№ lp_2_3_38224
File format: docx
Character count: 16585
File size: 28 KB
This document is a research paper examining how discourses and cultural narratives influence biographical narratives, focusing on the interplay between personal stories and societal frameworks.
Year:
2017
Region / city:
Southern Denmark
Subject:
Biographical narratives, discourse analysis, cultural narratives
Document type:
Research paper
Organization / institution:
University of Southern Denmark
Author:
Professor Emerita Dr. Marianne Horsdal
Target audience:
Researchers, educators, scholars in cultural and narrative studies
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
N/A
Date of changes:
N/A
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2025
Region / City:
Wrocław, Poland
Theme:
Adult Learning, Sustainable Development
Document Type:
Conference Announcement
Organizer:
University of Lower Silesia
Author:
Anna Andrejów-Kubów, Rob Evans, Małgorzata Fit, Antonio Fragoso, Andrea Galimberti, Gökçe Güverçin, Ula Kłobuszewska, Ewa Kurantowicz, Adrianna Nizińska, Paweł Rudnicki, Onur Seçkin
Target Audience:
Researchers, activists, leaders of higher education institutions, local community leaders, educators
Period:
June 12-14, 2025
Approval Date:
-
Modification Date:
-
Year:
1640
Region / City:
N/A
Theme:
Christian Doctrine
Document Type:
Theological Treatise
Author:
Stephen Charnock
Target Audience:
Theologians, Scholars, Christian Clergy
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2010
Author:
Kalpana Gopalan IAS
Institution:
Indian Institute of Management Bangalore, Centre for Public Policy
Email:
[email protected]
Document Type:
Research Paper
Region / City:
Bangalore, India
Subject:
Urban Development, Globalization, Socio-economic Change, Planning
Target Audience:
Scholars, Policy Makers, Urban Planners
Period Covered:
1980s–2000s
Sources:
Interviews, Policy Documents, Journalistic Literature, Photographs
Year:
2007
Region / City:
Prasanthi Nilayam, Andhra Pradesh, India
Subject:
Spiritual Discourses
Document Type:
Book
Organization / Institution:
Sri Sathya Sai Books & Publications Trust
Author:
Bhagawan Sri Sathya Sai Baba
Target Audience:
General public, spiritual seekers
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
November 2008
Modification Date:
N/A
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Not specified
Subject:
Genre analysis, reverse outlining
Document type:
Educational material
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Students, researchers
Date of approval:
Not specified
Date of amendments:
Not specified
Period of validity:
Not specified
Year:
N/A
Region / City:
Victoria
Theme:
Literacy, Writing, Curriculum
Document Type:
Educational Guide
Institution:
Department of Education and Training
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Primary School Teachers
Effective Date:
N/A
Revision Date:
N/A
Year:
2012
Region / city:
Victoria
Theme:
Literacy Education
Document Type:
Educational Framework
Organization / institution:
Department of Education and Training, Victoria
Author:
Department of Education and Training, Victoria
Target Audience:
Educators, Curriculum Developers
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Modifications:
Not specified
Year:
Not specified
Region / Country:
Not specified
Subject:
Media Studies
Level:
GCSE
Type of document:
Controlled assessment essay
Genre focus:
Horror
Films discussed:
Saw; A Nightmare on Elm Street; Psycho
Key themes:
Representation of women; Disempowerment; Sound; Mise-en-scène; Genre conventions
Characters analysed:
Marion; Tina; Nancy; Freddy Krueger
Concepts referenced:
Diegetic sound; Non-diegetic sound; Camera angles; Costume; Lighting; Narrative
Structure:
Part 1 Introduction; Part 2; Part 3
Year:
2026
Region / City:
London
Theme:
Night-time economies, urban culture, music licensing
Document Type:
Project Proposal
Organisation:
Night Time Industries Association
Author:
Richard Arnold
Target Audience:
Academics, policymakers, urban planners, cultural strategists
Period of Effect:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Data Sources:
Licensing data, audience profiles, cultural impact indicators, secondary sources
Essential Skills:
Quantitative analysis, qualitative research, data visualization, understanding of licensing regulations
Desirable Skills:
GIS, social media analytics, knowledge of cultural policy
Preferred Degree Programs:
Urban Studies, Cultural Policy, Sociology
Support Offered:
Access to data, mentorship, workshops
Financial Assistance:
£750 stipend
Contextual Description:
Project proposal to investigate the impact of music genres and audience demographics on night-time licensing decisions and urban cultural landscapes, using a mix of qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Year:
2015
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Topic:
Media regulation
Document type:
Academic article
Organization / institution:
Newcastle University
Author:
Daithí Mac Síthigh
Target audience:
Academics, media regulators, legal professionals
Period of validity:
2010-2015
Approval date:
2015
Modification date:
N/A
Type:
Bibliography
Subject:
Genre analysis, discourse analysis, journalism studies, corpus linguistics, language teaching, sociolinguistics
Languages Covered:
English and Arabic
Geographical Focus:
Middle East, Malaysia, Ghana, Brazil, United Kingdom, United States
Publication Years Covered:
1970–2018
Document Structure:
Alphabetical reference list
Source Types:
Books, journal articles, conference proceedings, doctoral dissertations, edited volumes
Academic Fields:
Applied linguistics, communication studies, media studies, education
Audience:
Researchers, graduate students, academics in linguistics and media studies
Year:
2026
Type of document:
Educational assignment
Subject:
Genre project planning
Author:
Student
Target audience:
Class peers and instructor
Components:
Outline, storyboard, interview questions
Format:
Written and/or visual elements
Instructions included:
Yes
Peer review required:
Yes
Focus topic:
Writing and creating in a chosen genre
Year:
1–6
Term:
Autumn, Spring, Summer
Subjects Covered:
English / Writing
Document Type:
Curriculum Outline
Target Audience:
Primary School Teachers
Focus Areas:
Informative Writing, Entertaining Writing, Persuasive Writing, Discussive Writing
Included Genres:
Poetry, Autobiography, Letters, Reports, Instructions, Traditional Tales, Fantasy Stories, Recounts, Biographies, Newspaper Articles, Advertisements, Graphic Novels
Adjustments:
Year 4 removed playscripts and performance poetry; Year 5 removed Explanation Text and Formal Letter Writing
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Year:
2026
Region:
Metropolitan Area
Topic:
Transportation Planning and Project Evaluation
Document Type:
Guidance / Instruction
Organization:
Regional Transportation Authority
Intended Audience:
Project Applicants
Reference Document:
Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) pages 22-24
Evaluation Criteria:
Project Selection Committee Rubric
Document type:
Guidelines
Subject:
Faculty salary equity adjustment narratives
Organization:
AAUP-AFT Faculty Equity Program
Authors:
Cyndi Daniels; Dana Britton
Author roles:
Co-Directors, Faculty Equity Program
Intended audience:
Faculty applying for equity adjustments
Institutional context:
University faculty salary review
Required length:
2–3 pages
Core requirement:
Identification of individual salary comparators
Key evaluation areas:
Research; Service; Teaching; Other professional categories
Comparator data elements:
Rank; years of service; salary; campus; department
Referenced institution:
Rutgers University
Purpose:
Preparation of equity adjustment narrative
Procedural structure:
Summary; comparator table; comparative accomplishments; contextual factors; conclusion
Year:
2016
Region / City:
South East Ireland
Theme:
Professional Identity, Education
Document Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Not specified
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Researchers, Educators, FET Practitioners
Period of Validity:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Year:
2021
Region / City:
Great Zimbabwe
Subject:
Archaeology, Colonial History, African Heritage
Document Type:
Scholarly Analysis
Institution:
N/A
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Scholars, Researchers, Students
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Date of Changes:
N/A
Year:
2026
Region / City:
Moscow, Russia
Subject:
Political Science, Developmental States, Narrative Governance
Document Type:
Academic Article
Institution:
HSE University, International Center for the Study of Institutions and Development
Author:
Jinhai Wang
Position:
Associate Fellow; PhD Candidate, Doctoral School of Political Science
Keywords:
Narrative Governance, Developmental State, Symbolic Power, State Capacity, Political Legitimacy, Discursive Institutionalism, State–Capital Relations, Institutional Reproduction, Comparative Political Economy
Email:
[email protected]
Address:
18 Myasnitskaya Str., bldg. 1, Moscow, Russia
Intended Audience:
Scholars and researchers in political science and comparative political economy
Methodology:
Theoretical analysis with comparative framework
Framework Scope:
East Asian developmental states, contemporary China, post-socialist cases, late-developing countries
Abstract Summary:
Explores narrative governance as an institutional practice shaping state capacity and legitimacy
Fiscal Year:
2024
Program Name:
Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER)
Document Type:
Grant Application Template
Administering Authority:
Federal Grant Program
Program Area:
Hiring of Firefighters
Primary Applicant:
Fire Department
Funding Source:
Federal Assistance
Sections:
Operating Budget; Applicant and Community Trends; Community Description; Grant Request Details; Narrative Statements; Impact on Daily Operations; Cost Benefit; Additional Information
Evaluation Criteria:
Financial Need (30%); Project Description (30%); Impact on Daily Operations (30%); Cost Benefit (10%)
Character Limits:
500–4,000 characters per section as specified
Intended Applicants:
Fire departments seeking federal funding for staffing