Search results

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to discuss certain key issues involved in the science wars; second, to review William Rehg's Cogent Science in Context: The Science Wars, Argumentation Theory, and Habermas (Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, 2009).

In accord with the genre of a review paper, the author sets the larger intellectual context of Rehg's book, and then highlights Rehg's book.

The findings suggest that Rehg has done an excellent job of explaining and expanding Habermas's argumentation theory, thereby working out a nonrelativist and nonskeptical framework for science studies (e.g. science and technology studies, studies in the sociology of scientific knowledge, and ethnomethodological studies of scientific work). However, the present author's findings also suggest that Rehg has not addressed the concerns of Protestant fundamentalists in the science wars as strongly as those concerns can be addressed. In addition, the present author's findings show that Rehg is silent about those academic critics in the science wars who criticize scientism in the pejorative sense of the term.

In the final analysis, Rehg's use of Habermas's argumentation theory is credited with offering rich implications for taking the science wars to a new level of sophistication.

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.

This paper examines the role of cultural values measured as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance, in predicting employee voice behavior. Using data (n = 198) collected from automotive-industry employees in the United States (US) and Korea, several interesting findings emerged. First, and most notably, for a “leaver” who chooses the exit option, culture does not matter, such that none of the three cultural values have a significant association with the exit option across countries. Second, for a “stayer,” who chooses the voice, loyalty, or neglect option, culture does matter in that cultural-specific values, such as collectivism, face-saving, and conflict-avoidance were found to affect employees nonexit options in the Korean sample, but not in the U.S. sample. The results of this study suggest that these three cultural values guide and predict employee voice behavior. Additionally, the results of this study confirm that job alternatives are a significant predictor of the exit option across cultures. This study therefore presents strong empirical evidence of the effect of culture on employee voice behavior and increases our understanding of employee voice behavior across cultures.

Wonders whether companies actually have employees best interests at heart across physical, mental and spiritual spheres. Posits that most organizations ignore their workforce – not even, in many cases, describing workers as assets! Describes many studies to back up this claim in theis work based on the 2002 Employment Research Unit Annual Conference, in Cardiff, Wales.

A core concept of work–home interface research is boundary permeability – the frequency with which elements from one domain cross, or permeate, the boundary of another domain. Yet, there remains ambiguity as to what these elements are and how these permeations impact important outcomes such as role satisfaction and role performance. The authors introduce a multidimensional perspective of work–home boundary permeability, identifying five forms of boundary permeation: task, psychological, role referencing, object, and people. Furthermore, based on the notion that employee control over boundary permeability behavior is the key to achieving role satisfaction and role performance, the authors examine how organizations’ HR practices, leadership, and norms impact employee control over boundary permeability in the work and home domains. The authors conclude with an agenda for future research.

We develop and validate measurement instruments for the business partner, watchdog, and scorekeeper roles of controllers. This study addresses calls to enhance the quality of survey research in management accounting by devoting more attention to scale development and especially to construct validity. By focusing on the activity sets of the controllers’ roles, we provide a theoretically and empirically grounded picture of their current roles. The measurement instruments presented in this study enable systematic research progress on controller roles, their relationships, antecedents, and performance outcomes.