Search results

Aims to study the pricing decisions of small firms. Conventional wisdom argues that small firms tend to use relatively unsophisticated methods of pricing; however, indicates that small firms may in fact be a good deal more sophisticated in their techniques of pricing than has previously been supposed. Reviews the theory and empirical evidence to date and notes a significant gap in the research into small business pricing. Using a case study method based on 12 detailed cases of the pricing policies of small companies, concludes that there is little evidence to support the findings of previous studies which indicated the predominance of full‐cost pricing. It was found that small companies avoided “head‐on” competition and sought to exploit their own market niche as a means of exercising more control over their prices.

The types of innovation considered to be Schumpeterian can be very broad. What is an innovation? According to The Advanced Learner's Dictionary (Hornby, Gatenby, & Wakefield, 1973, p. 545), an innovation is “something new that is introduced.” This covers both inventions and their introduction. Thus, introducing methods to a new market can certainly be a form of Schumpeterian innovation. Schumpeter, however, distinguished innovations (innovators) from inventions (inventors) (Swedberg, 1991, p. 173). He considered innovations as the prime movers in the capitalist process. Johannessen, Olsen, and Lumpkin (2001) dwell on six measures of the “newness” of an innovation based on his interpretation of Schumpeter and others, but glossed over the distinction between innovations and inventions. What, then, was Schumpeter's original formulation?

Concern about special education's future is widespread. Now there are calls for special education's abandonment or its nonexistence in any environment other than general education (i.e., for full inclusion or some form of general education only). Some advocates for reform consider special education obsolete, to be rejected in favor of newer ideas known as inclusionary education, and they advocate abandoning special education.

Now may be the time for a second revolution in thinking about what special education is and does so that it evolves into a service that more consistently realizes its promise. Special education is likely to become extinct if its devolution continues. Its collapse would hasten the abandonment of public education. Alternatively, it could evolve to become a viable part of public education, a distinct entity, a clearly identifiable and viable part of educating all children appropriately in public schools.

Among the many causes of special education's devolution, some stand out prominently: (1) confusing must and may; (2) accepting illogic and imprecision of language; (3) responding to all diversities in the same way; (4) spurning science; (5) confusing attribute and person; (6) putting the worst possible face on special education; and (7) misconstruing least restrictive environment.

Better thinking and clearer communication are required to achieve special education's revitalization. These include calling things what they are and relying on new, younger leaders. Clear and wide understanding – consensus – about what special education is and does and acceptance of the idea that we must have it as a separate and distinct part of universal public education would be revolutionary.

Proposes that while many companies claim a commitment to quality, few can withstand serious examinination and suggests the solution is to assure quality by third‐party endorsement of an initial and continuous commitment to quality in every detail. Argues that certification of quality systems is a crucial building block that is needed before quality can be seen to be a meaningful competitive advantage. Concludes that in the Single European Market, quality system certification will become more important than ever and examines the steps towards a common European set of benchmarks.

This book is a policy proposal aimed at the democratic left. It is concerned with gradual but radical reform of the socio‐economic system. An integrated policy of industrial and economic democracy, which centres around the establishment of a new sector of employee‐controlled enterprises, is presented. The proposal would retain the mix‐ed economy, but transform it into a much better “mixture”, with increased employee‐power in all sectors. While there is much of enduring value in our liberal western way of life, gross inequalities of wealth and power persist in our society.

Presents the principles of thirty six Chinese classical strategies which includes strategies for attack, strength, confrontation, confusion, gaining ground and desperate situations. Applies these to strategic planning and marketing rather than the traditional use on battlefields. Uses anecdotal evidence to give examples and suggests that they are relevant to many other business areas.

Special education for students with severe disabilities depends on advocacy, but for what issues we should advocate is arguable. Prioritizing issues for advocacy also may subject to debate. Some may argue for full inclusion, which is the idea that all children irrespective of impairments or needs should receive all services in general education settings. Full inclusion implies that all decisions about what, how, and where special education is provided must conform to general education contexts. Full inclusion is an absolute imposition and, accordingly, is diametrically opposed to an individualized approach articulated in US special education law. This chapter briefly addresses the incompatibility of inclusion (based on individualization) and full inclusion (based on absolute conformity) for students with severe disabilities, and suggests that special education professionals and leaders should champion meaningful curriculum delivered with effective instruction and behavioral supports. The foundations for this advocacy with and on behalf of students with severe disabilities should be scientific evidence, evidence-based practice, and the continued rights and protections associated with an individualized approach.

Change is not synonymous with improvement. Improvement of special education requires better instruction of individuals with disabilities. Although LRE and inclusion are important issues, they are not the primary legal or practical issues in improving special education. Federal law (IDEA) requires a continuum of alternative placements, not placement in general education in all cases. To make actual progress in education of students with disabilities, a single and strict principle of equality or/and antidiscriminatory legal instruments, such as the CRPD, is not enough. Social justice as a multifaceted principle can serve the education of the whole spectrum of special educational needs in national and international contexts. Responsible inclusion demands attention to the individual instructional needs of individuals with disabilities and consideration of the practical realities involved in teaching. If inclusive education is to move forward, it must involve placing students with disabilities in general education only if that is the environment in which they seem most likely to learn the skills that will be most important for their futures.