Search results

The elearn2work study of learning styles in the context of small to micro firms' (SMFs) and their perceived satisfaction has identified some important finding specific to e‐learning content design, delivery and international standards development.

The method of research adopts a deductive rather than an inductive approach via descriptive profiling and multivariate statistical analysis.

From the elearn2work study we have identified tentative findings that indicate e‐learning inequity for many SMF learners including employees and managers. From our research there is a clear gap between the profile of SMF learners, in the context of their learning style, and the typical content that is currently being designed for e‐learning provision. The sector is driven by analytic type educators/trainers who are frequently not a reflection of SMF learners.

It could be argued that many SMF workers are currently being socially excluded from e‐learning provision through pedagogy inequity when considering the lack of learning styles support in work‐based learning practice.

Outlines previous research on cointegration between capital markets and assesses the degree of cointegration between liberalized Eastern European markets (the Czech Republic, Poland and Hungary) and the German and UK markets in the context of increasing foreign investment in Eastern Europe. Uses 1991‐1995 weekly indices to examine stock returns, performing several different tests, and suggests (in contrast to previous findings) that the markets are co‐ordinated for the whol study period. Briefly considers the implications for investment portfolio diversifaction and short‐run investment strategies.

This issue is a selected bibliography covering the subject of leadership.

Although there is an abundance of literature dealing with the techniques of work with offenders and offender‐patients, less attention has been paid to alternative and additional means of invoking empathy and insight into behaviours that often produce anxiety, confusion and, on occasion, abhorrence. This article attempts to redress the balance.

One has to be so careful of evoking stereotypes — perhaps even ‘stereotypism’ — in the library world nowadays. I am still recovering from a fierce (if toothless) savaging from one of the new inner‐city zealots for declaring my inherent racism in describing myself as English rather than British; mind you, the complainer was a Scot.

The history and prospects of European integration are both fascinating and exciting. Analysts of every aspect of this process, including its cultural, economic, financial, historical, political, and social dimensions, should recall that its main rationale remains as it has always been, to permanently end conflict and to secure peace and prosperity for all Europeans. As the European Union's (EU's) own website (see http://europa.eu.int) points out Europe has been the scene of many and frequent bloody wars throughout the centuries. In the 75-year period between 1870 and 1945, for example, France and Germany fought each other three times with huge loss of life. The history of modern European integration commenced in earnest with the realization in the early 1950s that the best way to prevent future conflict is to secure more economic and political integration. This led to the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, followed shortly by the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. Since then, the process of integration and enlargement has progressed at varying speeds, but always moving forwards. In 1967, the founding institutions of the EEC were merged to form today's European Commission (EC), the Council of Ministers, and the European Parliament. The members of the European Parliament were initially chosen by the member governments of the EEC, but direct elections commenced in 1979, and have continued every 5 years since then. The Treaty of Maastricht created the EU in 1992 and established the process of economic and monetary union (EMU) that culminated in the introduction of the euro in 12 of the 15 Member States in 2002.

Frederick R. Post’s response (2003) to our paper (“The Social Responsibility of Corporate Management: A Classical Critique,” 2003) is factually mistaken, inconsistent, and confused over: 1) the contents of our paper, 2) how corporate capitalism works, and 3) the consequences of what he advocates. This reply discusses these points, and revisits both our critique of the stakeholder paradigm and defense of shareholder primacy.