Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore consumer thinking about nutrition decisions and how firms can use consumers’ awareness of the links between nutrients and health generated by public health messages to market products, including ones, which have little nutritional value. We approach this issue by tracking the development of public health messages based on scientific research, dissemination of those messages in the popular press, and use of nutrition claims in food advertisements to assess whether firms are timing the use of nutrition claims to take advantage of heuristic-based decision-making. Our findings suggest that the timing of the development of nutrition information, its dissemination in the press, and use in advertising accords well with a heuristic processing model in which firms take advantage of associations between nutrient information and health in their advertisements. However, the demonstrated relationships may not be causal. Further research will be needed to provide stronger and more comprehensive evidence regarding the proposed message hijacking process. If the message hijacking framework is borne out: (1) simple overall health rating scales could significantly improve consumer decision-making, (2) the impact of misleading advertisements could be mitigated by encouraging a multidimensional view of nutrition, and (3) more intensive regulation of product labeling could limit the impact of hijacked messages.

Overall, this paper considers a novel hypothesis about the impact of public health messages on nutrition and health.

Theories of management require normative justification; that is, they rely on some conception of what is morally good, right, and just. This chapter examines some of the normative reasons for adopting a stakeholder theory of management and for rejecting the once, and perhaps still, “dominant” shareholder-centric approach. This chapter then surveys some of the prominent “normative cores” that are used to ground stakeholder theory, that is, Kantian, contractarian, feminist ethics, and ethical pragmatism, and the moral obligations that each normative approach generates. Some pressing questions are raised with respect to each normative approach. To what extent ought we to recognize imperfect obligations to shareholders? Are contractarian hypernorms morally substantive? How exactly should we care about stakeholders, and is care even an appropriate attitudinal response? Without some commitment to objective ethical standards, how can pragmatists resolve stakeholder conflict?

The European Union (EU) is not a state, though it has some statelike attributes; it is not an empire, though it includes many former European imperial powers; and it is not a federation, though Euro-federalists seek to make it one. There is, however, no need to argue that the Union is a singularity, nor to invent novel terminology, such as that deployed by “neo-functionalists” and “intergovernmentalists” to capture its legal and political form. The EU is a confederation, but with consociational characteristics in its decision-making styles. This conceptualization facilitates understanding and helps explain the patterns of crises within the Union.

Reading current accounts of higher education demonstrates the flux and damage of rapid neoliberal changes to the type and conduct of academic work. Opening the Times Higher Education magazine on the 28 April 2011 shows articles about cuts in staffing and undergraduate provision in England, concerns about the quality of for-profit higher education in the USA; the call for French universities to play the high fees international student game; and demands for the further modernisation of higher education so that there is more direct relevance to the workplace. In England the Browne et al. (2010) report is seen as re-locating previously publicly funded university provision firmly into the market place. Hence, Collini (2010, p. 25) argues that “what is at stake is whether universities in the future are to be thought of as having a public cultural role partly sustained by public support, or whether we move further towards re-defining them in terms of purely economic calculation of value and a wholly individualistic conception of ‘consumer satisfaction’”. In this chapter I intend examining what this means in regard to the nature of academic work: what it is that academic's do and why, and the impact that changes in the purposes of higher education are having on identity and professional practice. I do this by focusing on analysis from the Knowledge Production in Educational Leadership (KPEL) Project (2006–2007) funded by the ESRC (RES-000-23-1192), where I investigated the professional practice of knowledge producers in Schools of Education in UK universities during the period of New Labour governments (1997–2010). Through using Rose's (1996, p. 129) analysis of Foucault's concerns with ‘our relation to ourselves’ as ‘a genealogy of subjectification’ I examine the way researchers think about purposes, and generated rationales and narratives about their location in higher education.

No person in the United States shall, on the grounds or race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, or be so treated on the basis of sex under most education programs or activities receiving Federal assistance. No otherwise qualified individual with disabilities in the United States shall, solely by reason of his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

Few words in modern society have become as positively charged as the word innovation. Of course, premodern societies were also innovative in their way. Still, technology, ideas, and organizational forms have changed over time, and it is only in modern society that innovation has become almost mandatory; that is to say, ranked uppermost in society's value system. “Be innovative!” has become an imperative in modern society.

This chapter discusses two California policies that unintentionally promote development in fire-prone areas. First is the state's Fair Access to Insurance Requirements (FAIR) Plan, a state-regulated statutory insurance industry association that provides basic insurance to property owners who are unable to obtain it in the private market. FAIR Plan was intended to be an insurer of last resort for rare cases when the private sector was unwilling to provide coverage. A functioning insurance market should discourage development in hazardous lands by charging appropriately priced premiums or denying coverage where hazards are extreme. The FAIR Plan short circuits this mechanism and subsidizes development in highly hazardous environments by forcing insurers to provide coverage at a price that is far below what the market would charge. While FAIR Plan was envisioned to fill a need for a small number of homeowners who could not otherwise obtain insurance, instead enrollment in this program has skyrocketed. The second policy relates to how the state maps very high fire hazard severity zones (VHFHSZ), statutory zones designed for designating hazardous lands in urban and suburban jurisdictions with their own fire departments. Numerous legal loopholes have given communities wide leeway to keep land within their boundaries from being designated as VHFHSZ for disclosure and fire zoning purposes, even if those lands are objectively hazardous according to the state's criteria. Of most concern with these loopholes is the fact that California's natural hazard real estate transfer disclosure standard relies on these maps, meaning that homebuyers in communities that use these loopholes may be led into a false sense of security when purchasing a home because the statutory Natural Hazard Disclosure form presented prior to transfer asserts that no known wildfire hazard exists.

The chapter attempts to articulate a possibility for integrating a number of perspectives in studying higher education as a scholarly subject in current social science. We begin with the reasons for such an undertaking and its relevance. We then develop several basic definitions in order to establish a common conceptual basis for discussion. The final section presents new institutionalism as one of the ways to integrate several approaches in understanding higher education.

This chapter is rather theoretical and methodological in its outlook. We develop the basic approach that, in many respects, is still a work in progress. We take in this approach a set of arguments that open up new research agenda rather than settled a perception to be accepted uncritically.

This chapter focuses on researchers as knowledge workers in higher education in England as an illustration of what Katznelson (2003, p. 189) identifies as the ‘professional scholar’ undertaking intellectual work as a public intellectual. I begin by examining the challenges to intellectual work and its location in a university, particular from the media and the popularity of what Bourdieu calls Le Fast Talkers ¹ – those who talk a lot but have nothing much to say. After drawing out the tensions within knowledge production, I then locate the analysis of what it means to do research in a period of education policymaking in England between 1997 and 2010, when New Labour called on researchers to produce evidence to support radical reforms. In particular, I argue that school effectiveness and school improvement (SESI) knowledge workers in Schools of Education in higher education in England are an interesting case for investigating the public intellectual positioning as ‘detached attachment’ (Melzner, 2003, p. 4), particularly through their attachment to New Labour governments and the subsequent detachment following a change of government in May 2010.

Teamwork has become increasingly prevalent both in undertaking research projects and in preparing papers for publication. While there are some reflections on the process of teamworking in the organisational studies literature, there is little published work in the area of entrepreneurship. Most existing studies distinguish between problems associated with task-based conflict and relationship-based conflict. In this chapter, the author provides an ethnographic account of a team involved with preparing a proposal and, subsequently, undertaking a small firm research project. The Evolution of Business Knowledge (EBK) was a major Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) initiative which funded 13 distinct projects. During the nine-month period of preparing and refining the research proposal, the team worked together extremely effectively. There were periods of intense knowledge sharing, which enabled the team to develop an impressive and successful bid to study the ‘EBK in 90 small firms’. A major dispute between team members, during the early stages of the fieldwork, led to a period of both task-based and relationship-based conflicts, which threatened to undermine the project. As a result of my first-hand experiences with the EBK project, the author suggests that accounts such as this will help those who find themselves operating in dysfunctional teams make sense of the underlying tensions associated with ‘academic knowledge creation’.