Search results

Storytelling helps clarify the concealed or less visible elements of reality in its authentic context. Story analysis read between the lines of written or oral narratives to obtain richer understanding of an event. However, storytelling practice is a double-edge sword. Skilled storytellers may employ the power of storytelling to reframe an event in a favorable or undesirable way.

In contemporary business world, corporations broadly employ expert authors who proficiently apply storytelling practices in corporate public documents. Accordingly, corporate public documents declare desirable corporate image and promising reflection of business activities hence the corporate attracts more stockholders and obtains extra resources.

In current business world, corporates that do not appropriately employ storytelling would fail to take the opportunity to brainwash stockholders, hence suffer from competitive disadvantage.

This case study analyses Sears Holdings Corporation public report to explore how its business activities are revealed to public stakeholders. This study also proposes hypotheses of the consequences of ineffective storytelling.

In 2009, the Third Circuit decided Hydrogen Peroxide, which announced a more rigorous standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for assessing whether a putative class could establish antitrust injury. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court decided Comcast v. Behrend, a case that carries potentially broad implications for both antitrust cases and Rule 23(b)(3) class actions generally. A review of the case law starting with Hydrogen Peroxide and continuing through Comcast and its progeny reveals the new rigor in antitrust class action decisions and suggests what the future may hold, including the type of arguments that may provide defendants the most likely chance of defeating class certification. After Comcast, rigor under 23(b)(3) can no longer be avoided in assessing all class actions questions, and courts should now apply Daubert fully in the class setting concerning both impact and damages. Courts should also closely evaluate plaintiffs’ proposed methodologies for proving impact to determine if they apply to each class member. Finally, courts will inevitably have to determine how rigorously to scrutinize experts’ damages methodologies and whether Comcast requires or suggests more scrutiny in assessing common evidence for measuring damages.

This article responds to James Keyte, Paul Eckles, and Karen Lent’s article “From Hydrogen Peroxide to Comcast: The New Rigor in Antitrust Class Actions” (“The New Rigor”). It argues that The New Rigor offers valuable strategic advice to defense counsel – and insight into defense counsel’s strategic thinking – but is much less effective as an objective statement of the law or a normative argument for legal reform. In the parlance that I adopt, The New Rigor succeeds in the role of coach but much less so in the roles of commentator and critic.

This article focuses on one court case concerning the regulation of Anti-Abortion protesting and asks: (1) Do the various actors involved in this case recognize a tension between their actions and their broader beliefs concerning the regulation of political protests? (2) If this tension is recognized, how do the actors resolve it, and if it is not recognized, why is it not? While concerned with legal consciousness and cognitive dissonance, the article is framed by broader questions concerning tolerance and the interaction of law and political passions.

Altruism has long been a fundamental question motivating evolutionary approaches to behavior. Altruistic behavior is ultimately costly to the actor yet beneficial to the recipient and as such is not expected to be favored by natural selection. Its apparent commonness has led evolutionary thinkers into a wide variety of interesting areas of research, many of which are represented in this volume. Resource sharing ranks among the most basic of potentially altruistic acts. Notably absent among most other primates, humans have honed sharing to a fine art in behaviors as apparently simple as meat distributions from prey carcasses to elaborate feast making and gift giving (Mauss, 1924). Issues related to food sharing are at the center of much of the current research being done in HBE. In this volume, Frank Marlowe, Michael Gurven et al., and Bram Tucker each examine aspects of this problem.

Why do K-12 schools not perform better in educating English Language Learners (ELLs)? Part of the problem lies with higher education: We continue to produce pre-service teachers who are not prepared for today’s multilingual student population and, more importantly, most currently practicing teachers lack any such preparation.

Julie Abrams, President, Microfinance Analytics, has been a consultant to the microfinance industry for 15 years. She has authored or co-authored 16 publications on microfinance topics including international financial institution funding, foreign investment, MFI debt default, foreign exchange risk, an e-course on financial risk management, capital structure, profitability, financial performance, and MFI appraisals. Julie has been on the review panel and jury for CGAP's Financial Transparency Awards. She currently serves as an advisor for Research and Analysis to the International Association of Microfinance Investors (IAMFI) and is a member of the Calvert Foundation's External International Investment Committee, including reviews of MicroPlace and all syndicated lending. She began working in microfinance in 1985 with Women's World Banking. Julie was a fellow at the Lauder Institute of Management and International Studies, where she earned an MBA from the Wharton School and an MA in International Studies from the University of Pennsylvania and holds a BA in Economics from Oberlin College.

This chapter provides an overview of the challenges, opportunities, and successes facing contemporary doctoral programs. The authors outline the changing dynamics of doctoral studies, including the various degrees that are associated with doctoral programs and the changing demographics of doctoral students. Drawing from aspects of situated learning theory, the authors position the chapters in this volume in relation to learning communities and communities of practice in the ways that reimagine and re-invigorate traditional models of doctoral education.