Search results

The equation of unified knowledge says that S = f (A,P) which means that the practical solution to a given problem is a function of the existing, empirical, actual realities and the future, potential, best possible conditions of general stable equilibrium which both pure and practical reason, exhaustive in the Kantian sense, show as being within the realm of potential realities beyond any doubt. The first classical revolution in economic thinking, included in factor “P” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of a model of ideal conditions of stable equilibrium but neglected the full consideration of the existing, actual conditions. That is the main reason why, in the end, it failed. The second modern revolution, included in factor “A” of the equation, conceived the economic and financial problems in terms of the existing, actual conditions, usually in disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium (in case of stagnation) and neglected the sense of right direction expressed in factor “P” or the realization of general, stable equilibrium. That is the main reason why the modern revolution failed in the past and is failing in front of our eyes in the present. The equation of unified knowledge, perceived as a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern thinking has been applied rigorously and systematically in writing the enclosed American‐British economic, monetary, financial and social stabilization plans. In the final analysis, a new economic philosophy, based on a synthesis between classical and modern thinking, called here the new economics of unified knowledge, is applied to solve the malaise of the twentieth century which resulted from a confusion between thinking in terms of stable equilibrium on the one hand and disequilibrium or unstable equilibrium on the other.

This chapter explores responsibility in the posttruth era in communication disciplines while documenting the civic and political ramifications of the current news climate in the United States.

In the real estate industry, as well as in other mature markets, producers seek to improve their comparative advantage by correctly addressing the needs and expectations of future users; when projects involve public financial investment (e.g. public/private partnerships), such participation may help to legitimate resource allocation. In this respect few quantitative approaches, affiliated to the study of demand, are able to evaluate the trade‐off that is given between the preferences of individuals when they are faced to choose a single alternative, as is usual in real estate and urban projects. The purpose of this paper is to report the initial results of a research study with the objective of investigating the extent to which techniques used in the design of goods and services could be used to consider future users' preferences on the design processes of real estate developments, such as those promoted by public‐private partnerships in which the inclusion of people's opinion become central for commercial and political reasons.

This article seeks to evaluate the extent to which conjoint analysis, a technique affiliated with designing goods and services through future user/consumer participation, may be used as a support tool in making real estate decisions. This method, born out of the field of marketing analysis, is based on choice experiments and the results are analyzed with conventional multinomial regression models, and can be rooted in “characteristics theory of value” and “behaviorism”.

The results suggest that although this method is helpful in finding the relative relevance of each of the attributes in the projects evaluated, it is not sufficiently clear to: determine the attributes to evaluate; understand the deep reasons motivating preferences; or anticipate future needs that go unnoticed by potential users/buyers in their everyday perceptions. Therefore, this technique is far superior to typical evaluation surveys on independent attributes. However, it is insufficient in the context of intrinsically complex processes.

Although intensively used in the design of short‐life consumption services and products, conjoint analysis has been scarcely used on long‐life goods such as urban premises; in this article this technique is used for first time in the framework of a type of public/private brownfield redevelopment project in Catalonia.

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.

While the words diversity, disparate impact, and discrimination are commonly read and heard by working adults and professionals, they can at times be confusing and fearful to some managers. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a specific aspect of US civil rights laws – the disparate impact theory. The authors provide an analysis based on the statute, case law interpreting, and applying the statute, administrative guidelines from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, as well as legal and management commentary. The paper illustrates the requirements of a plaintiff employee’s initial case based on the disparate impact theory. The challenging causation component which requires some degree of statistical evidence is given particular attention. Limitations to the paper are stated at the beginning; and recommendations to managers are explored and provided toward the end of the paper.

It is a legal paper which covers all the laws related to discrimination based on disparate impact and disparate treatment theories. Actual court cases up until this month and Americans laws related to this concept are reviewed and critically discussed.

The salient feature of disparate impact is that this legal theory allows a plaintiff job applicant or employee to sustain a case of illegal discrimination without providing any evidence of a discriminatory motive. As opposed to the disparate treatment liability is imposed based on disproportionate adverse results and not discriminatory intent.

This paper deals with the disparate impact theory pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. However, it must be pointed out that the disparate impact theory is also applicable to claims arising under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Since the focus of this paper is Title VII federal and state constitutional issues, such as the applicability of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause that may arise in disparate impact cases involving government entities will not be addressed.

Managers and employees can protect themselves in the workplace from illegal discriminatory practices. Initially, employers and managers must be aware of the distinction between a disparate impact case and a disparate treatment case with the latter requiring evidence of intentional discrimination. Evidence, of course, can be direct or circumstantial or inferential. Whereas in a disparate impact case there is no intentional discrimination; and as such proof of discriminatory intent is not required. Rather, the employee has to present evidence that the employer’s neutral on-its-face employment policy or practice caused an adverse disproportionate impact on the employee as a member of a protected class.

Human resources professionals and managers must become educated in diversity laws in order to provide an inclusive workplace for all employees and candidates. Employers have legitimate areas of concern in hiring and promoting employees; and the courts are cognizant of employer responsibilities; and thus the employers must be able to show how specific knowledge, skills, education, training, backgrounds, as well as height, weight, strength, and dexterity are legitimate qualifications that directly relate to successful job performance.

This is an original paper by the authors.

Interdisciplinary leadership education programs attempt to integrate students from diverse backgrounds and ideologies within contexts that facilitate cognitive growth and allow students to engage with real world problems. Specifically, the development of agency and effective decision-making can provide students with a powerful toolkit replete with the necessary capacities and dispositions for addressing complex global problems. However, recently counter- reality has created significant challenges for leadership educators. Counter-reality, or the pervasive and persuasive replacement of objective truths with subjective opinions grounded in falsehoods, lead perceptions and provide barriers to developing leadership students primed for sustainably addressing complex organizational and community challenges. The following educational framework intends to address the challenge posed by counter-reality by developing agency in leadership students, so they are better equipped to ask incisive questions when presented with counter realities. Addressing counter-reality through the development of agency is incredibly timely as false claims and misinformation are presented on nearly a daily basis.

Making a choice between different alternative solutions is a common management problem. Also in maintenance operations, a variety of different decision areas can be identified. In these decisions, different criteria, both tangible and intangible are relevant and must be considered at the same time. In order to be able to make rational and justifiable tactical decisions for these so‐called multi‐criteria decision problems, one needs a multi‐criteria decision making model (MCDM). In this paper the tactical choice of a predictive maintenance program for an automotive paint shop is elaborated. An MCDM approach is applied to tackle the problem considering different criteria, which often are conflicting.

In the traditional setting of a tender procedure on infrastructure in the Netherlands, the procedure starts after the public decision-making procedure has been completed. In recent years, however, the Department of Transport and Water Management has considered advancing the start of the tender procedure in relation to the start of the planning procedure by interweaving both procedures. The possibilities and added values of this market approach have been researched in this paper. Added value has been found in the area of utilisation of knowledge, innovation and creativity of the market, thus gaining time and obtaining a more business-like character of the planning procedure. Solutions are proposed for impediments concerning disclosure versus confidentiality, adapting tender conditions and award criteria, (re)using market party ideas and procedure period.