Search results

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the reliability of official Chinese government statistics in general, overview the evolution of China's S&T (science and technology) statistical system while highlighting the main sources of such statistics, point out some of the particular problems related to China's S&T statistics, and provide perspectives about how to best use and interpret these numbers.

Statistics of China's human resources in science and technology has been used to illustrate how such S&T statistics should be interpreted.

While the S&T data collection involving multiple government ministries causes problems, the interpretation of the data, including reconciling data from different sources and piecing information together, poses challenges to drawing an appropriate and overall picture of the development of S&T in China. In order to achieve a better understanding of China's S&T statistics, student researchers of Chinese science and technology have to comprehend the definitions, exhaust all the sources, and find and recognize discrepancies.

This paper represents the first effort to examine China's S&T statistical system, an important source of information regarding China's S&T development.

In 1930s Britain, tennis champion Fred Perry was a household name. However, the name Fred Perry is more commonly associated with striped-collar polo shirts featuring a laurel wreath logo. In the late 1960s, Fred Perry polo shirts were standard mod and Skinhead dress. When worn by working-class youth the shirt became subversive commentary on English elitism because it had originally been designed for the tennis courts. Many punks also aligned with the brand in dual demonstration of association with working-class ethics as well as an alternative to t-shirts. In the 1980s and onward, this sartorial style was appropriated by right-wing white nationalists, which stripped it of its subcultural spirit. Patriot groups, such as neo-Nazis and the alt-right have continued to co-opt the subcultural style, simultaneously turning the Fred Perry polo into a symbol of racism and bigotry. The multi-use of the Fred Perry brand creates a challenge in how to interpret visual cues when one garment has competing perceptions that at times can be completely opposing. This study examines the history of the Fred Perry brand through the lens of symbolic interactionism, specifically how the shirt evolved from a rather innocuous, yet subversive, form of merchandize repurposed from the tennis world to youth subcultures where the polo communicated group identity. As the brand has moved through fashion cycles, the association of the Fred Perry polo with deviant groups has reduced the brand to representations of hate and separation, which has impacted sales and brand image with its intended consumers.

It is well-known that significant production pressures exist on many construction projects and previous studies have suggested that this pressure is a contributory factor in safety incidents on sites. While research has established that production pressures exist, less is understood about the construction practices that occur when projects are under such pressures and their repercussion for safety. The paper aims to discuss this issue.

Through an ethnographic approach on a large construction project in the UK, these practices were explored and unpacked. The lead researcher was a member of the Health and Safety department, and undertook participant observation as a main research tool for three years.

It was found that informal, covert and dangerous “piecework” strategies were adopted at the site level in direct response to scheduling demands. Construction workers were incentivised through extra finance and rest periods to finish the work quickly, which, in turn, prioritised production over safety. Unreasonable production pressures remain an unresolved problem in the construction industry and are, perhaps consequentially, being informally managed on-site.

This study improves our understanding of the complexities involved in the unresolved demands between production and safety on construction sites, which marks a step towards addressing this substantial challenge that is deeply ingrained within the industry.

A striking feature of Jaques' work is his “no nonsense” attitude to the “manager‐subordinate” relationship. His blunt account of the origins of this relationship seems at first sight to place him in the legalistic “principles of management” camp rather than in the ranks of the subtler “people centred” schools. We shall see before long how misleading such first impressions can be, for Jaques is not making simplistic assumptions about the human psyche. But he certainly sees no point in agonising over the mechanism of association which brings organisations and work‐groups into being when the facts of life are perfectly straightforward and there is no need to be squeamish about them.

It is appropriate to begin with some observations on the development of Public Administration, for the development of Comparative Public Administration and its present problems are most clearly viewed in historical perspective: The logical problems are related to a chronological development.

Theories of knowledge are critical to practical reasoning. Nevertheless, most students of management pay little or no attention to the disciplines that deal most directly with questions about knowledge, its origins, and its nature: epistemology primarily, but the philosophy of science and other related disciplines as well. Even where underlying philosophical assumptions influence their thinking and writing, students of practical reasoning often fail to acknowledge these influences. That is a great pity. By looking to epistemology, a richer and more coherent development of practical reasoning and its contribution to administrative inquiry as a field of intellectual endeavor may be possible. Moreover, the relationship between our understanding of knowledge and our understanding of practical reasoning is potentially reciprocal. A fuller exploration of this relationship may help us better understand social epistemology as well as promote conceptual development in the fields of practical reasoning and administrative inquiry.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

Two major approaches to organizational transformation (OT) are identified as “Drive” and “Grow” theories. Each has a serious flaw but they can be combined to form a stronger approach. However, managing the hybrid presents special challenges, including an acceptance of paradox. Five case studies are used to gain insight into OT at a process level, into the cross-conflicts and environmental reactions, including “the organizational immune reaction”. Two propositions are formulated: the bi-focal formula (regarding the agreement between an OT initiative and its host organizational unit) and the partnership proposition (regarding shared leadership of OT initiatives).