio Spurs' Dejounte Murray (5) drives past Oklahoma City Thunder's Paul George during the second half of an NBA basketball game Thursday, March 29, 2018, in San Antonio. San Antonio won 103-99. (AP Photo/Darren Abate)


First Do No Harm: Law, Ethics and Healthcare
Sheila A. M. McLean
Series: Applied Legal Philosophy
ISBN 9781315582450 - CAT# YE79834
April 15, 2016 by Routledge
This collection brings together essays from leading figures in the field of medical law and ethics which address the key issues currently challenging scholars in the field. It has also been compiled as a lasting testimony to the work of one of the most eminent scholars in the area, Professor Ken Mason. The collection marks the academic crowning of a career which has laid one of the foundation stones of an entire discipline. The wide-ranging contents and the standing of the contributors mean that the volume will be an invaluable resource for anyone studying or working in medical law or medical ethics.
Professor McLean is the first holder of the International Bar Association Chair of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University and is Director of the Institute of Law and Ethics in Medicine at Glasgow University.
'...it is imperative that works of the calibre of First Do No Harm are published...it is a valuable resource for individuals, particularly academics and postgraduate students in the disciplines of health law, medical ethics and philosophy...the chapters are of an extremely high standard, and make a valuable contribution to the literature. Bringing together such a large number of accomplished authors from a variety of disciplines and countries was an ambitious exercise, one that Professor McLean has achieved with distinction.' Journal of Law and Medicine 'In First Do No Harm, not only is the work of Professor Ken Mason celebrated, contributors have sought to take some issues in medical law further and, as such, it provides much more than a celebration of Ken Mason's innovative contribution to the discipline of ethics and medical law from its early beginnings. This is not like most festschrift texts- the expertise of the contributors brought together in this volume presents the reader with a collection of articles that functions well as an informative and insightful text book...Specialists and researchers in this field will find this a very worthwhile collection, both as a retrospective perusal of Ken Mason's influence, and as a contemporary analysis of the debates he has had an important role in shaping.' Medical Law Review 'The wide-ranging contents plus the standing of the contributors mean that the volume will be an invaluable resource for anyone studying or working in medical law or medical ethics...The collection is comprehensive, rich in argument, balanced, interesting; and, in addition to reviewing and criticizing what is, it also argues for what ought to be in the wide area of medical ethics.' Metapsychology


The Kia Soul is one of the most recognizable vehicles in the global automotive industry. Customers looking to utilize this game-changing platform will likely be able to find an affordable and well-equipped used Kia Soul in Rochester, NY at the Auction Direct USA facility. Kia has really built something special when they started rolling the Soul out of its factories. The Kia Soul doesn't fit cleanly into any single automotive category. It's technically a wagon, but it handles like a sedan and offers interior dimensions of a crossover SUV. Auction Direct USA currently has several models of the Kia Soul for consideration at its New York facility. Each of these models offers a differing set of equipment so a closer look will be required. Customers can schedule an appointment with an Auction Direct USA product expert today by calling, 844-287-5491.
Just about every used Kia Soul in Rochester, NY makes a strong case for being one of the most technologically advanced vehicles in its class of the automotive industry. As customers examine Soul models closer to the new model year, they will see ever more advanced standard equipment. At a minimum, most of the available used Kia Soul models at Auction Direct USA will have a rearview camera and Bluetooth connectivity. Drivers and passengers will be able to use the wireless connection to make and receive phone calls without picking up their phones in addition to streaming music and podcasts. Later versions of the Kia Soul will have an even more advanced infotainment system equipped. These newer models will also have compatibility with the most popular apps from today's most popular smartphone platforms.
Pre-owned Kia Soul inventory
Interested in this model?
LocationsAuction Direct USA (Rochester)Auction Direct USA (Raleigh)Service - Auction Direct (Durham)
Standard Performance
Avail. Technology
1.6-L, 4-Cyl. 5-passenger capacity Rearview camera
130 hp/118 lb.-ft. 61 cu.-ft. max cargo volume Bluetooth connectivity
Six-speed manual 39.1 in. rear legroom USB inputs
24 mpg city/30 mpg hwy Avail. sunroof MP3-compatible
There are a variety of powertrain options available for the used Kia Soul in Rochester, NY at Auction Direct USA. The base level of the Kia Soul for most model years is powered by a naturally aspirated 1.6-liter, four-cylinder engine and is attached to a six-speed manual transmission. It will make 130 horsepower and 118 pound-feet of torque. Some of the Kia Soul options at Auction Direct USA may also feature a six-speed automatic gear changer. Other engine options include a 2.0-liter, four-cylinder engine making a 164 horsepower and 151 pound-feet of torque. Later models may also feature a 201-horsepower, turbocharged, 1.6-liter engine.
2012 Kia Soul Plus
2015 Kia Soul Exclaim


Burgum, Cramer lead TV White Space initiative promoting new wireless broadband technology in rural America
Wednesday, July 19, 2017 - 10:00am
BISMARCK, N.D. – Governor Doug Burgum and Congressman Kevin Cramer announced they will begin circulating letters for signature within the House of Representatives and across all 50 states to encourage the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt new spectrum standards so a breakthrough high-speed wireless broadband technology can be made available across the United States, and specifically rural America.
The broadband technology, known as TV White Spaces (TVWS) and developed by Microsoft, is a low-cost alternative to other conventional broadband platforms such as 4G or traditional fiber-optic broadband deployment. Much like a conventional Wi-Fi signal, TVWS can travel more than 10 miles on a single antenna and produce internet speeds of more than 100 megabits per second, making it perfect for use in extremely remote areas of rural America.
Because TVWS operates on a portion of the existing broadband spectrum that is mostly unused, the wireless internet signal is low-cost, requires minimal infrastructure, and is more dependable than the limited connections available in many rural areas. As part of Microsoft's Airband Initiative, they are giving royalty-free access to at least 39 patents and sample source code for companies to develop and deploy TVWS technology.
"Believing strongly in the power of technology and innovation to drive economic growth, we recognize that white space spectrum has the potential to dramatically expand access and reduce the costs of high-speed internet, especially for our nation's rural communities," Burgum said. "Broadband internet can transform communities, whether it's connecting students to new skills, helping doctors treat their patients or empowering businesses to reach new markets and create new jobs."
"As Members of Congress, we like to stress the importance of eliminating the 'digital divide' in America – this new technology could be one solution to do just that," said Cramer. "The public spectrum is owned by the taxpayers of this country, and to the best of our ability, we need make sure it's being used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Opening up one more channel of spectrum for unlicensed use will allow the TV White Space industry to take shape in the United States, and will bring us one step closer to giving 35 million Americans access to high-speed internet for the very first time."
Over the coming weeks, Cramer and Burgum will seek signatures on their respective letters with the goal of freeing up unlicensed spectrum for TVWS broadband. Specifically, the letters will urge the FCC to preserve at least three 6 MHz television white space channels in every media market across the United States in order to promote access to affordable broadband internet, particularly in rural and underserved areas.
In the House of Representatives, Congressman Cramer is leading the letter along with Reps. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Mark Meadows, and Austin Scott. As a co-chair of the Congressional Rural Broadband Caucus and a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has oversight jurisdiction of the FCC, Cramer continues to look for solutions to solve the digital divide across North Dakota and Rural America.
Burgum will be circulating a letter among the nation's governors in the coming weeks, encouraging their endorsement of the new technology.


ONLINE EVENT ADVISORY: Cecilia Rouse and Gene Sperling Discuss How They Are Tracking Our Economic Recovery
Press Advisory May 17, 2022
Washington, D.C. — At the beginning of 2021, the United States was in the midst of a halting economic recovery, with elevated unemployment rates, slowing job growth, and very few Americans vaccinated against COVID-19. Forecasters predicted a slow recovery, with major measures of the labor market not recovering to their pre-pandemic levels for several years.
But in March 2021, Congress passed and President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). The rescue act policies are a central reason that the U.S. economy has recovered at a historic pace, with the strongest growth in decades and workers gaining not only a record number of jobs but also more power to demand higher wages. The rescue act changed the trajectory of the U.S. economy by providing direct economic relief to help families struggling with economic disruptions amid the pandemic. As a result, the American economy is confronting challenges such as the war in Ukraine and global inflation from a position of strength, with a strong labor market and relatively healthy household finances.
Please join the Center for American Progress for a discussion that will focus on the current health of the U.S. economy, how the rescue plan and other policies have contributed to the recovery, and what policies will be needed going forward to ensure an economy that works for all Americans.
Please submit any questions for our distinguished panel via email at CAPeventquestions@americanprogress.org or Twitter using #CAPEvents. Live captioning will be available on Zoom and the YouTube livestream.
Distinguished panelists:
Dr. Cecilia Rouse, Chair, White House Council of Economic Advisers
Gene Sperling, American Rescue Plan Coordinator, White House
Patrick Gaspard, President and CEO, Center for American Progress
11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. ET
You must RSVP at this link to watch the livestream event.
For more information or to speak to an expert, contact Julia Cusick at jcusick@americanprogress.org.