Advisor

Within the context of school, unless students and teachers share something in books and reading or print materials... teachers do not count children 'sprint encounters as reading. (Wheeler 1984: 612) As adult readers, most of us are able to recognise text as a construction of its author. We are able to disassemble a story in progress, to label the structures which are artifices of the author and to retain the integrity of the voice of the storyteller in the story. We are able to listen to our children telling stories and to recognise the different voices they use in the telling: the personal voice 'faithfully' recounting events; the storyteller using the distanced narrative voice of one who has seen, at least in the mind's eye, and can synthesize a new reality; and the author, who can contrive a storytelling voice to reorganise and record the narrative of their inner speech in clear consciousness of an external and probably demanding audience.

While traveller information services deliver increasingly sophisticated incident reports, journey times and other such information, driver response has remained lukewarm. We suggest that the problem lies in understanding the driver rather than improving the content. This paper reports that drivers principally learn from their experiences and addresses fundamental questions arising from an Australian study identifying how drivers learn to apply available information. Preliminary data from the study suggests that commuter drivers travelling a new route for the first time display no more expertise than novices. When presented with dynamic, customised traveller information, the study suggests that commuter drivers enter a learning curve affected by previous experience and immediate need. Design of an effective traveller information system, it is argued, necessitates the targeted provision of information, sensitive to this evolving driver capacity.

From pirates and warlords to accountants and corporate raiders, successful business practice has always incorporated a degree of volatility. At the same time, business leaders have too frequently neglected social responsibility in their pursuit of expanded reach, market advantage and, ultimately, increased profit. In a climate of immediate economic uncertainty, the need for responsible practice has become central to recovery from an ongoing global recession. Strategic differences between commercial, moral and social entrepreneurs point to the need for a more integrated theory of entrepreneurship. Successful entrepreneurial activity is based in sound moral principles. As a consequence, this paper observes that exploitation, corruption and criminality may masquerade as business in the short term but are unsustainable in the longer term because they detract from the common good. Instead, it is argued, innovative business is good business when it generates a net increase in social capital. In consequence, effective definitions of entrepreneurship must be grounded in social advantage from which economic advantage must necessarily arise. Identifying entrepreneurial activity ranging from criminal through opportunistic to well-intentioned and visionary, this paper explores the increasing demand for transparency in business activity, the necessity for a sound moral position undergirding innovation within a culture of entrepreneurship and the complexity of maintaining a socially responsible vision when minor departures might seem to assure profit -stability. Ultimately, when issues of accountability and net benefit are accepted as measures of innovation, creativity and entrepreneurial activity, then good business generates a net increase in social capital.

Measures of absolute and relative poverty are usually constructed around levels of deprivation, destitution and distress experienced by people with respect to money, goods or means of subsistence. These measures rely, almost exclusively, upon cognitive bias and limited life experience to legitimise discrimination and disadvantage. As (Treloar, in Henwood, 2021) has observed, in spite of widespread interest in the relationship between socio-economics and poverty reduction, confusion reigns as to what exactly predisposes politicians and bureaucrats to consider the implications of the ways in which they think about people in poverty. This paper explores different habits of mind determining the range of socio-economic models impacting Australian Government approaches to Age Pensions and Jobkeeper policy since the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic. Progressing beyond quantitative analytics to extend our understanding of socio-economic definitions of poverty, insights into alternative ways of thinking are considered in view of innovative applications of financial independence in response to poverty management. Recognising the contrast between traditional political and bureaucratic responses to poverty across the Australian population and more recent recognition of the centrality of the recipients of social welfare, in whatever form it is delivered, the paper provides an analysis of the differences in background and thinking patterns of policy developers and welfare recipients. In consequence of this analysis, the paper identifies a significant, albeit largely unconscious, cognitive bias among policy developers and proposes the need for a substantial change in the way social welfare is conceptualised at a political level.