Is an Asia womanentitled to have equal opportunities in a male-dominated engineering field and keep her dignity in Australia? At the very beginning of this extraordinary tough journey, I questioned: what is sex harassment? What is the difference between sex harassment in workplace and normal social behaviour? After extensive reading, it became clear to me that œany unwelcome sexual advance, a definition of Sex Discrimination Act (SDA)is a necessary condition, but not sufficient. When the œno is not accepted, the subsequent hostile working environments (that is victimisation conducts) form the sufficient condition of sex harassment. In this opening statement, I’m going to describethe unwelcome sexual advances and subsequent academic bully as a result of my rejection since 2008, which are what I shall prove in the next 9 days. Before this, I’d like to tell you who the applicant is. 1. The Applicant 1.1. Academic Ms Chen joined Monash University as a teaching-research academic in May 2008. Previously, she was also employed by Imperial College London and the University of Cambridge. She was awarded two PhD, one in Biomaterials from Imperial College London in 2007, and the other in Metallurgical Physics from the University of Science and Technology Beijing in 1992. Prof Sian Harding from Imperial College Londoncommented œQizhi is an exceptionally bright and creative scientist. On the teaching wise, Prof Alexander Bismarck from Imperial College London commented Qizhi as œa gifted teacher.In short, Ms Chen is an independent, hard-working academic, who develops her academic career at her own right. 1.2. Personality Unlike many women academic in the engineering field who choose to be single and never married, Ms Chen, a conservative Chinese woman,has a family with a 12 years old son, who is the meaning of her life. While pursuing her academic goal, she believes being a mother, having a family with kids is the greatest achievement of a woman. She values loyalty, decency, and honesty. She is a well-balanced woman, having healthy relationships with previous employers and in her private life. She can sensitively sense other peoples demanding and deep-inside feeling, but not over sensitively read into too much. She makes her judgement based on facts. At work, she is collaborative, cooperative, and inclusive at work, which is evidenced by her multi-author publications. Being reasonably flexible, Ms Chen is a person with principles. Competition should be conducted in a healthy way, via hard working rather than by sabotaging competitors. If to accept sex harassment and bully is what is expected from a team player, she is proud to be not such a team player. 2. Unwelcome sexual advances-George Simon Since June 2008, Prof Simon conducted a serious of sexual advances towards Ms Chen, including physical touches of highly sensitive parts of woman,suggestive communications, stocking and trapping. Like most sex harassment cases, a number of incidents in this case happenedbehind closed door. Today I’ll focus on three incidents:œpeace and quiet, stocking at the Caulfield campus and trapping me during a business trip. Finally I will show Ms Chen’s sixabundantly clear rejections. 2.1. Requesting spending time with Ms Chen in peace and quiet The applicant will use emails to prove the œpeace and quiet related sexual advance. (a) On 26 Aug 2008, Mr Simon suggested a meeting with Ms Chen at 5pm to talk about her research, which Ms Chen agreed with no problem. Immediately before the meeting, Mr Simon’s wife called him. After the phone call, Mr Simon still insisted a 10-min meeting with Ms Chen. Ms Chen felt that since his wife called, it would be more appropriate to meet at another time, suggesting that œGeorge, why not another time? However, Mr Simon over-sensitively took this kind suggestion as a rejection, developing an upset face. The next day (27 Aug 2008), Mr Simon circulated an email about Monash University’s policy on sexual harassment, commenting that œYour urgent attention, please, ¦we need to take this seriously to stop breaches “intended or unintended “happening in this area.. Ms Chen was concerned about the ˜upset-face’ and the email and, to avoid any misunderstandings, sent an email to Mr Simon explaining why she suggested meeting at another time. Mr Simon responded in an email to Ms Chen saying, œI want to talk with you, in peace and quiet, for much longer than 10 min. In her reply to Mr Simon, Ms Chen did not respond to the œpeace and quiet point, but corrected him on one point that it is she rather than Mr Simon who suggested another time, which Mr Simon incorrectly claimed that he had suggested another time. Ms Chen was not completely sure about the intent of Mr Simon when he expressed on 27August 2008 that he wanted to spent time with her œin peace and quiet. However, the sexual intent of Mr Simon became clearer when he proposed this request to Ms Chen again on 14 June 2010. (b) On or about 14 June 2010, in the context of discussions regarding a grant application via VicHealth, Ms Chen suggested to Mr Simon a possible application based on one of her research topics, and that she was willing to let Mr Simon lead the application.At the end of the meeting, Mr Simon said to Ms Chen words to the effect, œShall we have some peace and quiet? Ms Chen ignored the question and walked away quickly. Ms Chen felt necessary to communicate with Mr Simon about his œpeace and quiet suggestion, and suggested to Mr Simon, however, Mr Simon did not want to talk (no reply), a typical behaviour of sex harassers and bully. 2.2. Stocking Prof YiBing Cheng will testify about the following incident. On 9 June 2010, following a departmental postgraduate conference at the Caulfield campus, Prof Simon followed Ms Chen and Prof Yibing Cheng, (œProf Cheng) to Prof Cheng’s car. Prof Cheng said to Ms Chen words to the effect, œWhat’s George doing here? œDo you have problems in the department? and œLet me know if you need help. 2.3. TrappingMs Chen for consensual sex Since Dec 2010 when his inappropriate behaviour became a subject of the department, Mr Simon attempted to trap Ms Chen for consensual sex. Ms Chen will prove the following conducts using Mr Simon’s contemporaneous notes and Virgin Blue affidavit and subpoenaed documents. In Feb 2011, Mr Simon informed his wife in advance that Ms Chen would behave inappropriately during APS conference.However, during the APS conferenceProf Simon did not seek avoidance from Ms Chen. Instead he tried hard to find chances to charm Ms Chen during the APS conference. Eventually he successfully won her trust again “trusting that Mr Simon, her direct line manager who had the power over her job security, was offering peace. Ms Chen thus started to communicate with him again. On 16 February 2011, following theConference, Ms Chen left one day earlier than the end of the conference and, apparently coincidently Prof Simon left on the same day and travelled on the same flight as Ms Chen. When Ms Chen realised this, she suggested that they share a taxi to save the cost. Prof Simon agreed.While waiting in the airport, Mr Simon suggested a birthday conference in Europe to Ms Chen. This reminded her of the abstract calling of that small, localised conference, which she did not think worth to spend time, money and energy for. At around 2:30-3pm, Ms Chen completed her check-in first.Mr Simon decided to do recheck-in though he said he had done web check-in, explaining to Ms Chen to the effect, œto confirm my seat, sometime it could be problematic. Ms Simon also checked in his small hand-carried black bag, the one he carries to work as well. In the airplane, when Ms Chen located her seat 8D, she asked Prof Simon œwhere is your seat? She surprisingly knew that Prof Simon’s seat was 8E next to hers and asked Prof Simon œDo you want to change to my aisle seat? Prof Simon said œno.Eventually, Prof Simon squizzed into the middle seat between Ms Chen and another lady, while most 3-seat rows of the airplane were sat by two passengers. During the flight, Mr Simon took a copy of airline magazine from the pocket in front of him. At a moment he stopped at a page of a white bottle of woman facial cream, staring at the page for a while. Ms Chen asked him œyou read this kind of magazine? Mr Simon responded, œYes, I do. I like this type of magazine. Then they started a conversation about cosmetics. However, the conversation changed to a topic of respect. Mr Simon said to the effect, œI am a father, staying in the marriage for my kids. ¦are you OK with that? Ms Chen responded in words to the effect œnot for a woman like me. 2.4. Ms Chen’s rejectionson six occasionsafter her probation Ms Chen will prove the following claims using emails and witness Mr Ian Wheeler. (a) On 18 February 2011 at about 11:41am, Ms Chen sent Prof Simon an email making it abundantly clear to Prof Simon that his sexual advances were unwelcome saying, amongst other things œno dating with married man and no private relationships (actually I mean no sex, but feel too embarrassed to say so directly) in my career life. (b) On or about 10 October 2011 at about 8:52pm, Ms Chen once again sent to Prof Simon an email saying, amongst other things, œI am not the type you think or look for. (c) On or about 8 January 2012 at about 12:40pm, Ms Chen again sent to Prof Simon an email saying, amongst other things, œyou did it subtly, making all incidences look like accidents due to your careless. However, your œpeace and quiet email and all these signals consistently made me understand what you want from me: sex. I am now very proud of myself that I have been sticking with my principles: no dating with a married man and no private relationship with my direct line manager. In response to Prof Simon’s email of 3 February 2012, on 3 February 2012 at about 7:20pm, Ms Chen said, amongst other things, œWhen you requested to spend very long hours with me peace and quiet, I declined with silence. (d) In 2013, the Materials Engineering Department was moving out of old Bld 19. The majority of academics allocated in new Bld 82, and the departmental general office allocated to bld 69, where Mr Simon’s office located as the HoD. On 7 June 2012, Mr Ian Wheeler and Ms Hillary Brandon met and discuss Ms Chen’s office location, and attempted to pursue Ms Chen to move to bld 69, in which Ms Chen’s office and lab would very close to Mr Simon’s office (directly opposite doors). Ms Chen sensed the motivation in advance due to the hint delivered by Ian Watkins’ song (see 11b), she strongly rejected to move to bld 69. At end of the meeting Ian and the lady said to the effect that œthat’s George’s idea. We have to talk with George, and make another arrangement. Eventually Ms Chen moved to Bld 82. (e) On 20th Feb 2013, Ms Chen discovered that her office was located next to Mr Simon’s office at Level 1 as the Deputy Dean (Ms Simon had two offices during that period), though there were plenty of empty offices in the areas of Mat Eng Department in the new building, and there were unoccupied offices in the area of Ms Chen’s students (however, she did not realised the two empty offices Rm 112 and 105 until 27 Aug 2013). After Ms Chen made a request, her office was finally located to Level 3. (f) In May 2013, I was assigned by the departmental coordinator to sit with Mr Simon to interview a final year project student. Simon did not seek any avoidance, instead keened to engage the activity. Ms Chen rejected the assignment. In the circumstances, Mr Simon has engaged in unlawful sex harassment, in breach of Sections 5, 14, 28A and 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). 3. iPad Sperm Game-Chris Davies (demonstrating with iPad) On 31 May 2010, during a departmental discussion day in room G03 Building 59 at Clayton campus, Prof Davies escorted Ms Chen away from other present members of the Department of Materials Engineering and showed to Ms Chen a game on his iPad. The objective of the game was with an iPad pen to drag sperm through water to four boxes in the four corners of the screen. In the circumstances, Mr Davis has engaged in unlawful sex harassment, in breach of Sections 5, 14, 28A and 28B of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). 4. Hostile working environment (victimisation) Since around the middle of 2010, Ms Chen was subject to a serious of victimisation conducts,and has been working in a highly hostile environment. Today I’ll focus on two conducts (1) procedural irregularities in the academic promotion round 2011 and (2) incorrect policies of award applications targeting Ms Chen to disadvantage her position. 4.1. Procedural irregularities before, during,and after academic promotion round 2011 (a) In March-June 2011 prior to the deadline of academic promotion round 2011, Prof Davis, Associate Dean Research Training, failed to recruit two of Ms Chen’s prospective students using incorrect policies. At that time, Ms Chen had 2.9 research students. Hence, Prof Davis’s conduct effectively stopped the number of Ms Chen’s students to reach the promotion criteria 4.6, and directly contributed to the denial of Ms Chen’s promotion. (b) The faculty provided an incorrect version of Academic Performance Standard of Engineering Faculty. (c) Prof Simon, the Head of Department (HoD) and academic supervisor of Ms Chen, advised Ms Chen not to include her achievement pre-date Monash. Thisincorrect advice significantly disadvantaged Ms Chen’s application materials, and directly contributed to the denial of Ms Chen’s promotion. (d) Prof Murray Rudman, Associate Dean Research (ADR), made factually incorrect mistakes in his report for Ms Chen’s application case, which undervalued Ms Chen’s performance, though all were corrected under the request of Ms Chen. (e) On 5 September 2011, Ms Chen wrote a letter to Monash University seeking a rehearing of its decision. Ms Chen’s request for a rehearing was based on procedural irregularities, including above (b) and (c) items. By following relevant Monash policy, Ms Chen provided the relevant committee with evidence of procedural irregularities at the first step of the appeal process. (f) On 26 September 2011, Ms Chen’s application for a rehearing was ruled out at the first step of the process (Investigation of procedural irregularities) on the basis that the issues of concern raised by Ms Chen did not amount to a procedural irregularity leading to a material disadvantage before conducting the evaluation of her achievements in her previous employments which was excluded from her promotion application due to the procedure irregularities. (g) On 13 December 2011, Ms Chen met with Professor Sridhar, Mr Andre Piculierand Kyla Evans. At that meeting, Professor Sridhar said to Ms Chen, œ¦ 4.2. Victimisation due to making the complaints (a) One of Ms Chen’s Mastersdegree students (Ms Shuling Liang) produced 6 quality journal publications. Ms Liang’s publications were exceptionally outstanding. However, her application for the œAward of Excellence in Master Thesis was denied by the Faculty in April 2012. Awards of research students are also an important indicator of academic performance of the supervisor. (b) In May 2012, there was an announcement about an award application scheme, known as Early Career Researcher (ECR). This scheme had been run for many years and the award was based on the achievements for the past 5 years. Previously, the announcement was circulated within the faculty. However, this year, it was announced by HoD within each department. In our department, Mr Simon announced thatthe award would be for research done in 2009-2011 inclusive (i.e. not prior to 2009, and not 2012). This narrowing of the scope of the scheme directly disadvantaged Ms Chen’s opportunity to obtain this award as she had a good number of publications in 2008, and had two high-impact publications in 2008 and 2012. In her department, she was one of two academics who were eligible and appropriately experienced for the award. Mr Simon had never applied this qualification to the scheme before, and the narrowing of the scope was also not used in other departments. The incorrect policy was only applied in 2012 and in her department. In the circumstances, Mr Simon and Davis have engaged in unlawful sex harassment related victimisation, in breach of Section 94 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), Mr Rudman, Mr Sridhar and Mr Adam Shoemaker have engaged in unlawful sex harassment related victimisation in breach of Section 105 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), and the Engineering Faculty has engaged in unlawful sex harassment related victimisation, in breach of Section 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). 5. Credibility of respondents 5.1. Deceive conduct during AHRC conciliation process According to Section 131 of the Evidence Act 1995(Cth), there are exceptions to the statutory rule protecting œwithout prejudice communications: there are a number of exceptions to the common law œwithout prejudice rule, including where there are allegations of misleading and deceptive conduct; and contractual terms in mediation agreements can give no more protection than that given by the common law. The communications between the two parties in the process of Monash university’s internal grievance procedure and Australina Human Right Commission were not a Court-ordered mediation. As such, the mediation was not subject to Section 53B of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976(Cth) which provides absolute protection to anything said or admissions made during mediations from being admissible as evidence in any Court. Please refer to Justice Lander’s decision in Pihiga Pty Ltd v Roche  FCA 240. During the conciliation, the respondents knowingly provided incorrect information by claiming that œtwo of many such email. It is their mispresentation that caused a significantly amount of further legal cost on the applicant side, and thus contributed to the failure of conciliation. 6. Damages The sexual harassment and, especially hostile working environment have caused huge emotional pain and psychological suffering, and hindered Ms Chen’s academic development two years behind. The applicant only asks for what she deserved: 1. To restore her dignity as a woman: apologies 2. To restore her dignity as a woman faculty:upgrade Ms Chen’s Level D from D3 to D1, which she should have been on if not because of sexual harassment and academic bully,and lost wages 3. Legal cost $50,274 4. Medical cost $562 7. Conclusions The evidence will show that Prof Simon stocked Ms Chen and Prof YiBing Cheng at Caulfield, and that he attempted to seduce Ms Chen for consensual sex so as to change the nature of issue from sex harassment to affair. The evidence will also show that Prof Davies played sperm-game using his iPad for Ms Chen in workplace. The evidence will ultimately show that the Faculty of Engineering chose an improper approach to address the issue, i.e. constructive dismissal. The Faculty has the legal liability to what have happened. I request your honour at the close of the evidence to find the legal liability of the respondents in their conducts. The applicant, after all, asks only what she deserved: apologies, legal cost compensation, recovery of lost wages, and proper academic promotion. The issues presented here involve all of us and the system of justice in this country, not merely the applicant, Ms Chen.TO ORDER FOR THIS QUESTION OR A SIMILAR ONE, CLICK THE ORDER NOW BUTTON AND ON THE ORDER FORM, FILL ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS THEN TRACE THE DISCOUNT CODE, TYPE IT ON THE DISCOUNT BOX AND CLICK ON ˜USE CODE’ TO EFFECT YOUR DISCOUNT. THANK YOU
Is America Number One? Understanding the Economics of Success. Unemployment: America vs. Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Films On Demand database. ournal Paper details Is America Number One? Understanding the Economics of Success. Unemployment: America vs. Europe. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Films On Demand database. -800-INDIA: Importing a White-Collar Economy. Cyber City: Gurgaon, New Delhi. (n.d.). Retrieved from the Films on Demand database. After viewing the videos above, reflect on the challenges facing the U.S. labor force due to outsourcing of jobs overseas. Discuss the effect of outsourcing of production on GDP. Use Amacher, R., Pate, J., (2012). Principles of Macroeconomics. San Diego, California: Bridgepoint Education, Inc. as source.
Is all Life of equal value? Order Description Assignment; œIn chapter 2 of the Munson text, there are contrasting points of view regarding the use of animals in biomedical research (Singer vs. Cohen). Respond to this debate with your viewpoint. Reading: Textbooks: Kilner, Why the Church Needs Bioethics (2011). Munson, Intervention and Reflection: Basic Issues in Bioethics (2012). Read Kilner: Introduction Munson: ch. 2 Bible Readings John 1:1-4 Colossians 1:15-17 John 14:6 Liberty University Presentation: Is all life of equal value? Presentation: Laws of Thought and Theories of Truth Part 1 and part 2. Should be found on the web. The student’s comments demonstrate familiarity with the required reading[s]. The student’s major points are supported by: course reading material, lecture material or Scripture references; constructive examples that add to the reader’s ability to understand the topic (pertinent conceptual or personal examples are acceptable); and a thoughtful analysis (considering assumptions, analyzing implications, and comparing/contrasting concepts). The student’s ideas are clearly stated with logical points of argument. 585858 then smartcard no, then amount, then ok.
Order Description FINAL PAPER PH 210: Ethics LEARNING OUTCOMES In this lesson, you will do the following: 1. Identify a research topic of interest related to ethics. 2. Identify at least three resources directly pertaining to the topic. 3. Explain and evaluate the research in your writing. 4. Formulate and discuss your own ethical position on the topic. I want my paper to be on affirmative action is it ethical, also i am an African American female. The research paper is an important part of the course and is worth 20% of your grade. It provides you with an opportunity to synthesize what you have learned from the course and apply that knowledge and understanding to an individualized topic of interest to you; Select one of the topics from the Unit 5 section of the discussion board. The topics will continually evolve to keep up with current ethical debates. Select the topic which you feel most connected to either personally or professionally, or both. The more interested you are in the topic, the more you will enjoy and succeed in the project. In approaching the topic, make sure you keep it focused on a particular ethical problem. Articulate the opposing arguments both for and against the issue by utilizing ethical concepts learned from the course, then state what you see as the stronger position(s) and what your own personal conclusions are. You might want to use examples to illustrate your points (from your personal experience, others you know, or from case studies in the literature). Write in your own words, in a way you would normally, clearly, speak to a friend or peer. Avoid plagiarism. If you quote a sentence or more from a source you must use quotations and a citation of where you got it. Plagiarized papers will receive a zero. The paper must be at least 7-8 double-spaced, typed pages (not including the reference section) using font size 12. You must cite at least three sources taken from books and/or journal articles. If you use information from the Internet, be sure it is reputable and that you cite your source as best you can. A good reference book for APA format guidelines is the most recent edition of Hodges’ Harbrace Handbook by W. B. Horner, S. S. Webb, and R. K. Miller. Page 2 of 2 WRITING GUIDELINES The ability to write clearly and to make yourself understood is as important when submitting written course assignments as it is when preparing a report for your boss. The quality of your writing may make the difference between whether or not your instructor understands how well you know the course material. Here are some tips to assist you: 1. Pay close attention to grammar, sentence structure, and other basics of good English composition. Careless, sloppy writing can be overcome with a bit of work. If you feel that you need assistance with your writing, talk to either your instructor or academic advisor. Help is available. 2. Avoid the use of unexplained abbreviations and jargon. It is not in your best interest to make your instructor guess at what you mean. 3. When you finish your assignment, or a portion of it, put it aside and then read it over later to see if it makes sense to you and says what you want it to say. Adjust and improve the wording as necessary. If your assignment were a presentation to coworkers or other professionals, you would never be satisfied with the first draft. 4. If you are not sure whether the instructor will understand what you are saying, provide more detail. Your written assignment is all he/she has by which to evaluate you. 5. On the other hand, do not try to obscure your lack of understanding with a smoke screen of irrelevant dialogue. If you do not know the answer, go back and study it again. Do not simply quote a lot of material from the book in hope that some of it will be right. 6. Watch for multipart questions in the written assignments, and be sure to answer all parts and to answer what is asked. 7. Assignments should be submitted typed or word-processed. Take pride in your writing, and it will be reflected both in the quality of your assignments and in your grades. PLEASE NOTE: All graded assignments for this Unit should be grouped together and submitted using the Assignment Submission form accessed from your course homepage or
Hello, this is a case analysis. that advises the members of SHS within the CDC by engaging œJustice and Placebo Controls by Jennifer Hawkins. the goal is to address questions SHS is having with at the close of the case : “ Are the AZT placebos administered in the Ivory Coast morally permissible? “ Is a public release of information about the trials morally permissible? Begin your work by (briefly) explaining Hawkin’s argument to the SHS. No more than one or two paragraphs should be dedicated to exposition, but a reader unfamiliar with the work should fully understand the author’s stance on the issue of placebo trials in such medical cases. Subsequent to the analysis, provide an original argument that draws upon Hawkins to argue for or against the release of information about the trials. It is necessary but not sufficient for you to determine the permissibility of the trials themselves; answering the first question does not necessarily imply an answer to the second question. You may find, for example, that the trials are permissible, but that the SHS staff has good grounds to release information about the trials anyway.
Is a global state possible or even desirable Make full use of the theoretical and empirical literature in your answer. (with reference to theories of realism, communism, liberalism and marxism) Project description The module’s name is International organizations and global governance (politics department). The essay is an assessment for the whole module. Critical analysis and analytical thinking must be demonstrated in this work. Writers that have to be used among others: For liberalism theory “ Leonard Woolf, L. Lindberg, Anne-Marie Slaughter For Marxism theory “ Marx, Lenin, Robert Cox, Craig Murphy, P. Cammack For realism and communism “ free choice of writers Authors that are preferably to be included among others for research “ Thomas Weiss and Rorden Wilkinson Requirements listed among others for first class essay include: Assessment takes into account the following criteria: extent and thoroughness of reading; use of sources; presentation of work including spelling and grammar; structure of the essay; fluency, clarity and authority of writing; strength and soundness of argument; knowledge of relevant theories and methods; independence of thought and critical character of analysis.TO ORDER FOR THIS QUESTION OR A SIMILAR ONE, CLICK THE ORDER NOW BUTTON AND ON THE ORDER FORM, FILL ALL THE REQUIRED DETAILS THEN TRACE THE DISCOUNT CODE, TYPE IT ON THE DISCOUNT BOX AND CLICK ON ˜USE CODE’ TO EFFECT YOUR DISCOUNT. THANK YOU
Order Description Assessment 2 (50% of marks) Essay of 2000 words: Is ˜Assisted-suicide’/euthanasia ethical? Welcome to this Growing Older module. This module provides the student with an insight into growing older. It examines the political and social context of old age especially given the demographic and health trends predicted for the future. It focuses on older people and the issues they may face that influence their wellbeing and quality of life. For, example, the module will examine how particular events in life can have an impact on an older persons’ wellbeing. The module will explore how old people can stay healthy within the contexts of health and social care and the differences that exist between them It has a strong focus this year on choices older people have when faced with death. This springs from the current Assisted Dying Bill (2014/15) that is currently being debated in the Lords and the Commons. The student will prepare a group presentation and an essay on the ethics of assisted dying/euthanasia. Aim and learning outcomes of the Module 1. To explain the changing demographic picture and its impact on the UK and globally. 2. To describe the factors that shape an older person’s wellbeing and quality of life. 3. To explain the health and social care divide. 4. To analyse the political and policy context surrounding older people. Indicative Reading List Main Textbook: Phillips, J., Ajrouch, K., Hillcoat-Nalletamy, S. (2010) Key Concepts in Social Gerontology, London: Sage. It is advisable to have access to this book as there will be readings from it every week. Reading As mentioned above, there is a set, main reading for each session which may be accompanied by additional readings set in class. These should be regarded as the minimum and further reading is advisable to expand your knowledge. The recommended texts that are associated with each session should not be regarded as an exhaustive list, feel free to browse the reading list at the end and to use alternative material. Allen, J. (2008) Older People and Wellbeing, London: Institute for Public Policy Research Allin, P. (2008) ˜Measuring societal wellbeing’, Economic and Labour Market Review, Vol. 1 (10), pgs 46-52 Johnson, M.L. (2005) The Cambridge Handbook of Age and Ageing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walker, A. and Hennessy (ed) (2004) Growing Older: Quality of Life in Old Age. Maidenhead: OUP. DoH. (2001) National service Framework for Older People.London: Dept of Health. Sumner, K. (2002) Our homes, our lives: Choices in later life arrangements. London: CPA. Core text: Phillips, J., Ajrouch, K., Hillcoat-Nalletamy, S. (2010) Key Concepts in Social Gerontology, London: Sage. Heller, T., Lee-Treweek, G., Katz, J., Stone, J. and Spurr, S (eds.). (2005) Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine.London: Routledge. Websites: General Medical Council www.gmc-uk.org King’s Fund www.kingsfund.org.uk MIND (mental health) www.mind.org.uk National Health Service www.nhs.uk National Statistics Office www.statistics.gov.uk