Search results

1. The changing landscape. We all know that the Internet is dynamic and is growing at a phenomenal rate. It is pervasive and what we thought of it six months ago is probably different to what we think today and what we will think of it in six months time. It is challenging all our previous thinking and our commercial environment.

When the Institute of Information Scientists was founded in 1958 the Internet was still germinating in the Cold War bunkers of the ARPANET, the seventeen‐year old Pele was performing his magic in the World Cup in Sweden, and librarians were still recording bits of information on 5 by 3 index cards. The 40th Anniversary Conference of the Institute which took place at the University of Sheffield from 8–11 July 1998 took place with the Net ubiquitous (well, at least in the English‐speaking countries), with Ronaldo leading the line for Brazil, and with Information Scientists confronting opportunities to remake themselves as the cutting‐edge ‘knowledge managers’ of the corporate world.

This chapter takes the ‘wakefulness promoting’ drug modafinil as an exemplarity case in the sociology of pharmaceutical enhancement. The chapter draws on empirical data collected through 25 interviews with prospective users of modafinil, focusing on two of the ways in which prospective users of modafinil imagined how the drug might be used in their specific social domains: the use of modafinil as a safety tool in the workplace and its use as a study aid by university students. The data presented in this chapter suggests that although a therapy-enhancement dichotomy is a useful heuristic; it could also be limiting to uphold as it may direct attention away from other ways in which uses for new technologies can be positioned, negotiated, realised and resisted by (potential) users in the context of their daily lives.

The overall goal of science is to build a valid and reliable body of knowledge about the functioning of the world and how applying that knowledge can change it. As personnel and human resources management researchers, we aim to contribute to the respective bodies of knowledge to provide both employers and employees with a workable foundation to help with those problems they are confronted with. However, what research on research has consistently demonstrated is that the scientific endeavor possesses existential issues including a substantial lack of (a) solid theory, (b) replicability, (c) reproducibility, (d) proper and generalizable samples, (e) sufficient quality control (i.e., peer review), (f) robust and trustworthy statistical results, (g) availability of research, and (h) sufficient practical implications. In this chapter, we first sing a song of sorrow regarding the current state of the social sciences in general and personnel and human resources management specifically. Then, we investigate potential grievances that might have led to it (i.e., questionable research practices, misplaced incentives), only to end with a verse of hope by outlining an avenue for betterment (i.e., open science and policy changes at multiple levels).

Recent years have seen an explosion in research by scholars from the social sciences and humanities who apply neuroscience to research in their home disciplines. One way these ‘neuroscholars’ have engaged in conversations with neuroscience is by incorporating books of popular neuroscience into their work. This chapter explores some of the textual changes that result from the translation of neuroscience to popular neuroscience, and through rhetorical analysis, examines how popular neuroscience is used to support claims in emerging disciplines like neuroeconomics, neuroliterary criticism, neurolaw, and neuroeducation. An examination of scholarship from several disciplines – including sociology – reveals that popular neuroscience is often marshaled not as a translation or accommodation of science, but as science itself via two primary rhetorical strategies we have termed ‘fact finding’ and ‘theory building.’

IN The age newspaper, Dennis Pryor writes: ‘Booksellers remainder them, publishers pulp them, churches and wowsers ban them, dictators burn them, students photocopy them. Marshall Mcluhan wrote them to prove they were finished.’

The purpose of this paper is to examine the spending patterns of non‐local participants and spectators at a medium‐sized international sport event, to segment their spending patterns and consider implications for the quality of each segment's event experience.

Spending in nine sectors of the economy is measured via self‐report, and respondents are segmented into five groups: spectators, athletes, coaches, officials, and other participants (e.g. media, medical staff). The daily and aggregate spend for each segment in each economic sector is calculated and compared. Regression analysis tests differences among segments for each economic sector.

Participants account for 39 per cent of aggregate spend; coaches are the biggest spenders; athletes spend relatively little. The segments spend differently on hospitality, private transportation, grocery, and retail, with spectators spending significantly more than the participant groups on hospitality and private transportation, and significantly less on groceries and merchandise. Spending in sectors normally associated with celebration and festivity accounts for only 8 per cent of total spend.

Findings are derived from a single event, but are consistent with other work, suggesting that inadequate attention is given to opportunities for festive celebration, especially among athletes.

Coaches are a particularly useful target market for retailers, whereas hoteliers and service stations should target their marketing at spectators. Event organizers should do more to build festivals.

This paper identifies the ways that different segments organize their spending at an event, and demonstrates that greater attention to festivals could enhance a sport event's overall impact.

The notion of a good library lies implicit in much service. It can rest on objective factors, like the speed with which documents are retrieved, and on subjective ones such as how helpful the library staff happen to be. Often our view draws on both. For librarians and library managers, too, there is a need to consider the goodness of the system. It may lie in its rate of satisfaction, in its market penetration, in the subtle integration of user education programmes into the curriculum, the cost‐effectiveness of the aquisition arrangements, or the work elicited from staff each week. Looking at the good library, then, impels both users and staff, clients and managers, to consider — and then test operationally — performance measures.