Background and Rationale for the Thesis Sample Clauses

Background and Rationale for the Thesis. This thesis emerged as a result of my experience of working in Sweden for The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education (RFSU, Riksförbundet För Sexuell Upplysning) between 2008 and 2010. RFSU is a non-profit organisation that works to promote a positive view of sexuality into the socio-political fabric of Swedish society. As such, RFSU works on a whole range of issues including international outreach, public awareness campaigns, sexual policy monitoring, health clinics, sex and relationship education (SRE), and more. During my time with RFSU I worked primarily developing methods for SRE but became familiar with the sexual health policy field as a whole, which now includes sexual rights, health, reproduction, citizenship, social, economic, political and other related issues. The concepts ‘sexual health’ and ‘sexual rights’ have emerged as terms to describe the complex and interconnected nature of the issues and challenges related to sexuality (Xxxxxx et al. 2004). The concept of sexual health, in particular, has witnessed an upsurge in academic research since the 1990s (Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 2004). Accoding to Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx (2004) using the term ‘health’ implies a risk of emphasising medicalised frameworks in the sexual domain (see also, Xxxxxx et al. 2008). However, it is precisely the connection between sexuality and health that has helped make sexuality a legitimate and familiar field of public policy in the 21st century (Xxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx 1999; Xxxxxx et al. 2004; Xxxxxxxx et al. 2012). Arguably, sexual health can be described as one of the most successful concepts in the landscape of sexual politics (see, Xxxxxxxxx 1995; Xxxxxx 2002; Xxxxxx et al. 2004). Today, despite the fact that sexuality remains a complex, heavily contested and politically sensitive issue, sexual health promotion is a dynamic and growing field of policy and research, and an engaging space for theorists and practitioners alike. In 2010 I left my work in Sweden and moved to the United Kingdom to pursue my doctoral studies. In the UK, I encountered a political environment with its own responses to sexual health, its own policies and its own practices. I also immediately encountered the reputation of Sweden as being sexually advanced and open, alongside concerns about sexual health issues in the UK. I found that recent sexual health policies in the UK have developed according to an argument that claims that the UK lags behind other European countries, in particular, Swede...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Background and Rationale for the Thesis

  • Background and Purpose Executive was employed by the Company. Executive's employment is ending effective ____________ under the conditions described in Section 3.1 of the Executive Severance Agreement ("Agreement") by and between Executive and the Company dated ____________, 2012. The purpose of this Release is to settle, and the parties hereby settle, fully and finally, any and all claims the Releasing Parties may have against the Released Parties, whether asserted or not, known or unknown, including, but not limited to, claims arising out of or related to Executive's employment, any claim for reemployment, or any other claims whether asserted or not, known or unknown, past or future, that relate to Executive's employment, reemployment, or application for reemployment.

  • Background Screening VENDOR shall comply with all requirements of Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes, and all of its personnel who (1) are to be permitted access to school grounds when students are present, (2) will have direct contact with students, or (3) have access or control of school funds, will successfully complete the background screening required by the referenced statutes and meet the standards established by the statutes. This background screening will be conducted by SBBC in advance of VENDOR or its personnel providing any services under the conditions described in the previous sentence. VENDOR shall bear the cost of acquiring the background screening required by Section 1012.32, Florida Statutes, and any fee imposed by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to maintain the fingerprints provided with respect to VENDOR and its personnel. The parties agree that the failure of VENDOR to perform any of the duties described in this section shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement entitling SBBC to terminate immediately with no further responsibilities or duties to perform under this Agreement. VENDOR agrees to indemnify and hold harmless SBBC, its officers and employees from any liability in the form of physical or mental injury, death or property damage resulting from VENDOR’s failure to comply with the requirements of this section or with Sections 1012.32 and 1012.465, Florida Statutes.

  • BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION The Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP) is a federally-assisted program of State-selected projects. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the State Departments of Transportation have long worked as partners to deliver the FAHP in accordance with Federal requirements. In enacting 23 U.S.C. 106(c), as amended, Congress recognized the need to give the States more authority to carry out project responsibilities traditionally handled by FHWA. Congress also recognized the importance of a risk-based approach to FHWA oversight of the FAHP, establishing requirements in 23 U.S.C. 106(g). This Stewardship and Oversight (S&O) Agreement sets forth the agreement between the FHWA and the State of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) on the roles and responsibilities of the FHWA and the State DOT with respect to Title 23 project approvals and related responsibilities, and FAHP oversight activities. The scope of FHWA responsibilities, and the legal authority for State DOT assumption of FHWA responsibilities, developed over time. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation delegated responsibility to the Administrator of the FHWA for the FAHP under Title 23 of the United States Code, and associated laws. (49 CFR 1.84 and 1.85) The following legislation further outlines FHWA’s responsibilities: • Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991; • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) of 1998; • Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005; and • Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) of 2012 (P.L. 112-141). The FHWA may not assign or delegate its decision-making authority to a State Department of Transportation unless authorized by law. Xxxxxxx 000 xx Xxxxx 00, Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Code (Section 106), authorizes the State to assume specific project approvals. For projects that receive funding under Title 23, U.S.C., and are on the National Highway System (NHS) including projects on the Interstate System, the State may assume the responsibilities of the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation under Title 23 for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections with respect to the projects unless the Secretary determines that the assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(1)) For projects under Title 23, U.S.C. that are not on the NHS, the State shall assume the responsibilities for design, plans, specifications, estimates, contract awards, and inspections unless the State determines that such assumption is not appropriate. (23 U.S.C. 106(c)(2)) For all other project activities which do not fall within the specific project approvals listed in Section 106 or are not otherwise authorized by law, the FHWA may authorize a State DOT to perform work needed to reach the FHWA decision point, or to implement FHWA’s decision. However such decisions themselves are reserved to FHWA. The authority given to the State DOT under Section 106(c)(1) and (2) is limited to specific project approvals listed herein. Nothing listed herein is intended to include assumption of FHWA’s decision-making authority regarding Title 23, U.S.C. eligibility or Federal-aid participation determinations. The FHWA always must make the final eligibility and participation decisions for the Federal-aid Highway Program. Section 106(c)(3) requires FHWA and the State DOT to enter into an agreement relating to the extent to which the State DOT assumes project responsibilities. This Stewardship and Oversight Agreement (S&O Agreement), includes information on specific project approvals and related responsibilities, and provides the requirements for FHWA oversight of the FAHP (Oversight Program), as required by 23 U.S.C. 106(g).

  • Summative Evaluation An evaluation used to arrive at a rating on each standard, an overall rating, and as a basis to make personnel decisions. The summative evaluation includes the Evaluator’s judgments of the Educator’s performance against Performance Standards and the Educator’s attainment of goals set forth in the Educator’s Plan.

  • Background and Context 1.1 Objectives of this Agreement The purpose of this Agreement is to define, in the context of the resource inputs provided, the targets by which the performance of Forensic Science Ireland (FSI) will be measured in 2021. The ongoing supports that the Department of Justice will provide to FSI in this regard, and the mechanisms for monitoring and appraising performance, form part of the overall governance arrangements between the two parties and as such are set out in the separate but complementary Oversight Agreement 2020-22.

  • Supporting Evidence The Recipient shall furnish to the Administrator such documents and other evidence in support of the application as the Administrator shall reasonably request, whether before or after the Administrator shall have permitted any withdrawal requested in the application.

  • Project Background 6.1.1. Brief description of Contracting Agency’s project background and/or situation leading to this Project

  • Measurements and Dimensions Before ordering material or doing work that is dependent upon coordination with building conditions, the Contractor shall verify all dimensions, elevations, grades, and pitch by taking measurements at the building and shall be responsible for the correctness of same. Any discrepancies between the drawings and/or specifications and the existing conditions shall be referred to the Design Professional for additional instructions before any work affected thereby is begun.

  • Evidence Used In Evaluation The following categories of evidence shall be used in evaluating each Educator:

  • Purpose and Background 1.00─Purpose and Background

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.