Search results

Capital budgeting decisions frequently go awry. We investigate whether the party gathering the data utilizes persuasive communications when presenting the information to a superior. Specifically, we analyze whether the information is framed differently depending on his or her opinion. Since prior research has shown that differential framing of the same information affects decisions this may be one contributor to capital budgeting failures. We found that participants did frame the information differently depending on whether they chose to accept or reject the project. Our control group, no decision required, was materially different from the reject group but not materially different from the accept group.

Discussion is a staple in an academic classroom and remains at the apex of importance regarding student learning. It offers students an opportunity to have discourse around course material, other scholarly material, life experiences, etc. Discussion can lead to a deeper understanding of the subject matter and provide students and faculty exposure to perspectives that may challenge, validate, or reframe existing perspectives. Such discourse can also shatter existing perspectives and create opportunities for the development of new ones. The central role of faculty is to develop topics to be discussed and facilitate said discussions. Topics perceived as controversial (e.g., politics, human sexuality, religion, etc.) tend to produce the most lively and valuable discussions. Unfortunately, fears of retribution for engaging in such topics have commonly caused faculty to shy away from having such difficult dialogues. These fears persist even though the 1940 ­Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure position is to allow professors the opportunity to discuss challenging topics in the classroom (AAUP, n.d.). The current chapter addresses the challenge of protecting faculty who need the support of academic freedom in their classroom discussions. The authors approach this problem by discussing factors that leave faculty hesitant to engage in provocative classroom discussions such as the institution’s culture, faculty characteristics, rights of the faculty, and student population. Finally, the authors conclude with practical implications for how faculty hesitancy has the consequence of not promoting the critical thinking skills of students, which are required for today’s students who will become and who are already working professionals.

In this chapter, we examine the current research on how technology is applied to benefit students with emotional and/or behavioral disorders (EBD). First, we describe the iterative yet unpredictable nature of technological innovation to suggest that incremental successes are qualified by the creation of often unforeseen consequences. We then identify commonly used nonelectronic technologies in education to emphasize that the hoped-for advances in electronic technology have failed to deliver on their decades-old promise of educational revolution. We continue with our review of the literature on empirical studies examining how technology is used to support students with EBD. These findings indicate that the research design primarily employed in this field is single-subject. Examples of specific findings include web-based graphic organizers for student writing, virtual self-modeling for targeting student behaviors, and virtual coaching for teachers of students with EBD. We conclude by reviewing how leaders in the field of special education predict the field will change in the future. Overall, with an increased emphasis on research accessibility and practitioner-validated knowledge, and advances in neuroscience and artificial technologies, practitioners may hold a more central role to the creation and dissemination of knowledge.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

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.