Search results

Discusses principles of equality and justice in order to justify affirmative action and clarify its need. Posits that in both the USA and South Africa, issues of segregation and discrimination are not new and both countries have had the opportunity to address their past policies by way of affirmative action programmes. Looks at what determined the denouncement of the affirmative action in the USA and why the answer to this question may have a great impact on South Africa’s attempt to improve its own affirmative action programmes. Concludes that, although 30 years of affirmative action was deemed unconstitutional, how can South Africa derive and make use of the knowledge gained to help in stopping reverse discrimination.

Since its creation in 1998, the French Association of Comparative Education and Exchange (AFDECE) has been concerned with developing comparative education in France. This development brings together a wide network of comparativists from all backgrounds, and shows the benefits that comparison with others and international exchanges represent for an educational system. La Revue Française d’Education Comparée (RFEC), established in March 2007, publishes investigations of innovative comparative educational research in France and in the world. AFDECE’s activities and discourse focus largely on the question of comparison in education and its relevance and validity. One emphasis of comparativists of education in France is that research in comparative education should be part of a system of thought with explicitly defined theoretical frameworks. Through cooperative research and corresponding action, comparative education in France and abroad can lead to common actions and solutions acceptable to all.

Action Research (AR) is presented as an interpretive conceptual framework through which an understanding of management systems can be achieved. The proposed interpretive framework is briefly described and examined as a comparative management framework. The merit inherent in AR as an interpretive comparative management framework is illustrated through an initial comparative analysis of US and Japanese management practices.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

The authors discuss a large system transformation project they designed and implemented in Slovenia at the start of its independence in the early 1990s. Post-mortem insights are useful for practitioners who embark on similarly broad transformation processes. Design issues are discussed such as structuring the pre-contracting phase to guarantee inclusive stakeholder representation and participation throughout the transformation process and how intervention design needs to allow for experimentation and multi-stakeholder alliance building. Application of action research and action learning in a risk-averse environment typical of central governments helped create a sense of ownership, control, and collective accountability in the partner country.

This paper utilizes controversies over the role of a set of insecticides in mass honey bee die-offs in two different national contexts – France and the United States – in order to understand the science-state nexus in a comparative manner. On the one hand, the French government in 1999 and 2004 suspended the commercial use of the insecticidal products that beekeepers suspected of causing the honey bee declines. On the other hand, the US government has to date refused to heed beekeepers’ calls to limit the usage of the very same set of insecticides. We examine why the governments of France and the United States came to contrasting conclusions regarding broadly similar technoscientific issues. The divergent outcomes, we argue, are not simply the result of predetermined differences in the two states’ regulatory paradigms (with France being “precautionary,” and the United States adhering to a “sound science” approach), but are underpinned by divergent forms of beekeepers’ resistance. The paper further sheds light on non-state actors’ use of science and state to contest state (in)action by analyzing how historically influenced differences in state structures, the relational dynamics of beekeepers’ and farmers’ organizations, and the epistemic cultures of honey bee knowledge production, shaped different forms of resistance and influence in France and the United States.

This study aims to compare two national dementia plans and analyse the approach of each state to the issue.

Comparative analysis, legal analysis, policy analysis

Although research is central to both plans, the practical implementation of the Russian and UK plans differs. The Russian action plan on dementia is advisory in nature and does not propose specific programmes for research funding. Two plans have different approach to the role of education and risk factors.

Lack of information on Russian regional strategies does not allow to compare regional differences between two countries.

This study illustrates several weak points in the UK and Russian dementia policies, which should be addressed to tackle the dementia problem in both countries.

When many people talk about strategy, they really mean positioning. However important positioning may be, strategists who overlook performance factors are ignoring a key ingredient of company strategy and a source of advantage over competitors.

Advocates of the role of city‐regions in economic development seek lessons from other countries to boost the case. But processes of lesson learning raise many challenges and the purpose of this paper, therefore, is to argue that it is necessary to shift from descriptive comparison to a better understanding and explanation of what works where.

The approach taken in the paper is to review recent debates about the design of comparative studies and suggests a range of comparative questions.

The paper draws on insights from the ESRC Research Seminar and other papers in this issue and helps clarify some of the issues that may be involved in developing a better comparative understanding of the emergence and impacts of new “experimental”, time‐limited regional institutions.

The paper argues for more rigorous comparative research.

Questions are raised about current lesson learning concerning the governance of city regions.

The paper contributes to new debates about the potential of comparative study.