Search results

This study examined the impact of perceived threat and cohesion on the ability of groups to solve problems in a situation of social conflict. The self‐reports and behaviors of 31 groups of college males were studied within a comprehensive, strategic simulation of intergroup conflict. The simulation was based on both a value conflict and an economic competition over scarce resources. A coding scheme for group problem solving was created based in part on Janis' seven symptoms of groupthink. Change scores were calculated over different points in time to assess the relationships among perceived threat, group cohesion, and dysfunctional group problem solving. Large increases in perceived threat were significantly related to decrements in problem‐solving effectiveness regardless of whether cohesion was stable or increased. Groups who reported high and increasing levels of cohesion experienced a decrement in problem solving regardless of the increase in perceived threat, while groups who showed small changes in cohesion demonstrated decreased problem solving under high perceived threat. The results were consistent with Janis' model of groupthink, and Fisher's eclectic model of intergroup conflict.

How do we understand political polarization around the issue of climate change in the United States? Using a mixed-methods approach, this paper unpacks the components of the debate over climate science and policy between 2015 and 2017 to understand the sources of divisiveness that have come to characterize climate politics in the United States. Data in our analysis include the content of Congressional hearings and open-ended, semi-structured interviews with the most influential climate policy actors at the federal level. We find high levels of polarization around two specific components of this debate: the type of policy instrument and the role of the federal government in regulating carbon dioxide emissions. This paper concludes by exploring how patterns of polarization preceding the 2016 election help us to understand the expected political debate over federal climate policy in the years to come.

This study examined the relationships among ethnocentrism, group cohesion, and constituent pressure in either competitive or collaborative directions within the context of a complex simulation of intergroup conflict. The simulation elicited both a value and an economic conflict over scarce resources and their development in which pairs of groups negotiated through representatives to reach a settlement. The results from 32 four‐person groups of college males were based on self‐report questionnaires and behavioral codings from videotapes of the simulation sessions. With the questionnaire data, ethnocentrism, group cohesion, and constituent pressure were significantly related at three different measurement points and when averaged over the entire simulation. Behavioral ratings of ethnocentrism were positively correlated with behavioral measures of constituent pressure to compete and negatively with pressure to collaborate. These results provide empirical support for the effects of cohesion and ethnocentrism on conflict management behavior in line with realistic group conflict theory.

This research was originally conducted as the author’s dissertation work at the Ohio University. The author explored LibQUAL+ results from two separate institutions with different Carnegie Classifications, and therefore different academic missions, to look for relationships between patron types, Carnegie Classifications, and scores across the minimum, perceived, and desired questions of the information control (IC) component of the LibQUAL+ instrument. By comparing results from a library affiliated with a research institution to one from a campus more focused on teaching and learning, a school going through the shift from one focus to another would be better able to anticipate changes related to patron needs. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A three-way between-within subjects ANOVA was conducted. The first between-subjects variable was patron type, which included undergraduate, graduate, and faculty. The second between-subjects variable was Carnegie Classification, which included the two classifications of RU_H and Master’s_M. The within-subjects variable had three levels, which in this case functioned as three dependent variables made up of the mean or composite score of the combined eight questions included in the IC portion of LibQUAL+, broken in the three categories of minimum, perceived, and desired. An additional breakdown shows that 499 were undergraduate students, 137 were graduate students, and 197 were faculty.

The results of the study indicated that Carnegie Classification has no significant effect on how undergraduate, graduate, and faculty respond to the three levels of the IC component of the LibQUAL+ survey. As other studies have shown however, there were significant differences with regard to patron-level responses. For a more comprehensive look at all seven research questions and their answers, please see the complete dissertation here: http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=ohiou1354726349

This study is limited in size and scope because of the limitations of the method of analysis. A broader study using the same analysis would be difficult because of the impracticality of adding, for example, additional Carnegie Classifications into the equation. A significant limitation is that LibQUAL+ results are not typically compared across institutions as the respondents are commenting on separate collections and services. This was minimized by choosing institutions that belong to the same very strong consortial system and have an interlibrary loan system in place which essentially creates one enormous collection for all to share.

Perhaps more significant than the findings themselves is the method of analysis used, as it is one that while complicated statistically, is relatively easy to explain by using the split-plot studies conducted by R.A. Fisher on which the analysis is based as a starting point. The author have found that conceptually it is easier for those without a statistical background to relate to images of potato fields with varying types of potatoes and fertilizer than Carnegie Classifications, patron types, and the multi-level components of LibQUAL+ results.

It would be difficult to speak to the originality of the proposal, but the author would say that a possible outcome would be a discussion of the value of translatable results that speak to broader audiences, particularly those outside library settings. Methods of analysis that can be explained in ways that do not involve the word ANOVA have value and will add to a stronger understanding of research questions and results by decision makers.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

This chapter investigates the effect of moral reasoning of tax professionals on the aggressiveness of their reporting recommendations. The findings of the study indicate moral reasoning influences the aggressiveness of tax reporting decisions separate from the influence of client pressure. As the level of moral reasoning increases, the aggressiveness of the reporting position is found to0 decrease. Contrary to prior research, client pressure is not related to tax reporting aggressiveness. Failure to observe this relationship may signal a shift in behavior resulting from the intense public and regulatory scrutiny at the time of data collection which was in the immediate aftermath of the Enron scandal.

This chapter explores distributed leadership in volunteer multistakeholder groups tackling complex problems, focusing on community organizing practices to bridge the gap between health and health care in Columbia, South Carolina. Columbia faces increasing chronic disease, high rates of uninsured, unequal access to healthcare services, and rising costs. Regional leaders periodically tackled these problems together but faced challenges common to multistakeholder groups. In 2010, leaders from Columbia partnered with the authors in a learning enterprise to find new, more sustainable ways to address these challenges. Together we adapted a community organizing approach to develop distributed leadership skills necessary to overcome the challenges of volunteer multistakeholder groups and transform the health system in a local area. In the first year, teams provided health screenings to over 1,000 residents; over 3,000 residents exercised leadership to improve community health; over 5,000 residents pledged to improve their health. Clinic hours were extended; new health coaches focused on primary care and wellness programs. Providers and payers committed to reinvesting a share of savings in the community, which has a voice in their use. We show that developing distributed leadership via community organizing offers an approach to solving seemingly intractable community problems.

The purpose of this paper is to explore how relationships between different actors are being shaped to allow industry to come to acceptable and desirable uses of research and innovation (R&I) that address societal challenges.

Building on existing notions of responsibility proposed in the literature, the paper develops a theoretical account of “networks of responsibility” which capture the interlinked nature of responsibility relationships. The usefulness of the approach is evaluated by exploring two cases of R&I in industry deploying a qualitative research approach that involves interviewing and document analysis. For this, a multinational company from Germany was involved, as well as a small- and medium-sized company from Denmark.

The study surfaced 68 responsibility relationships involving a range of different objects, subjects, authorities and norms. By describing overlaps in objects, subjects and other aspects across relationships, the theoretical model proved adequate in untangling and displaying interrelatedness of responsibilities. Furthermore, the analysis surfaced characteristics of responsible research and innovation (RRI) that are already in place in the R&I processes of two innovative companies, such as anticipation, foresight and stakeholder engagement. Not all aspects of responsibility outlined in the theoretical model could be extracted from the interview data for every responsibility relationship, pointing to the need for further research.

The paper is practically relevant because it supports policy development on an organisational, as well as societal level. Moreover, the networks of responsibility model offer a fine-grained assessment of responsibilities in R&I practice by mapping existing responsibilities which supports translating RRI principles into everyday organisational practices.

RRI sets an ambitious agenda to ensure a more social and ethical R&I. Much work is still needed to bridge the gap between these theoretical and political aspirations and daily R&I practice, especially in non-academic contexts such as industry. By offering a way to understand and untangle the complexity of responsibility relationships, the networks of responsibility model seem to offer a promising approach that can support this endeavour.

The paper offers a novel theoretical approach to understanding and analysing responsibility allocations in R&I in industry. It demonstrates the reliability of this theoretical position empirically. It is practically important because it supports policy development on an organisational as well as societal level.