Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are We on the Same Page? Determinants of School Board Member Understanding of Group Accountability Perceptions

  • Published:
Public Organization Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article connects the accountability and small group dynamics literature by testing several hypotheses related to the link between perceived dynamics on American school boards and board member agreement on accountability perceptions. The authors conclude that board members who view their boards as productive, low-conflict, and active, are more likely to be in agreement with their fellow members’ perceptions of accountability. The results are of use to scholars seeking to understand the relationships between small group dynamics, accountability, and performance on governing boards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A complete copy of the governance survey is included in Appendix A.

  2. Note all states are included in the analysis except Hawaii, which has a single non-elected school board.

  3. The authors caution that a number of survey respondents preferred not to respond to this specific question on the survey. Comparisons of the demographics of respondents and non-respondents, including exploratory logistic regression models predicting non-response, yielded no evidence of response bias. Nonetheless, the reluctance of some board members to specifically address this question should be kept in mind when interpreting results.

References

  • Berry, C., & Howell, W. (2005). Democratic accountability in public education. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 150–72). Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delagardelle, M. L. (2008). The lighthouse inquiry: Examining the role of school board leadership in the improvement of student achievement. In T. L. Alsbury (Ed.), The future of school board governance (pp. 191–224). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick, M., & Yang, K. (2011). The pursuit of accountability: Promise, problems, and prospects. In H. White & D. Menzel (Eds.), The state of public administration: Issue, challenges, opportunities (pp. 171–86). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein, N. (Ed.). (2004). Who’s in charge here?: The tangled web of school governance and policy. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Favero, N., & Bullock, J. B. (2015). How (not) to solve the problem: an evaluation of scholarly responses to common source bias. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(1), 285–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015a). Comparing nonprofit charter and traditional public school board member perceptions of the public, conflict, and financial responsibility: is there a difference and does it matter? Public Management Review. doi:10.1080/14719037.2015.1028975.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015a). Active charter school board member governance and performance: perceptions and reality. Paper presented at the Complications and Conundrums: The New Era of Research on Nonprofit Governance and the Work of Boards, Kansas City, MO.

  • Ford, M. R., & Ihrke, D. M. (2015b). School board member definitions of accountability: what are they, and do they impact district outcomes? Public Performance & Management Review, 39(1), 198–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frederickson, H. G., Smith, K. B., Larimer, C. W., & Licari, M. J. (2012). The public administration theory primer. Boulder: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gabris, G. T., & Nelson, K. L. (2013). Transforming municipal boards into accountable, high-performing teams: toward a diagnostic model of governing board effectiveness. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(3), 472–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gabris, G. T., Golembiewski, R. T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2001). Leadership credibility, board relations, and administrative innovation at the local government level. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 11(1), 89–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golembiewski, R. T. (1995). Practical public management. New York: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grissom, J. A. (2014). Is discord detrimental? using institutional variation to identify the impact of public governing board conflict on outcomes. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 24(2), 289–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guan, W. (2003). From the help desk: bootstrapped standard errors. The Stata Journal, 3(1), 71–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.

  • Heidbreder, B., Grasse, N., Ihrke, D., & Cherry, B. D. (2011). Determinants of policy conflict in Michigan municipalities. State and Local Government 5view, 43(1), 32–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hess, R., & Meeks, O. (2011). School boards circa 2010: Governance in an accountability era. Washington D.C: National School Board Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, J. (2005). What school boards can and cannot (or will not) accomplish. In W. G. Howell (Ed.), Besieged: School boards and the future of education politics (pp. 308–23). Washington D.C: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogue, C. (2013). Government organization summary report: 2012. Washington D.C: United States Census Bureau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ihrke, D. M., & Niederjohn, S. (2005). Conflict on city councils in Wisconsin. Journal of Urban Affairs, 27(4), 453–462.

  • Ihrke, D., Proctor, R., & Gabris, J. (2003). Understanding innovation in municipal government: City council member perspectives. Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(1), 79–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. A., & Mannix, E. A. (2001). The dynamic nature of conflict: a longitudinal study of intragroup conflict and group performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(2), 238–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, T., & Ihrke, D. M. (2004). Determinants of conflict on Wisconsin town boards. State and Local Government Review, 36(2), 103–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kettl, D. F. (2015). Politics of the administrative process (6th ed.). Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukla-Acevedo, S., Streams, M. E., & Toma, E. (2012). Can a single performance metric do it all? A case study in education accountability. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(3), 303–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata. College Station: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manna, P., & McGuinn, P. (Eds.). (2013). Education governance for the twenty-first century. Washington D.C: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, K. A. (2007). “Expanding the moral community” or “blaming the victim”? The politics of state education accountability policy. american educational research journal, 44(1), 77–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meier, K. J., & O’Toole, L. J. (2013). Subjective organizational performance and measurement error: common source bias and spurious relationships. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23(2), 429–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, M. (2008). First, kill all the school boards. Atlantic Monthly, 92–94.

  • Mulgan, R. (2000). ‘Accountability’: an ever‐expanding concept? Public Administration, 78(3), 555–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins, D. R., & Pagano, M. A. (2005). Local budgeting and finance: 25 years of developments. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(4s), 3–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, K. L., Gabris, G. T., & Davis, T. J. (2011). What makes municipal councils effective? An empirical analysis of how council members perceive their group interactions and processes. State and Local Government Review, 43(3), 196–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. E. (1976). School politics Chicago style. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Polikoff, M. S., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2011). How well aligned are state assessments of student achievement with state content standards? American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 965–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portz, J., Stein, L., & Jones, R. R. (1999). City schools & city politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D. (2010a). Why public schools need democratic governance. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(6), 24–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D. (2010b). The life and death of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York: Knopf Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romzek, B. S., & Dubnick, M. J. (1987). Accountability in the public sector: Lessons from the Challenger tragedy. Public Administration Review, 227–238.

  • Rudalevige, A. (2003). The politics of no child left behind. Education Next, 3(4), 63–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smoley, E. R. (1999). Effective School Boards: Strategies for Improving Board Performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

  • Superfine, B. M. (2005). The Politics Of Accountability: The Rise and Fall of Goals 2000. American Journal of Education, 112(1), 10–43.

  • Svara, J. (1990). Official leadership in the City: Patterns of conflict and cooperation. New York: Oxford University Press, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, M. S. (2014). Fixing our national accountability system. Washington D.C: The National Center on Education and the Economy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Dunk, E., & Dickman, A. (2003). School choice and the question of accountability: The Milwaukee experience. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Walser, N. (2009). The essential school board book: Better governance in the age of accountability. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, K., & Langevin, W. (2007). Policy expansion of school choice in the American states. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2), 440–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, K. (2012). Further Understanding Accountability in Public Organizations: Actionable Knowledge and the Structure–Agency Duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, Halsey Hall 317, Oshkosh, WI, 54901, USA

    Michael Ford

  2. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Douglas Ihrke

Authors
  1. Michael Ford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Douglas Ihrke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Ford.

Appendix A: School Board Survey Instrument

Appendix A: School Board Survey Instrument

1. What is your sex?

2. Which best describes your race?

3. What is your age?

4. Would you identify yourself as:

Liberal

Conservative

Moderate

Non-Partisan

5. Do you share political beliefs with:

All of your fellow board members

Some of your fellow board members

Few of your fellow board members

None of your fellow board members

6. Have you held elected office prior to serving on your school board?

Yes

No

7. Do members of your board serve under term limits?

Yes

No

8. How long have you served on your school board?

0-2 years

3-4 years

5-6 years

More than 6 years

9. In your last election did you have an opponent?

Yes

No

10. Do you have a job outside of the school board?

Yes

No

11. If yes, which best describes the nature of your non-school board job?

Education

Business/commerce

Labor/production

Transportation

Farming/fishing/forestry

Sales

Construction

Professional services (law, medicine, etc.)

Nonprofit

Government

Homemaker

Other

12. Which best describes your education level?

Did not complete high school

High school Graduate or GED

Some college or other post-secondary education/ training (including AA or AS degree)

Bachelor’s degree

Advanced degree (MA, MS, Ph.D., Ed.D., MD, JD, DVM, etc.)

13. Have you ever been employed as a teacher in your district?

Yes

No

How strongly do you agree with the following statements?

14. My school district has adopted a performance budgeting process. Programs must show and document activities and levels of program success in order to continue receiving current levels of funding.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

15. Conflict among some school board members is high.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

16. Cooperation among school board members is high.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

17. Disagreements between board members often become personalized.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

18. Conflict over issues on the school board usually results in a clear solution to the problem.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

19. School board coalitions (two or more individual members joining forces) tend to form along predictable lines (e.g. political party, male/female, etc.)

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

20. During board negotiations, prior conflicts often resurface.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

21. The school board has a clear leader.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

22. The clear board leader is also the board president.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

23. The board is highly productive.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

24. Board decisions are supported by all members once made.

Strong, intense agreement

Agreement

Neutral, mixed agreement and disagreement

Disagreement

Strong, intense disagreement

25. How often do you meet as a board?

Less than Once a Month

Once a Month

2-3 Times a Month

More than 3 Times a Month

26. Do you think your fellow board members share your definition of accountability as it relates to academic outcomes in your district?

Yes

No

27. Please rank the following topics in order of your school board’s priority.

Strategic Planning

Setting Academic Standards

Making Assessment Policies

Making Student Behavior Policies

Hiring the Superintendent

Holding School Staff Accountable for District Performance

Collaborating with Interest Groups

Interacting with the Public

Board Development

Monitoring Fiscal Performance

28. Which best describes the way in which your board governs?

The board governs and oversees operations through committees established along functional lines (finance, human resources, programs) but delegates the management functions to the superintendent – traditional

The board manages, governs and performs the work of the organization. – Operations boards

The board governs through policies that establish organizational aims (ends), governance approaches, and management limitations. These policies also should define the relationship of the board with the superintendent. The superintendent broad freedom to determine the means that will be used to achieve organizational aims. – Policy Governance board

The board manages operations through functional committees that may or may not have a staff coordinator. – Management Board

How much do the following statements describe the members of your board?

29. Members take responsibility for past decisions.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

30. Members freely admit when they are wrong.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

31. Members can take each other at their word

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

32. Members do what they say they will do.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

33. Members willingly try new things without fear of ridicule.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

34. Members willingly try new things without fear of retribution.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

35. Members are open about how they feel about other members’ preferences.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

36. Members are open about their own preferences.

Very Little

Little

Some

Greatly

Very Greatly

Please choose the extent to which each of these statements describes your board

37. We do not regularly update our strategic plan.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

38. We engage in planning when the academic and/or fiscal direction of the district needs to be changed.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

39. We engage in strategic planning at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

40. We engage in continuous strategic planning, our plan is frequently updated

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

41. We use the academic standards set by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

42. We set and tweak district academic standards in response to student needs.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

43. We set and update district academic standards at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

44. We consistently set academic standards more rigorous than those required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

45. We solely use standardized tests required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

46. We set and tweak district assessment policies in response to student needs. For example, if we see our students struggling in math we will increase the use of math assessments.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

47. We set and update district standardized assessment policies at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

48. We consistently use standardized assessments that are more rigorous than those required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction). We also use student portfolios and/or alternative ways to measure student performance.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

49. We use the behavior policies required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

50. We set and tweak district student behavior policies in response to incidents.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

51. We set and update district student behavior policies at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

52. We set and consistently update student district behavior policies that are more rigorous than those required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

53. We rarely change superintendents (or principal if a charter board). When we do we look for someone local.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

54. We conduct a broad search for a superintendent (or principal if a charter board) with expertise on the pressing needs of our district.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

55. We tend to hire a new superintendent (or principal if a charter board) at regular intervals, such as once every 5 years of after a board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

56. We look for a superintendent (or principal if a charter board) that shares the values of, and is willing to be a collaborator with, the school board.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

57. We primarily support and defend the decisions of the Superintendent (or principal if a charter board).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

58. We support and defend the decisions of the Superintendent (or principal if a charter board) until concerns with those decisions arise.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

59. We allow the Superintendent (or principal if a charter board) to manage the district as he or she sees fit, but regularly monitor and review his or her performance.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

60. We view the Superintendent (or principal if a charter board) as a full partner in the governing process.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

61. Organized interest groups have significant influence over board decisions.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

62. We regularly listen to the ideas of organized interest groups and act on their input when we deem it appropriate.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

63. Organized interest groups are generally only active during board elections.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

64. We do not consider the input of organized interest groups when making board decisions.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

65. Community members have significant influence over board decisions.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

66. We regularly listen to the ideas of community members and act on their input when we deem it appropriate.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

67. We do not consider the input of community members when making board decisions.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

68. We do not engage in any formal board development.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

69. We engage in board development activities when obvious dysfunction arises.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

70. We engage in board development activities at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

71. We frequently and consistently engage in board development activities.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

72. We follow the fiscal practices mandated by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

73. We set and tweak district fiscal practices in response to problems.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

74. We set and update district fiscal policies at regular intervals, such as every 5 years or after each board election.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

75. We set and consistently update district fiscal policies that are more rigorous than those required by the State Board of Education (or Department of Public Instruction).

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

76. In the past 5 years our school board has had very little board member turnover.

Does not describe at all

Describes a little bit

Somewhat describes

Describes a great deal

Perfectly describes

Which best describes how your board handles....

77. Financial Decisions

The board as a whole deliberates and makes decisions

The board makes decisions based on committee recommendations

The board delegates decisions making authority to the superintendent (or principal if a charter board)

The board follows its established policies when making decisions

78. Personnel Decisions

The board as a whole deliberates and makes decisions

The board makes decisions based on committee recommendations

The board delegates decisions making authority to the superintendent (or principal if a charter board)

The board follows its established policies when making decisions

79. Decisions about the academic direction of the district

The board as a whole deliberates and makes decisions

The board makes decisions based on committee recommendations

The board delegates decisions making authority to the superintendent (or principal if a charter board)

The board follows its established policies when making decisions

80. Decisions regarding the public perception of the district

The board as a whole deliberates and makes decisions

The board makes decisions based on committee recommendations

The board delegates decisions making authority to the superintendent (or principal if a charter board)

The board follows its established policies when making decisions

81. Decisions regarding interactions with state government

The board as a whole deliberates and makes decisions

The board makes decisions based on committee recommendations

The board delegates decisions making authority to the superintendent (or principal if a charter board)

The board follows its established policies when making decisions

82. Using the continuum below, indicate who bears responsibility for the following organizational functions, where:

−5 means the Board is fully responsible for the function;

0 means the Board and Superintendent (or principal if a charter board) equally share responsibility for the function; and

5 means the Superintendent (or principal if a charter board) is fully responsible for the function.

Day-to-Day Operational Management

On-Going Financial Management

Strategic Planning

Stakeholder and Public Relations

Program Evaluation

Public Advocacy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ford, M., Ihrke, D. Are We on the Same Page? Determinants of School Board Member Understanding of Group Accountability Perceptions. Public Organiz Rev 17, 451–479 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0350-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-016-0350-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation