Search results

This chapter explores the development of an individual-level measure of decent work. It draws on a recent article written by the authors, which was part of a larger international project to validate a cross-cultural self-report measure of decent work within the context of the Psychology of Working Theory (Dodd et al., 2019). It discusses the importance of a psychological perspective on decent work to better understand working lives; summarizes the findings from the validation studies Decent Work Scale (DWS) in eight countries; outlines potential uses of the DWS; and considers the limitations of the DWS as well as challenges to conceptualizing decent work more generally.

Explores the extent of employee surveillance in the western world and queries why the USA uses surveillance measures to a greater extent than other developed nations. Suggests that American managers choose surveillance methods which include the control of workers’ bodies in the production process. Lists the batteries of tests and monitoring to which US employees can now be subjected – including searching employee computer files, voice/e‐mail, monitoring telephone calls, drug tests, alcohol tests, criminal record checks, lie detector and handwriting tests. Notes also the companies which are opposed to worker and consumer privacy rights. Pinpoints the use of surveillance as a means to ensure that employees do not withold production. Reports that employees dislike monitoring and that it may adversely affect their performance and productivity. Argues that Americans like to address complex social problems with technological means, there are no data protection laws in the USA, and that these two factors, combined with the “employment‐at‐will” doctrine, have all contributed to make it possible (and easy) for employers to use technological surveillance of their workforce. Outlines some of the ways employers insist on the purification of workers’ bodies.

Data collected from 319 senior executives and 2477 of their subordinates from a global diversified organization were used to explore the impact of differences in individual personality orientation on the processes by which these individuals enable their workgroups. Personality orientation was defined in terms of self‐ratings on four distinct groupings derived from a k‐means cluster analysis of self‐ratings on the Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator and the Kirton Adaptation Inventory. Perceptions of enablement and ratings of executive behavior were based on questionnaires completed by subordinates. Although no differences were found with respect to the overall degree of enablement experienced by subordinates, personality orientation did affect the specific behaviors employed by executives to enable others and the degree of managerial self‐awareness exhibited (operationalized as congruence in self vs. subordinates' ratings). Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

This article reviews the literature on personality disorder in offenders with learning disabilities, using Medline, PsychoInfo and CINAHL databases, and search terms ‘offending’, ‘personality disorder and intellectual disabilities’, ‘learning disabilities’ and related terms. Methods of defining offending population, personality disorder and learning disabilities vary greatly, and few studies focus specifically on personality disorder, learning disability and offending. The definition of learning disability often encompasses both borderline learning disability and low average intelligence. Personality disorder, especially anti‐social personality disorder, is prevalent in offenders with learning disabilities, but less than in the general population, and is associated with higher levels of security and poorer outcomes. The study concludes that there is a continuum of offenders with borderline and mild learning disabilities, reflected in learning disability forensic services.

Purpose — To develop methodologies to evaluate search engines according to an individual's preference in an easy and reliable manner, and to formulate user-oriented metrics to compare freshness and duplication in search results.

Design/methodology/approach — A personalised evaluation model for comparing search engines is designed as a hierarchy of weighted parameters. These commonly found search engine features and performance measures are given quantitative and qualitative ratings by an individual user. Furthermore, three performance measurement metrics are formulated and presented as histograms for visual inspection. A methodology is introduced to quantitatively compare and recognise the different histogram patterns within the context of search engine performance.

Findings — Precision and recall are the fundamental measures used in many search engine evaluations due to their simplicity, fairness and reliability. Most recent evaluation models are user oriented and focus on relevance issues. Identifiable statistical patterns are found in performance measures of search engines.

Research limitations/implications — The specific parameters used in the evaluation model could be further refined. A larger scale user study would confirm the validity and usefulness of the model. The three performance measures presented give a reasonably informative overview of the characteristics of a search engine. However, additional performance parameters and their resulting statistical patterns would make the methodology more valuable to the users.

Practical implications — The easy-to-use personalised search engine evaluation model can be tailored to an individual's preference and needs simply by changing the weights and modifying the features considered. A user is able to get an idea of the characteristics of a search engine quickly using the quantitative measure of histogram patterns that represent the search performance metrics introduced.

Originality/value — The presented work is considered original as one of the first search engine evaluation models that can be personalised. This enables a Web searcher to choose an appropriate search engine for his/her needs and hence finding the right information in the shortest time with the least effort.

The decision of the Wolverhampton Stipendiary in the case of “Skim‐milk Cheese” is, at any rate, clearly put. It is a trial case, and, like most trial cases, the reasons for the judgment have to be based upon first principles of common‐sense, occasionally aided, but more often complicated, by already existing laws, which apply more or less to the case under discussion. The weak point in this particular case is the law which has just come into force, in which cheese is defined as the substance “usually known as cheese” by the public and any others interested in cheese. This reliance upon the popular fancy reads almost like our Government's war policy and “the man in the street,” and is a shining example of a trustful belief in the average common‐sense. Unfortunately, the general public have no direct voice in a police court, and so the “usually known as cheese” phrase is translated according to the fancy and taste of the officials and defending solicitors who may happen to be concerned with any particular case. Not having the general public to consult, the officials in this case had a war of dictionaries which would have gladdened the heart of Dr. JOHNSON; and the outcome of much travail was the following definition: cheese is “ coagulated milk or curd pressed into a solid mass.” So far so good, but immediately a second definition question cropped up—namely, What is “milk?”—and it is at this point that the mistake occurred. There is no legal definition of new milk, but it has been decided, and is accepted without dispute, that the single word “milk” means an article of well‐recognised general properties, and which has a lower limit of composition below which it ceases to be correctly described by the one word “milk,” and has to be called “skim‐milk,” “separated milk,” “ milk and water,” or other distinguishing names. The lower limits of fat and solids‐not‐fat are recognised universally by reputable public analysts, but there has been no upper limit of fat fixed. Therefore, by the very definition quoted by the stipendiary, an article made from “skim‐milk” is not cheese, for “skim‐milk” is not “milk.” The argument that Stilton cheese is not cheese because there is too much fat would not hold, for there is no legal upper limit for fat; but if it did hold, it does not matter, for it can be, and is, sold as “Stilton” cheese, without any hardship to anyone. The last suggestion made by the stipendiary would, if carried out, afford some protection to the general public against their being cheated when they buy cheese. This suggestion is that the Board of Agriculture, who by the Act of 1899 have the legal power, should determine a lower limit of fat which can be present in cheese made from milk; but, as we have repeatedly pointed out, it is by the adoption of the Control system that such questions can alone be settled to the advantage of the producer of genuine articles and to that of the public.

What proof have the public, independent of the assertions of the makers, that all the firms whose products are sold indifferently by the shopkeepers use only the best materials; or, indeed, that a large number of the articles sold are not mixtures more or less objectionable or fraudulent ? This, in effect, is the question put by a writer in a West of England newspaper, and it might be used as a text upon which to write a lengthy homily on the adulteration question and on the astonishing gullibility of the public. As a matter of fact the only evidence of the character and quality of food and other products, in regard to which there is no independent guarantee, is that which is afforded by the standing of the makers, and to some extent of the firms which offer them for sale. And this evidence cannot, under any circumstances, be looked upon as constituting proof. The startling allegations so commonly put forward by advertisers with respect to their wares, while they may be ineffective in so far as thinking people are concerned, must nevertheless be found pecuniarily advantageous since the expense involved in placing them under the eyes of the public would otherwise hardly be incurred. Many of these advertised allegations are, of course, entirely unjustifiable, or are incapable of proof. It may be hoped that the lavish manner in which they are set out, and their very extravagance, may, in time, result in producing a general effect not contemplated by the advertisers. In the meantime it cannot be too often pointed out that proof, such as that which is required for the satisfaction of the retailer and for the protection of the public, can only be obtained by the exercise of an independent control, and, in certain cases, by the maintenance of efficient independent inspection in addition, so that a guarantee of a character entirely different to that which may be offered, even by a firm of the highest eminence, may be supplied.

At the January meeting of the American Library Association in Washington, DC, IBM equipment and products led the field against Apple and other microcomputer brands. Predictions that the IBM PC would become the de facto standard library computer have clearly been fulfilled. It now appears that more powerful IBM products——such as the AT——and a host of peripherals will shortly become commonplace library equipment.

Recreational travel is a psychological experience. Therefore, recreational travel involves an individual traveler's subjective perception of an actual or imagined activity in which he or she participates at a given time. In order to serve effectively recreation travelers at their destinations, it is essential for an agency dealing in recreation at the destinations to understand the psychological forces and factors that motivate and satisfy individual travelers.