Search results

This chapter presents findings from a study into reading interests and habits of prisoners in six Croatian penitentiaries, and their perception and use of prison libraries. The study was conducted with the help of self-administered print survey. A total of 30% of prison population (male and female) in selected prisons was included in the study and a total of 504 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate of 81.3%). Findings indicate that reading is the respondents’ most popular leisure activity and that they read more now than before coming to prison. Respondents read more fiction than non-fiction. Most frequently they read crime novels, thrillers, and historical novels. To a lesser degree, they read religious literature, biographies, spiritual novels, social problem novels, self-help, war novels, science fiction, erotic novels, romances, spy novels and horrors. Respondents would like to read daily newspapers and magazines, and books about sport, health, travel, computers, hobbies, cookbooks, etc. Respondents have wide reading interests (both in relation to fiction and non-fiction) but they do not have access to them in their prison library. Respondents reported that reading makes their life in prison easier and their time in prison passes faster with books. Only about a quarter of respondents are satisfied with their prison library collection. Almost a fifth of respondents does not visit the library at all because it does not have anything they would like to find there: newspapers, modern literature, non-fiction, reading material for visually impaired and computers.

The field of nonmarket strategy has expanded rapidly over the past 20 years to provide theoretical and practical guidance for managers seeking to influence policymaking. Much of this scholarship has built directly on spatial and “pivotal politics” models of lawmaking. While extremely helpful at identifying crucial targets for lobbying, these models treat all policymakers as identical in their abilities to advance legislative agenda items through various policymaking hurdles. We build upon these earlier models, but include policymakers who vary in their relative effectiveness at advancing measures through the legislative process. We identify how the implications of our model deviate from those of conventional (pivotal politics) analyses. We then present an empirical strategy for identifying effective Lawmakers in the United States Congress, and illustrate the utility of this approach for managers developing nonmarket strategies in legislative institutions, relying on the case of banking and financial services reforms between 2008 and 2011.

This research provides accounting-ethics authors and administrators with a benchmark for accounting-ethics research. While Bernardi and Bean (2010) considered publications in business-ethics and accounting’s top-40 journals this study considers research in eight accounting-ethics and public-interest journals, as well as, 34 business-ethics journals. We analyzed the contents of our 42 journals for the 25-year period between 1991 through 2015. This research documents the continued growth (Bernardi & Bean, 2007) of accounting-ethics research in both accounting-ethics and business-ethics journals. We provide data on the top-10 ethics authors in each doctoral year group, the top-50 ethics authors over the most recent 10, 20, and 25 years, and a distribution among ethics scholars for these periods. For the 25-year timeframe, our data indicate that only 665 (274) of the 5,125 accounting PhDs/DBAs (13.0% and 5.4% respectively) in Canada and the United States had authored or co-authored one (more than one) ethics article.

This chapter examines the torsions and blind spots that structure the contemporary debate on the politics and policy of aviation. It also generates different scenarios for the future of air travel, which can help to unblock the current impasse about the perceived costs and benefits of aviation and its attendant infrastructural needs.

This chapter characterises and evaluates the competing frames that organise the contested realities of air transport. By mapping out the current fault lines of aviation politics and policy, the chapter is also able to delineate four main scenarios regarding the future of aviation, which we name the ‘post-carbon’, ‘high-modernist’, ‘market regulation’ and ‘demand management’ projections respectively.

The chapter problematises and criticises the existing literature, policy reports and stakeholder briefings that inform the contemporary standoff in UK aviation policy. It uses the definition of sustainable development as a heuristic device to map and identify the fault lines structuring contemporary debates on aviation futures. It then builds upon this analysis to delimit four different scenarios for the future of flying.

The chapter analyses the contested realities of aviation politics. It re-affirms the political nature of such divisions, which in turn structure the rival understandings of aviation. The analysis suggests that the identified fault lines are constantly reiterated by competing appeals to ambiguous and contradictory evidence-bases or policy frames. Ultimately, the chapter claims that any significant reframing of aviation policy and politics rests on the outcome of political negotiations and persuasion. But it also depends on the broader views of citizens and stakeholders about the future challenges facing society, as well as the way in which governments and affected agents put in place and coordinate the multiple arenas in which a dialogue over the future of aviation can be held. Aviation futures cannot be reduced to the narrow confines of the technical merits or claims surrounding the feasibility of policy instruments.

Traditionally, the main goal of empirical research has been to test theories. Yet, theory-testing is problematical in the social sciences. Findings from empirical studies have proven hard to replicate and there is a lack of progress in creating a coherent and cumulative knowledge base. There are both practical and epistemological issues that prevent effective empirical tests. It is difficult to operationalize constructs and design decisive tests of theories. The laws and regularities posited in theories in the natural sciences are independent of human actors, while theories in the social sciences describe systems and structures that are created and maintained by human actors. Nonetheless, human actors are sometimes guided by theories. They may change their behavior or make different decisions based on academically produced knowledge. This relationship is usually mediated by the use of tools of various sorts (i.e., design principles, diagrams, or stories). I discuss why scholars should conduct empirical research to test the pragmatic validity of tools that are derived from theories rather than testing the scientific validity of the theories themselves.