Background The premise of community advocacy is to empower residents by increasing their capacity to address and change neighborhood and structural factors that contribute to adverse health outcomes. An underlying assumption is that community residents will advocate for public policy and other changes. However, limited empirical evidence exists on community residents' perceived ability to advocate for neighborhood change. In this study, we characterized perceived neighborhood control and efficacy for neighborhood change and evaluated independent associations between efficacy and control beliefs and sociodemographic factors, community involvement, and perceptions of social environment. Methods Cross-sectional data from 488 African American adults were analyzed to describe efficacy and control beliefs and to characterize bivariate associations between these beliefs and sociodemographic factors, social environment, community involvement variables. Variables with significant relationships (p<.10) were included in a multivariate logistic regression model to identify factors having significant independent associations with efficacy and control beliefs. Results Overall, beliefs about neighborhood control and confidence were varied, yet approximately half of residents (49% and 55%, respectively) reported having a little control over things that happen in their neighborhood and a little confidence in their ability to change things where they live. The likelihood of reporting confidence to make neighborhood improvements increased with greater collective efficacy (OR=1.78, 95% CI=1.19-1.31, p=0.002). In addition, participants who were involved in a community organization were more likely to report confidence to improve their neighborhood (OR=2.03, 95% CI=1.21-3.42, p=0.01). Conclusion Efforts are needed to improve residents' ability to become positive agents of change in their community. Creating a research infrastructure within academic community partnerships that focus on strengthening advocacy and public policy may improve resident's efficacy and ability to seek and encourage neighborhood change.

Review of existing theory defines myth as a potent and powerful force, often buried deep in our mindsets, which helps shape our thinking and consequently our actions and behaviour. Questions the role and function of myth in the life of managers and the influence of myth on organizations. Attempts to increase understanding of the power of myth to communicate and engender commitment, beliefs and existing cultures by looking at the mythical element embedded in symbols, stories and language. Research reported here and which is ongoing, suggests managers do in fact often act and make decisions based on mythical realities; that myths contribute to maintenance of the status quo and an unhealthy reliance on past memories and experience. Myths held dear by managers thus inhibit the learning and change so vital to all who live in a world which is dominated by change.

No abstract

Prior to the proliferation of 24-hr cable television, DVDs, TiVo, and streaming media content, prime-time television programming served as the primary vehicle for an evening's entertainment in American homes. Since its beginnings in the 1940s, television has taken viewers on a fanciful journey, as they have been invited into the homes of upper-, middle-, and lower-class families, into neighborhood bars and diners, into corporate boardrooms and courts, into junkyards and taxi garages, and into police stations. Audiences visited the mansions of the Ewing family in Dallas (1978Dallas ( -1991, the Chicago ghetto-apartment of the Evans family in Good Times (1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979), and the New York brownstone of Dr. and Mrs. Heathcliff Huxtable of The Cosby Show (1984)(1985)(1986)(1987)(1988)(1989)(1990)(1991)(1992). Good always triumphed over evil in the television world, week after week, as viewers watched characters such as Mannix, Kojak, and MacGyver nab the bad guys. Captain Stubbing, Julie, Gopher, and Doc took audiences aboard the Love Boat (1977)(1978)(1979)(1980)(1981)(1982)(1983)(1984)(1985)(1986) to tropical island paradises, and everyone wanted to buy tickets to Fantasy Island where all dreams come true.On occasion, the socially constructed world of network television has turned from the scripts of fluff and fancy, to mirror real life through the dramatization of relevant social issues. The scope and breadth of those depictions have encompassed many aspects of the American experience, some more realistically than others. However, as several observers of the world of television have argued, at least one aspect of American life has not found its proper place in the scripted world of network television: the world of Black culture, the world of African American life. It has very rarely received sensitive dramatic portrayal in a regularly appearing network television series. In its 1978 report, Window Dressing on the Set, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights reminded readers of the absence and its gravity: "It should be taken for granted that the fantasy land of television does not represent reality, occupational or otherwise. So long as television is going to portray fantasy, however, all groups should benefit similarly from fantasy-acquired status" (p. 17).That network television offered very few dramatic series featuring Black actors and Black-centered (BC) experiences at that time and, subsequently, has been well-established. Simple proportionate counts tell that story. Whatever the willingness of network executives to support the development of BC shows, drama or comedy, those shows that did gain access to prime-time scheduling faced the immediate hurdle of television ratings and shares. In his well-known 549151S GOXXX10.

No abstract