Sample Solution
William Shakespeare’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream is a play that deals with questions of queer desire and gender identity/roles. Through its characters and plot, the text explores themes of love, relationships, and marriage from multiple angles.
In the play, Helena and Hermia are two very different women—Hermia is in love with Lysander while Helena loves Demetrius—who become embroiled in a power struggle between men for their affections. While Hermia gives into convention by desiring to marry her beloved Lysander according to her father’s wishes, Helena desires something else entirely by wanting Demetrius to be hers regardless of whom he fancies or what society dictates as “right”. By doing so she challenges traditional notions of romantic relationships which at the time were heavily enforced yet never questioned. Additionally Hippolyta’s portrayal as a strong female figure who takes control over her own life challenge conventional gender roles.
Titania also plays an important role in developing the theme of queer desire since she forms a close relationship with Bottom, who has been transformed into an ass by Puck using magical flower-juice; as well as Oberon’s jealousy towards Titania when she refuses to grant him his wish serves as an example on how traditional heteronormative marriages can fail if trust isn’t present among spouses . All this contributes to illustrating alternate ways in which people form meaningful connections outside societal norms -especially those related to sexuality- which ultimately helps promote acceptance for individuals within non conforming orientations or identity.
Overall, A Midsummer Night\’s Dream engages questions regarding queer desire and gender identities/roles through its diverse cast of characters all striving for honest connections despite societal pressures around them. By depicting these themes it helps promote acceptance towards diversity while challenging traditional views on marriage that often times inhibit individuals from forming genuine relationships.
England in 2001 introduced an annual ‘star rating’ system for the public health care institutions. As a result, managers in health care were prone to being fired if the results reflected poor performance when measured and were subjected to ‘naming and shaming’ for poor performance (Anonymous 2001). It was believed to bring a positive change, however, the central government intervened constantly to avoid destabilization of hospitals in the market (Tuohy 1999). Labour tried to introduce a new system that allowed for better functioning and fund management through a target and terror system in tandem with the annual ratings system for governance. This system was widely applied to organizations in England and formed a part of an extensive control system monitoring public service performance. Two agencies central to this were the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit (focusing on key targets of public service) and the Treasury (connecting budgeting with performance targets). Another additional overseer was the Department of Health.
With multiple monitors, the system produced improvements (on the face of it) in English NHS reports. It showed reduced time spending by patients in the accidents and emergency rooms, increased satisfaction, waiting times were shortened dramatically after the introduction of star ratings between 2000-01. However, the NAO (2001) produced reports highlighting the adjustments made by 9 NHS trusts to their waiting lists, some due to pressure from outsiders. These adjustments could be attributed to the staff who manipulated the figures and following established procedures incorrectly. This study then gave way to another report conducted by the Audit Commision with similar deliberate manipulations and misreporting of the waiting list statistics. Few of the misreports were caused by cancellation and delaying of appointments which were recorded as an outlier of the target and terror system. Rowan et al. (2004) discovered no connection between the quality of critical care for adults and performance-based star rating systems.
Suggestions for Improved Measurement
Just like scientific representations, measures should hold objectivity, accuracy and non-reaction in its definition and adaptation. At the same time these standards should reflect worker’s performances and shape their goals. Reactivity should only follow careful consideration by an individual, offering a break between measurement and its reactivity. The blur between object and standards caused by reactivity threatens the efficiency and validity of said standards. When a standard becomes a target or goal, it ceases to be a good performance measure (Strathern 1996, p.4).
Auditing – There should be an alignment of expectations between the audit product and the opinions of the actor analyzing the reports such as the auditees. These expectations must also be realistic and more transparent in nature. Molding the preoccupation of individuals with their perception of performance and quality.
Re-incorporation of trust into institutional languages and rehabilitation of autonomy in some way to displace the distrust empowered by auditing institutions and bring back critical analysis of reports without turning a blind eye to it based on faith in autonomous auditing organizations. These standards can be supplemented by both qualitative and quantitative concepts. Reworking the auditing boundaries by segregati
