Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore experiences and attitudes associated with “precarious work”, an umbrella term for insecure, casual, flexible, contingency, non-standard and zero-hour types of employment.

The investigation was carried-out through two studies. The “outside-in” view was represented by business undergraduates (n=56), responding to a four-item questionnaire on precarious work. It was contrasted with the “inside-out” perspective of migrant, care and hospitality workers (n=72) expressed in 48 in-depth interviews, and four focus groups.

Participant narratives included counterfactual comparisons that were more often of a downward (“it could have been worse”) than of an upward (“not as good as it could have been”) kind. Precarious participants spontaneously remarked that they were “lucky” (rather than “unlucky”) to be in precarious work.

Precarious work is likely to give rise to insecurity, uncertainty and vulnerability. However, this study distinguishes between the perspectives of “outside-in” observers, and “inside-out” participants. The former view was aligned with the standard view of work social scientists, yet the latter ran counter to both. Interestingly, the narratives of participants were compatible with the self-evaluations of people exposed to other hardships (like natural disasters).

There is a limited research on how the use of counterfactual thinking and difference of vantage points shapes attitudes and evaluations of precariousness. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study which has identified and explained the unprompted use of “luck” in the narratives of precarious workers.

The purpose of this paper is to examine people’s understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals produced by experts as part of a quality assurance procedure of large public projects.

Three samples of educated participants (employees in a large construction company, students attending courses in project management and judgment and decision making, and judges of district and appeal courts) answered questionnaires about cost estimates of a highway construction project, presented as a probability distribution.

The studies demonstrated additivity neglect of probabilities that are graphically displayed. People’s evaluations of the accuracy of interval estimates revealed a boundary (a “cliff”) effect, with a sharp drop in accuracy ratings for outcomes above an arbitrary maximum. Several common verbal phrases (what “can” happen, is “entirely possible” and “not surprising”) which might seem to indicate expected outcomes were regularly used to describe unlikely values near or at the top of the distribution (an extremity effect).

All judgments concerned a single case and were made by participants who were not stakeholders in this specific project. Further studies should compare judgments aided by a graph with conditions where the graph is changed or absent.

Experts and project managers cannot assume that readers of cost estimates understand a well-defined uncertainty interval as intended. They should also be aware of effects created by describing uncertain estimates in words.

The studies show how inconsistencies in judgment affect the understanding and evaluation of uncertainty intervals by well-informed and educated samples tested in a maximally transparent situation. Readers of cost estimates seem to believe that precise estimates are feasible and yet that costs are usually underestimated.

According to the Keynesian income determination model, as the level of expenditures is instantaneously increased through government or private investment a portion of that amount (b), the marginal propensity to consume, is immediately respent. This precipitates a perpetual turnover of each fractional amount throughout time such that the level of expenditures eventually amounts to (1/1‐b) times the initial increase in investment. The total impact on the level of income resulting from an increase in investment or government expenditures is called the multiplier. As derived in the macro‐economic models no leakages from the system to reduce the total impact are assumed, so that in reality the multiplier is considered to fall short of (1/1‐b).

This study aims to highlight the value of stressful and challenging environments as a strategy to enhance learning and to provide an inventory of strategies for use in cases where participants experience anxiety‐related blockages to learning.

This article adopted a qualitative research strategy which consisted of a literature review which was then triangulated with a survey and practitioner interviews.

This paper describes the behaviour of anxious learners when faced with a stressful learning environment. It then reviews suggestions from the literature which indicate theoretical solutions to debilitating anxiety and, finally, reports on the techniques that trainers actually use when helping delegates to overcome anxiety‐related blockages to learning. The Yerkes‐Dodson law, and not Rohnke, would appear to be the foundation for the various “comfort‐stretch‐panic” models. Moderate levels of stress would appear to encourage and stimulate learning.

The findings are presented as an initial investigation only, and further work would be required to indicate if the experiences of this small sample are representative of the wider population of training and development practitioners. Further work is being undertaken to categorise approaches to resolving debilitating learner anxiety and to develop a simple practitioner‐oriented model which may assist trainers who face this issue.

Anxiety is idiosyncratic and therefore it is difficult to design programmes which provide optimum development opportunities for all delegates. The article provides practical guidelines for trainers who wish to make use of challenging activities but who, as a result, need occasional recourse to strategies to alleviate any temporary debilitating state anxiety that delegates might experience.

This paper investigates the role of anxiety on learning and makes the case for the inclusion of carefully‐managed challenging learning environments in contrast to the majority of articles which advocate supportive learning environments.