Search results

Since the shootings at Kent State University (KSU) in 1970, students and activists have held commemorative ceremonies to mark that event. The university ignored that past and decided to build a gym annex covering part of the land on which the National Guard had maneuvered in 1970. Led by the May 4th Coalition, activists sought to persuade the university to change the building's location. The student concern was the preservation of what they viewed as “sacred” ground which would be buried underneath the annex. At the 1977 annual commemoration speakers raised the annex issue and the newly formed May 4th Coalition ultimately occupied the site of the planned building with a tent city. That occupation was forcefully removed, and the university did build the facility where planned. The physical and spatial aspects of the commemoration of the Kent State shootings did, over time, lead the university to take on the responsibility to memorialize that conflict. This paper focuses on two interrelated issues: (1) the efforts of the May 4th Coalition and residents of Tent City to block or move the gym annex and (2) the refusal of KSU for years to recognize the broad significance of the events of May 1970 and their attempt to ignore or bury it.

This paper examines the validity standards applied to paper and pencil questionnaires by four social science roles: academic researchers, expert consultants, teachers, and organization development (OD) process consultants. These roles, influenced by their key stakeholders (e.g., clients, reviewers, students), employ different validity standards and socialize firm beliefs about these standards. The resulting divergence of attitudes toward measurement inhibits learning from other roles and slows social science advancement. This paper examines the assumption that each role must apply the same validity standards.

The discipline of Operational Research (OR) has always been important in the management field. It has a problem‐ solving/decision‐support focus; it guides the development of many management disciplines, such as management accounting, logistics management, and information systems design, to name a few. It is, in brief, a vital subject for guiding management practices and management development. Because of that, it can appear disturbing to note that contemporary OR has been facing a number of challenges and is obsessed with a number of theoretical/methodological concerns. Two recent examples illustrate this situation:

This paper examines the labor policies of the United Typothetae of America (UTA) from its birth in 1887 through the late 1920s and argues that labor policy differences among its members (personified by two prominent New York City-based printing employers, Theodore DeVinne and Charles Francis) created a “house divided” that not only prevented it from creating and maintaining a unified labor policy but also ultimately led to its demise as an employers' association and reconstitution primarily as a trade association. It will do so by analyzing key episodes in the UTA's labor history to show how the two competing labor philosophies – DeVinne's absolute authority & independence and Francis's stability & order – interacted with industry conditions – intense price competition, a decentralized industry structure, proprietor autonomy, the relative power of unions, and economic conditions – to impact the UTA's labor policies and its institutional survival. The UTA's experience reveals the diversity of American employers' experiences as well as the challenges that they have faced when attempting to act collectively in the industrial relations arena. Moreover, recent IR research on employers' associations around the world also reveals that, as unions have declined in power, many also are shifting their focus away from labor relations to other member services.

This paper explores the relationship between social movement protest, economic sabotage, state capitalism, the “Green Scare,” and public forms of political repression. Through a quantitative analysis of direct action activism highlighting the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front, the discourse surrounding mechanisms of social change and their impact on state power and capitalist accumulation will be examined. The analyses examines the earth and animal liberation movements, utilizing a Marxist-anarchist lens to illustrate how these non-state actors provide powerful critiques of capital and the state. Specifically, the discussion examines how state-sanctioned violence against these movements represents a return to Foucauldian Monarchical power. A quantitative-qualitative history will be used to argue that the movements’ actions fail to qualify as “terrorism,” and to examine the performance of power between the radical left and the state. State repression demonstrates not only the capitalist allegiances between government and industry, but also a sense of capital’s desperation hoping to counter a movement that has produced demonstrable victories by the means of bankrupting and isolating corporations. The government is taking such unconstitutional measures as a “talk back” between the revolutionary potential of these movements’ ideology as well as the challenge they present to state capitalism.

Observes that the provision of intelligent control is seen as the logical extension of existing seat‐belt and airbag systems for passenger vehicles to optimize secondary safety performance. Demonstrates the need for discrete information about the driver/passenger in the vehicle in order to provide optimal control of seat‐belt pre‐tensioning; seat‐belt reel‐out (post‐crash pulse); and air bag inflation timing and/or rate. Finds, from system modelling and statistical crash data, that such information as occupant mass and position with respect to vehicle interior and steering wheel are important parameters in the optimal control of the above integrated systems. Justifies these needs and shows that the design of a Smart Seat provides the necessary data. Explains that the design incorporates sensor systems, using a Mechatronic integrated approach.

Team composition research considers how configurations (e.g., team-level diversity) of team members’ attributes (e.g., personality, values, demographics) influence important outcomes. Our chapter describes key issues in understanding and effectively managing team composition over time.

We discuss how context shapes team composition. We review empirical research that examined relationships between team composition, and team processes and emergent properties over multiple time points. We review research that examined how composition can be effectively managed over the lifecycle of a team.

Context shapes the nature of team composition itself (e.g., dynamic composition). To the extent that membership change, fluid boundaries, and multiple team membership are present should be accounted for in research and practice. The research we reviewed indicated no, or fleeting effects for surface-level (e.g., demographics) composition on the development of team processes and emergent properties over time, although there were exceptions. Conversely, deep-level composition affected team processes and emergent properties early in a team’s lifespan as well as later. Team composition information can be used in staffing; it can also inform how to best leverage training, leadership, rewards, tasks, and technology to promote team effectiveness.

Teams are the building blocks of contemporary organizations. Understanding and effectively managing team composition over time can increase the likelihood of team.

Our chapter provides novel insights into key issues in understanding and effectively managing team composition over time.

Well‐founded complaint has recently been made concerning the characters of the various forms of “candy,” or, as we should term them, “sweets,” that are manufactured in great quantities in the United States.