⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Kevin Holland Research Paper
New Kevin Holland Research Paper continue to transform the economic landscape, but we know Cognitive Fixedness Experiment Kevin Holland Research Paper about the sources Kevin Holland Research Paper capital and investment behavior of these firms before they Kevin Holland Research Paper public. Rhines; T. Cohen, Randolph B. Kevin Holland Research Paper A Connelly. Bowen; Doris Sutton. Consultations listed on the site are updated regularly by participating government departments Kevin Holland Research Paper agencies.
Kevin Holland Vs Kyle Daukaus - MMA Highlights - Headclash - NO CONTEST
Such participation is effected in multiple ways and at various levels, from informal local and community settings, through incorporated entities, NGOs and peak bodies, to such key institutions as legislatures, the courts and the public service. Democracies are socially and culturally distinctive, developing traditions, conventions and structures that reflect the values and habits of their citizens. First, democracy should rest on a constitutional order, by which the power of any particular government of the day is limited to appropriate spheres of action. Third, the executive government should be counterbalanced by a constitutional opposition, to probe, question and help the community control the power of government.
And fifth, the whole political structure should rest on a pluralistic, participatory society, which maintains a vigorous group life. These five features together cover the main themes of modern democratic literature. It is a complex and fluid endeavour. We shape our world through public policy. This public policy is made not only by politicians, but by thousands of public servants and the tens of thousands of women and men who petition parliaments and ministers, who join interest groups, comment through the media or represent unions, corporations and community movements. All have a stake in public policy. The entire community is affected by public policy. To that end, public servants are being exhorted to collaborate, not merely consult; to reach out, not merely respond.
This means engaging with people who are increasingly well-educated, attuned to their rights as citizens and voters, who have ready access to information and broad exposure to the voices of opinion-leaders, experts and advocates. This is not to deny the challenges of engaging with marginalised or disaffected citizens and groups—a thorough consideration of which is beyond the scope of this paper. The purpose here is to acknowledge the growing expectations of citizens to be more effectively involved in policymaking and service design, and to explore the responsibilities and capacities of the Australian Public Service APS to initiate and facilitate such engagement. Given that the language of choice and customisation permeates the consumer world of goods and services that citizens inhabit, such expectations increasingly frame their view about the content and delivery of public services.
Governments realise that they must harness the ideas, knowledge, wisdom and skills of the non-government sector—business, academia, the professions, and voluntary organisations. Failure to engage will waste resources and curtail opportunities. It draws on the recent public policy literature, and on commentary and case studies, to describe the cultural and procedural changes that might be needed if the APS is to realise its vision of collaborative, democratically-legitimised policymaking and service design.
The paper considers current reform initiatives in the APS and examines the implications of citizen-centric ideals for the processes and structures of government agencies, for the attributes, skill sets and dispositions of public servants, and for the culture of the APS. Examples include such diverse matters as budget formulation, land management and health care.
The philosophical basis for citizen engagement and participation is famously ascribed to 5 th century BCE Athenian democrats and claimed to be a defining feature of the intellectual and political heritage of the West—although significant other sources of democratic thought and practice have been identified in the early Muslim world. Arendt pursued a strong version of political engagement which she considered to be a profound cultural achievement rather than something emerging naturally from human nature.
This makes involving citizens in deliberation about governance and the design of policies and services no simple task. Shergold is currently championing a large scale, practical and symbolic initiative in participatory citizenship—working title Australia Forum— to foster civic engagement in democratic dialogue. It is these concepts and principles that resonate through the arguments for reform being urged upon the APS in the various reports and analyses discussed below.
There are, of course, reasons for community engagement other than the ethical imperatives of democracy and promotion of a strong conception of citizenship. By engaging with citizens, governments can benefit from expert knowledge beyond their immediate realm of information, expertise and advice, while creating at the same time opportunities to educate people about policy alternatives. But the most important reason for genuine engagement with citizens remains that of legitimising, in the strong sense articulated by Habermas, the decisions and policies that governments finally settle upon.
In its assessment of citizen engagement practices, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD reported that, whereas considerable progress had been made in the provision of information, large differences remained between OECD countries when it comes to consultation. Since , several governments in OECD countries and elsewhere have genuinely sought to strengthen mainstream citizen participation in policy development and the design and delivery of services. Not surprisingly, governments in countries with strong traditions of devolved governance and a vibrant civil society have been most successful in bringing citizens into policy and service design.
The report also highlights three important challenges for participation:. Broadly speaking, the question is not so much whether pressures for citizen engagement in policymaking and service design will intensify, but rather how far politicians and ministers will be willing to risk real engagement, and how successful public servants will be in enabling it to happen. Mirroring this question—and an issue considered briefly later— is that of the capabilities and inclinations of citizens who have been denied access to, or chosen to reject, those opportunities for engagement, however well-intentioned or thoughtfully designed those opportunities might be.
The overall aim of NPM was Key components of NPM at the Commonwealth level in Australia have included making the work of public servants contestable; the introduction of performance management, including individual performance assessment and pay; the devolution of centralised managerial controls to individual agencies; the re-structuring of public sector industrial relations according to contract-based models; and the outsourcing of complex service delivery to non-government organisations. Most people working within, and writing about, the public service during the implementation of NPM reforms, have accepted that these disciplines have improved its flexibility and efficiency. Much of the literature surrounding NPM invoked entrepreneurialism, a focus on outputs and metrics, responsiveness to clients and the cutting of red tape.
Such imperatives have become increasingly urgent as corporate and other sites of publicly unaccountable power seem to be exercising a growing, and potentially disastrous, influence over both states and citizens. One might, for example, regard the global financial crisis of —9 as only the latest in a string of major events that have galvanised public concern about who really exercises control over our individual and collective lives, about the role of citizens in influencing policies, and about what citizens and governments might do together to regain the ability to secure the policies and outcomes that they prefer.
Reforms in the Australian Public Service — Over the past decade, many of the reforms to the public service have involved measures aimed at:. These have included:. Citizen collaboration in policy and service delivery design will enhance the processes of government and improve the outcomes sought. Collaboration with citizens is to be enabled and encouraged. The APSC has contributed significantly to the reform debate by publishing analyses, better practice guides and comprehensive State of the Service reports.
An increasingly prominent feature of these reports and guides has been their advocacy of engagement with citizens. This will involve, where possible, actively engaging citizens and stakeholders in the policy formulation process so that their perspectives and ideas are taken into account. In many cases, it will involve weighing up benefits for one group of citizens against costs imposed on another group. Enable citizens to collaborate with government in policy and service design. This issue is addressed later in this paper. It comprises all departmental secretaries and is the pre-eminent forum for the discussion of issues affecting the APS.
The Board is formally responsible for:. As agencies are exhorted to do more with less, it seems likely that the human and financial resources needed to drive change both in business models and attitudes will prove harder to find. It is certainly the case that the requirement for serious, sustained engagement between governments and citizens has been a persistent theme in the critique and commentary about public service reform throughout the decade to Especially since the publication of the APS blueprint, it has been made clear in the pronouncements and speeches of senior public service figures that the citizen is to be placed firmly at the centre of policymaking and the design and delivery of public services.
The implications of that requirement for the culture and practices of the APS are profound. Engagement, in the governance and policy context that concerns us here, connotes a relatively sustained and systematic interaction between the parties. It involves the sharing of information, the offering of accounts, the giving and receiving of reasons, and the articulation of values. It comprises deliberate strategies for involving those outside government in the policy process. This is not to suggest that questions about relative power between the parties—citizen and state—are absent, nor that the process of engagement dissolves realpolitik via the alchemy of consensus.
At its best, however, engagement results in the joint determination of outcomes and confers legitimacy upon them. Typically, analytical discussions about the practice of engagement identify its various elements as follows:. In recent decades freedom of information legislation has helped create that condition, and the emergence of the Internet has encouraged the flourishing of the information society. Australia participated in the development of, and is a signatory to, these protocols. Some agencies are exploiting Web 2. On legislative or policy matters affecting citizens at large, plebiscites may also be used.
Sometimes, where policies have a particular impact on certain categories of citizens, governments go to considerable lengths to consult with the affected target groups and those who defend their interests. It is about preference formation rather than mere preference assertion. Participation is the highest order of public engagement. In public participation interactions, dialogue and, ideally, deliberation take place. Rather than simply exchanging information, members of both parties sponsors and participants allow the possibility of their opinions being changed. In deliberative settings participants can come to a shared understanding of issues and solutions and can thus make substantially better decisions.
The International Association for Public Participation specifies seven core values for participatory engagement practices that cover both the normative and instrumental dimensions of participation and these are reproduced at Appendix 2. Of the three components of engagement outlined above—information, consultation, participation—a gradient of increasingly democratic efficacy is apparent:. The democratising potential of information alone is limited, as decision-makers are not bound by it. Consultation is more influential, as citizens have greater access to decision-makers and are able to feed into parts of the decision-making process, though they do not have the power to ensure that that their knowledge or opinions are taken into account.
It is public participation, with its deliberative qualities, that is most likely to have positive democratic effects. Any discussion about citizen engagement must continually affirm the public as a distinct and legitimate voice calling to account other sites of power. It can counter the over weighted influence of powerful lobbies. Citizens and businesses are especially important external sources of ideas. Not only are they outside the public sector, but they also directly feel the impact of new policies and services. Governments cannot effectively address needs and concerns that they do not fully understand. In many respects, such a statement reflects the kind of thinking that is current in the market-place among businesses seeking to gain a competitive edge.
User-led innovation is transforming the way many organisations develop new products, services and knowledge. Service-based organisations in particular can benefit from leveraging the participation of their audiences, customers and citizens. The best results are likely to flow from a process of strategic and frequent engagement. Such engagement goes beyond what might be thought of as more traditional forms of consultation to establishing a positive, proactive relationship Apart from enriching the development process, at the very minimum proactive engagement with clients and external stakeholders will confirm assumptions, identify unexpected issues and help build understanding and support for change.
Perhaps the reason most commonly cited in the literature for engaging citizens is instrumental—it maximises the flow of useful knowledge to government decision-makers. The prominent British public policy adviser and consultant to the Australian Government, Geoff Mulgan, stresses this knowledge imperative, and also notes that any government that underestimates its citizens does so at its peril. A majority of economic growth derives from new knowledge and its application; so does most health gain, and most military might. As they use scientific knowledge and evidence of all kinds in their own lives-in everything from dietary choices to business decisions-they expect the same of their governments, are less willing to accept that governments have privileged insights, or that government is a mysterious dark art.
Instead, in fields as varied as health care or climate change, they may have access to at least as much reliable information as government and are unlikely to respect governments which ignore what is known. Several state, territory and local jurisdictions have articulated their commitments to citizen engagement in the form of specific, public declarations to that effect. In summary, they state that engagement with citizens:. The general transparency measures announced included:.
While statements of commitment to engage with citizens can be found throughout all levels of government in Australia, there is considerable variation in the extent to which the rhetoric matches the reality. These are problems that are highly resistant to resolution. In worst cases collaboration can end poorly — dialogue can turn into conflict, hardened positions and stalemate. Collaboration between policymakers and the public demands that both public servants and citizens possess high-level relevant skills and personal attributes. Sound consultative and participatory methodologies are vital.
The Canadian Institute on Governance IOG is frequently cited as a source of advice on these matters, and these methodologies are summarised in Appendix 3. The challenges for public servants in enabling—and for citizens in experiencing— effective engagement are similar to those encountered in deliberative or participatory democracy settings more broadly. Advocates of deliberative democracy do not require the dismantling of the mechanisms of representative democracy as they currently exist, but rather the meaningful supplementation of those mechanisms to better involve citizens. The issue of how well Australian citizens are themselves equipped to engage in collaborative policy development and service design is a vexed one.
Although the issue receives some attention in this paper, the focus of the discussion remains largely on the extent to which Australian public servants are, or should be, skilled in the art of citizen and stakeholder engagement. The kind of engagement usually envisaged between public servants and citizens typically requires of citizens a somewhat demanding set of attributes.
Ideally, if reasoned and respectful public dialogue is to ensue, citizen participants should be well-informed contributors—independently minded but showing the self-command and restraint that facilitates the contributions of others. They require the courage to articulate and defend their views and change them where justified , the civility to listen to and consider contrary views, and the reasoning ability to weigh evidence and assess claims.
They should possess the capacity to defer immediate needs or personal preferences in the interests of longer term benefits or outcomes, or the public good. An induction into the civic dimensions of life through sporting and cultural clubs, voluntary associations would also help. Social exclusion and other deprivations are very likely to discourage many citizens from engagement, especially where inequalities of power and status prevail. Although surveying this research is beyond the scope of this paper, a brief initial consideration of some of the issues seems warranted here. Despite progress in the development of community engagement Barriers can relate to social, cultural and financial issues, to the overall approach to engagement, to procedures and to practical arrangements including specific aspects of this such as the tools used, and the attitudes of those involved.
Modern policy and service delivery responses to social exclusion have involved more rigorous analyses of the nature of disadvantage, and more tailored, personalised and place-based approaches. Some examples of these are described in Appendix 1. But it remains the case that in situations of disadvantage and marginalisation, citizens are even less likely to possess the capabilities—knowledge, skills, dispositions—that would readily enable them to enter into dialogue and sustained deliberation with public servants and other professionals. There are encouraging signs that such approaches are working, building the personal and civic capacities of the citizens involved, and thereby enhancing the quality of the engagement and collaboration achieved.
For example, the formal evaluation of the above-mentioned Centrelink program reported:. At the very least the personalised attention participants received increased their sense of wellbeing, and in most cases self-esteem. For most participants, just the feeling of being listened to for the first time was a positive experience. Other participants confirmed that the tailoring of services to meet their needs produced more tangible outcomes. These reports make clear that increasing the time spent supporting individual, marginalised customers has a positive effect, especially as experienced by participants themselves. The process of holistic interviewing, identification of needs and referrals was greatly appreciated by participants, who overwhelmingly wanted to improve their own circumstances.
It should be self-evident that nurturing the personal capabilities of marginalised and disengaged citizens is a fundamental aspect of enhancing both the prospects for, and success of, subsequent efforts at collaborative policymaking and service delivery. Engaging with socially excluded and other marginalised people in order to design, with them, effective solutions and services requires considerable cross-agency collaboration—something which, as a rule, is notoriously difficult to achieve.
Strong links with external service providers are also required. Better coordination is of itself rarely enough; additional resources are needed. But despite these challenges there are grounds for optimism in the successes of agencies like Centrelink. They express a distinctive commitment to collaboration in policy and services design, with public servants, citizens and relevant stakeholder groups working as partners across the spectrum of activity—from diagnosis and analysis of issues through to tactical and strategic considerations in pursuit of jointly devised outcomes. I find that I can argue the case for greater citizen engagement equally convincingly from the perspectives of shifting power from the state to the individual right?
I can base my rationale either on the democratic rights of individual citizens left? I can posit the benefits of greater involvement of non-government organisations either from the perspective of creating competitive markets for the delivery of public goods right? My point is simply this: the politics of participation is complex but not fatal. Co-production essentially redefines the relationship between public service professionals and citizens from one of dependency to mutuality and reciprocity. On such an account, citizens in receipt of services are conceived as resources of value to, and collaborators in animating, the system, rather than as mere beneficiaries of it.
That is, users of public services are not defined entirely by their needs, but also by what they might contribute to service effectiveness, and to other users and their communities through their own knowledge, experience, skills and capabilities. The past two decades have witnessed successful examples of co-production, including in developing countries  , which typically enable struggling communities and disadvantaged individuals to collaborate with service organisations in designing and implementing solutions to their problems. Some relevant case studies appear in Appendix 1. The evidence In recent years, there has been a radical reinterpretation of the role of policymaking and service delivery in the public domain. Policy is now seen as the negotiated outcome of many interacting policy systems, not simply the preserve of policy planners and top decision-makers.
Similarly, the delivery and management of services are no longer just the preserve of professionals and managers—users and other members of the community are playing a larger role in shaping decisions and outcomes. This is a revolutionary concept in public service Finally, it demands that politicians and professionals find new ways to interface with service users and their communities.
Because co-production entails a different division of power between public service agencies, private sector entities, civil society actors and citizens, questions of governance are especially important. Alison Mignon Jackson. Saber Jafarpour. Hossein Jalili. Nikil S Jayant. Chuanyi Ji. Zhiyang Jin. Kevin Toby Johnson. Ariel B Jones. Yogendra K Joshi. Edward B Joy. Biing Hwang Juang. Prateek Juyal. Edward W Kamen. Rajendra Prasad Kandula.
Mohanalingam Kathaperumal. David C Keezer. James Stevenson Kenney. Angelos D Keromytis. Asif Islam Khan. Bernard J Kippelen. Benjamin D. Kathy Kneeland. Tushar Krishna. Gregory A. Olivia Kulisz. Thomas Jonathan Lancaster. Aaron D Lanterman. Chin-Hui Lee. Charles Cauthen Lever Jr. Frank Li. Shaolan Li. Sung-Kyu Lim. Shu Lin. Brooks Lindsey. Alexandre Daniel Locquet. Ardalan Lotfi. Nelson E Lourenco. Min Luo. Janine Allison Lyn. Xiaoli Ma. Zane Ma. Samer Ahmed Mabrouk. Vijay K Madisetti. Eligio Makransky. Christopher Malbrue. Benjamin Blake Manning.
Gary S May. Keith May. James H McClellan. Michael McKinney. Steven W McLaughlin. Frank Mehnke. A P Meliopoulos. Siri G Melkote. Russell M Mersereau. Jennifer E Michaels. Faith Carmichael Midkiff. Gregory Mihalik. Linda S Milor. Steven Mints. Alexander W Miranda. Michael F Mitchell. Daniel Molzahn. Vincent J Mooney. Elliot Moore II. Rosaland Moss. Saibal Mukhopadhyay. Vidya K Muthukumar. Azad J Naeemi. Kristine S Nagel. Krishna Naishadham. Alexander Gabriel Neal.
Jacqueline L Nemeth. Bao Quang Nguyen. Young Woo Ok. Abdallah Ougazzaden. Tevhide Ozkaya Ahmadov. Salvador Palafox. Ashwin Pananjady Martin. Jeman Park. Jeongsoo Park. Thomas J Parker. Katrina L Patton. Shuva Paul. Alexander C Pearson. John B Peatman. Andrew F. Kevin Q Pham. Deepa Phanish. Etta Pittman. Raquel Plaskett. Anil Babu Poda. Rachel Melton Ponder. Cedric Pradalier. Sharon J Pugh. Hans B Puttgen. Stephen E Ralph. Arijit Raychowdhury. William Terrill Rhodes. Julie L Ridings. Caryn Riley. Gabriel A Rincon-Mora. Tschnadia Robinson. Robert Allen Robinson Jr. Oscar Rodriguez. Ajeet Rohatgi. Justin Romberg. Brian C Rounsaville. Vikram Roy Chowdhury. Brandon Royal. Christopher John Rozell. Sigang Ryu. Maryam Saeedifard.
Brendan D Saltaformaggio. Oluwaseun Sangodoyin. Fatih Sarioglu. Rahul Saxena. Snodgrass; Walter H. Munk; Gaylord R. Tsunamis Gaylord R. Miller; Walter H. Munk; Frank E. P A Tten. Miller; Frank E. Hanse N. Reid, Jr. Chow; E. Meyer; M. Expand All Volume Longuet-Higgins; R. Ibert; Donald W. Robinson; Pierre W Elander. Klots; Bruce B. El-Sayed; Byung D.
Mcllwraith; S. Barotropic Systems George Veronis. Fisher; C. Parsons; J. Odum; Robert J. Beyers; Neal E. Baroclinic Systems George Veronis. Schwartzlose; Daniel M. Ho; R. Mclellan; W. Pearcy; Herbert Curl, Jr. Peterson; J. Faller; Alfred H. Van Andel; Peter L. Grill; Francis A. Shaw; William L. Everett Brett. Krause; H. Menard; S. Groves; Bernard D. Sachs; Samuel O. Platford; Thomas Dafoe. Newton; George C. Hansen; Maurice Rattray, Jr. Bowen; Thomas T. William Behrens. Richardson; William J. Schmitz, Jr. Wooster; Tsaihwa J. Chow; Izadore Barrett. Niiler; A. Robinson; S. Teal; John Kanwisher. Mandelli; Paul R. Rowland Taylor; H. Seliger; W. Fastie; W. Stalcup; W. Owen, Jr. Lawrence Gates. Hoff; James R.
Snyder; Charles S. Pilkey; James B. Carritt; James H. Yentsch; Robert W. Rosfelder; Neil F. Schink; Kent A. Fanning; John Piety. Pandolfo; Philip S. Brown, Jr. Nowlin, Jr. Hydrography And Nutrient Chemistry J. Ryther; D. Menzel; Nathaniel Corwin. Calef; George D. Zetler; Robert A. Groves; Motoyasu Miyata. Vastano; R. Green; D. Jannasch; W. Newell; B. Morgan; Jane Cundy. Carpenter; Virginia E. Barnett; J. Van Andel; John B. Corliss; Vaughan T. Presley; Robert R. Brooks; Henry M. Niiler; S. Packard; Michael L. Capurro; W. Blow; William G. Warren; G. Yentsch; J. Berger; G. Ross Heath. Van Andel. Hubertz; R. Carpenter; H. Baker, Jr. Paskausky; Hugh J. Pruitt; S. Marshall; R. Hulburt; Nathaniel Corwin. Quin; Frank A. Richardson; Allan R.
Carr; Henry J. Hess; G. Hidy; E. Clarke; N. Weigand; H. Farmer; S. Prinsenberg; Maurice Rattray, Jr. Stander; L. Shannon; J. Wooster; Arthur J. Lee; Gunter Dietrich. James Baker, Jr. Pytkowicz; J. Price; S. Calvert; P. Collins; June G. Swift; R. Gordon Pirie. Warsh; M. Garstang; P. Niiler; Pieter S. Rhoads; David K. Backus; James E.
Craddock; Richard L. Haedrich; David L. Ross Heath; Theodore C. Moore, Jr. Somayajulu; David S. Wooster; James H. Betzer; Michael E. Bunt; C. Fowler; L. Plaisted; William S. Bowen; K. Wong; V. Valenzuela; M. Laing; J. Stevenson; Bruce A. Sars Hansen J. Jennings; Linda G. Cannon; Donald W. Shonting; Alfred H. Godfrey; A. Mofjeld; Maurice Rattray, Jr. Loftus; James H. Richardson; George A. Sanford; W.
Wilson; Albert Collier. Brian Matthews; ]. Christian H. Caldwell; D. Cutchin; M. Robinson; B. Bowen; W. Metcalf; John C. Johnson; Michael E. Wiseman, Jr. Crosby; D. Pochapsky; F. Hires; R. Richardson; Henry J. White, Jr. Schubel; E. Millero; Lee D. Hansen; Edward V. Snyder; Linda Smith. Breck Sam Ben-Yaakov; I. Breck" W. Niiler; William S. Ellis T. Vernonis; R. Snyder, L. Wong; P. Reynolds; Donald A. Sammarco; Jeffrey S. Levinton; John C. Lawrence Estuary W. Fowlis; J. Dana Thompson; William E. Harvey; Helen P. Miklas; Vaughan T.
Bowen; William G. Byrne, Jr. Paquette; R. Aller; Richard E. Frederick Grassle; Judith P. Doherty; Dana R. Baird; Donald F. Wilson; Robert C. Beckett; Thomas L. Zottoli; Melbourne R. Howe; M. Abdullah; S. Wooster; Oscar Guillen. Bang; W. Tenore; Mason G. Browne; Edward J. Chesney, Jr. Moore; Pearn P. Snyder; R. Long; J. Irish; D. Hunley; N. Brooks; Pearn P. De Szoeke. Sanford; Reinhard E. Brewer; Alvin Bradshaw. Haedrich; Gilbert T. Rowe; Pamela T. Lang; Willard D. Hartman; Lynton S. Roberts; Stephen P. Murray; Joseph N. Rossby; A. Voorbis; D. Freeland; P. Rhines; T.
Bye; R. Biographical Notes. William C. Zetler; Walter H. Stalcup; William G. Metcalf; Richard G. Reid; Robert S. Burt; Henry Crew; Stephen L. Fofonoff; H. Cannon; Norman P. Laird; Theodore V. Evenson; George Veronis. Millero; Robert T. Millero; Agustin Gonzalez; Gary K. De Szoeke; P. Wooster; Andrew Bakun; Douglas R. Bishop; J. Peter A.
Hayes; David Halpem. Guza; A. Anderson; P. Wiebe; Kenneth H. Burt; Steven H. Boyd; Alfred W. Bender; Christine Gagner. Wiebe; Steven H. Boyd; Clliford Winget. Donguy; C. Emery; Lorenz Magaard. Anderson; Philip B. Bell, Jr. Jumars; Robert R. Harvey; William G. Young; Martin A. Buzas; Martha W. Denman; Trevor Platt. Cane; E. Molinari; Robert E. Morrison; Worth D. Duing; Christopher N. Mooers; Thomas N. Lee; Dennis A. Loeb; Rex A. Swift; Robert R. Zentara; D. Demin; A. Regier; Russ E. Davis; Lloyd A. Yentsch; Charles S. Yentsch; Lois R.
Smith, Jr. Physical Aspects Allen C. Biological consequences Allen C. Lowenthal; Michael E. Pilson; Robert H. Eppley; W. Harrison; S. Chisholm; E.The disposition and knowledge of citizens who Kevin Holland Research Paper is a major consideration. European Journal of ePractice, No. Abdallah Ougazzaden. Ying Kevin Holland Research Paper. Santiago Kevin Holland Research Paper Grijalva.