Search results

Many researchers have investigated the determinants of workers’ risk-taking/unsafe behaviours as a way to improve safety management and reduce accidents but there has been a general lack of research about workers’ risk information seeking behaviours or their source preferences for risk information. The purpose of this paper is to investigate whether occupational risk information source preference was risk independent (i.e. whether workers prefer to receive occupational risk information from proximal sources like supervisors and workmates regardless of the nature of the risk or the source's expertise regarding that risk, or if they discriminated between information sources based on the type of risk being considered).

Data were collected from 106 frontline construction workers who were recruited from a single building site within the UK with the help of the safety officer on site. The source from which workers preferred to receive information about a range of risks was measured using a ranking exercise. Specifically, workers were asked to rank five occupational sources (HSE, safety manager, project manager, supervisor, workmates) according to how much they preferred each one to deliver information about eight different risks (asbestos, back pain, site transport, heights, slips/trips, housekeeping, and site-specific and job-specific risks).

The paper found that supervisors and safety managers were the most preferred sources of risk information overall, but a correspondence analysis suggested that workers’ risk information source preference is risk dependent and might be driven by source expertise.

The findings have important practical implications for the role of safety managers in risk communication and for building trust within high-hazard organisations.

To the author's knowledge, this is the first study to investigate risk information source preferences in an occupational setting.

The purpose of this study is to assess attitudes toward and use of an electronic adverse incident reporting system in all four hospitals in one National Health Service Scotland Health Board area.

A questionnaire was used to assess medical consultants', managers', and nurses' attitudes and perceptions about electronic adverse incident reporting. Actual adverse incident reporting data were also analysed.

The main findings from this study are that consultants, managers, and nurses all had positive attitudes about responsibility for reporting adverse incidents. All respondents indicated that the design of and information collected by the electronic adverse incident reporting system (Datix) was adequate but consultants had more negative attitudes and perceptions than managers and nurses about Datix. All respondents expressed negative attitudes about the amount and type of feedback they receive from reporting, and consultants expressed more negative attitudes about how Datix is managed than managers and nurses. Analysis of adverse incident reporting data found that the proportion of consultants using Datix to report incidents was significantly lower than that of managers and nurses.

The findings suggest that there are no additional barriers to incident reporting associated with the use of a bespoke electronic adverse incident reporting system as compared to other types of systems. Although an electronic adverse incident reporting system may be able to increase incident reporting and facilitate organisational learning by making it easier to report incidents and analyse incident reporting data, strong leadership within hospitals/healthcare professions (or healthcare subcultures) is still required in order to promote and sustain incident reporting to improve patient safety.

This is the first study to investigate attitudes toward and reporting behaviour on a bespoke electronic adverse incident reporting system in hospitals.

The paper considers whether and how Calvinism as a specific type of religion, ideology, and social system impacts political democracy in modern society. In contrast to the previous sociological and related literature assuming only a positive or negative linear effect, the paper proposes that Calvinism exerts mixed positive-negative and non-linear effects on democracy. The purpose of this paper is to aim at making a contribution to the sociological theory and research on Calvinism and democracy and modern society in general.

A combination of comparative and historical sociological methodology.

The main proposition and finding is that whether Calvinism is likely to have a positive or negative impact on democracy is the function of its specific position within social structure and its concrete phase of development. Thus, different positions of Calvinism in social structure are linked to its differential consequences in aggregate for democracy, and various stages of its development to time-variable non-linear effects in sequence.

This is a relatively novel finding innovating and expanding on the literature's assumption that Calvinism has a structurally uniform, either positive or negative, and linear, time-constant effect on democracy.

Religious scripts strongly encourage acts of philantrophy and benevolence that contribute to achievement of social harmony and similarly condemn interest out of money. The views paying attention to economic reasons fail to offer a plausible counter argument to this contradiction. Almost all studies since the inception of Islam have, rather than considering the dynamic social and economic realities of the time, attempted to justify the views on the ban. Thus, this study aims to provide clear aspect on Abrahamic religion’s approach on the issue.

This paper seeks to analyze how the Abrahamic religions approach the issue of interest. For the sake chronology, the Judaic approach will be first analyzed, referring to the main arguments that served as basis for the lift of the ban. Subsequent to the rational arguments raised in the Christian tradition that justified the ban, the reasons for the removal of the ban that changed the attitude of the church will be examined. Finally, based on its original sources, the approach of Islam will be evaluated and the current popular arguments will be discussed.

A review of the interest issue in the Abrahamic religions in a historical context reveals that there are visible similarities between the arguments that served as basis of the discussions. Christian scholars were able to justify the ban with reference to strong arguments; however, in reference to the conditions that the economy arguably dictated, the ban has been gradually lifted. A similar process has taken place among Islamic scholars as well. Those who adopt an economic perspective fail to consider the chief principles in Abrahamic religions that promote the practice of benevolence.

This paper seeks to analyze how the Abrahamic religions approach the issue of interest from a broader perspective. To this end, the authors offer a general framework of the notion of interest and present the approaches of Abrahamic religions to the concept through reference to popular arguments.

Much ink has been spilled in recent years over the controversial topic of conscientious objection in health care. In particular, commentators have proposed various ways with which we might distinguish legitimate conscience claims from those that are poorly reasoned or based on prejudice. The aim of this chapter is to argue in favor of the “reasonableness” approach to conscientious objection, viz., the view that we should develop an account of “reasonableness” and “reasonable disagreement” and use this as a way of distinguishing licit and illicit conscience claims. The author discusses Rawls’ account of “reasonableness” and “reasonable disagreement,” and consider how this might guide us in regulating conscientious objection in health care. The author analyzes the “public reason” account offered in Card (2007, 2014), and argue that we should modify Card’s account to include a consensus among regulators about what counts as “basic medical care.” The author suggests that Medical Conscientious Objection Review boards should consider whether conscience-based refusals are based on defensible ethical foundations.

The Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) is an important construct for management theorists. However, there appear to be biases and distortions in the way it is used in research. This paper aims to discuss the issues of assumptions involving the PWE, thus addressing this gap in the management literature.

The management literature distorts the PWE in three ways. First, though there are multiple work ethics, researchers largely focus on this one. This paper examines work‐ethics research and language in various management fields. Second, the construct has been developed within limited philosophical perspectives. This is tested by comparing work histories. Third, the historic documents are investigated and it is argued that the PWE is not Protestant.

There is evidence of bias in the management literature concerning the PWE. Though there are many work values, management research is dominated by the PWE. Luther's and Calvin's writings indicate that their essential views on work are the opposite of Webers' formulation of the PWE. However, the views of Marx and Engels on work echo the PWE.

If a basic assumption is distorted, research utilizing this assumption is suspect. The PWE is an important construct in several management disciplines. Bias in construct assumptions can result in inaccurate measurements and results.

Researchers must constantly be aware of possible personal bias, particularly regarding key constructs. Scholars should regularly examine assumptions in their discipline. The history of a discipline can greatly assist this examination.

This is one of the few examinations of the assumptions behind a key construct in the management literature, the PWE. There are strong indications that distortions about the PWE have been reified.

I suggest that the search for Adam Smith’s theodicy is likely to be in vain. The paper begins with a brief history of approaches to evil, emphasizing the context in which they arose, and the questions authors were addressing. Approaches most relevant to Adam Smith include those of Augustine and Calvin, and the early modern theodicies of Leibniz, Samuel Clarke and William King, as well as the attacks on them by Bayle and Voltaire. Scottish Enlightenment writers were not terribly interested in theodicy, though Hutcheson and Kames did devote space to their versions of problems of evil. David Hume’s Dialogues on Natural Religion are often taken to be classic statement of the problem of theodicy and argument against religious belief, but his concern was to demolish rationalistic theodicies rather than religious belief or practice. The paper then turns to Smith’s writings, considering similarities and differences to these approaches to evil. Smith emphasizes the wisdom and beneficence of God, and that evils we observe are part of a larger providential plan. He makes no attempt to justify the God in the face of evil, and in this respect Smith shares more with Augustine and Calvin than he does with the early modern theodicists. Smith’s approach to evil is simple and ameliorative. Smith’s approach contrasts with early nineteenth century English political economists, from Malthus onwards, for whom theodicy was important. Whatever view we take of the theodicists project of justifying an all-powerful and good God in the face of evil may, we still struggle to make sense of economic suffering and evil.

The Council of Economic Advisers celebrated its thirtieth year in 1976. What has been its impact? Like most institutions the council has had periods of both increasing and waning influence during its existence. Let us summarize them briefly.

Caregivers are known to experience increased morbidity when compared to noncaregivers. Does an intervention targeting caregiver distress affect their health care utilization? One hundred forty-eight caregivers of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients were randomized to treatment as usual (TAU) or a psychoeducation, paced respiration, and relaxation (PEPRR) intervention. Assessments of caregivers' service utilization were collected at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months post-transplant. During the first 30 days after patient transplant, caregiver medical and mental health professional service use decreased while support group attendance peaked. Mixed model regressions showed a significant decrease in mental health service use by the PEPRR group (P=0.001). At six months caregivers in TAU had predicted marginal probabilities of mental health services utilization over 10 times as high as caregivers in PEPRR (18.1% vs 1.5%). Groups failed to differ in medical service (P=0.861) or support group (P=0.067) use. We can conclude that participation in PEPRR compared to TAU was associated with reduced mental health service utilization. Caregiver psychosocial support services are critical to improve caregiver outcomes.