Search results

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.

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).

The quality of teaching across the world is often defined by students’ academic achievement. Yet, teaching and learning is a complex phenomenon. Standards and policy documents, internationally and within India, specify knowledge and skills for teachers. A variety of evaluation tools exist to measure teaching performance. The authors describe a Teacher Performance Review Process (TPRP) using a diagnostic tool internationally benchmarked and contextualized for India. Initially, 408 teachers from 10 schools completed the TPRP, with 95 teachers from 3 schools completing two cycles of TPRP. The TPRP incorporated multiple sources of evidence for rating each teacher on 27 performance indicators using a four-point scale. Rating frequencies were analyzed and results reported for an initial and second cycle of TPRP. Feedback from teachers and school leaders indicated this process supported improving the quality of teaching. TPRP, implemented as a cyclical process capturing evidence from multiple sources over time, potentially provides comprehensive documentation of the complex phenomenon of teaching performance, and supports teachers in continuous improvement.

A recent change to audit workpaper review has been the movement toward delegating more review tasks to senior auditors and including more staff auditors in the review process. This study investigates the efficiency and effectiveness implications of this change. It considers the calibration of reviewers of different levels of experience on both conceptual and mechanical errors. The results reveal that reviewers are miscalibrated (overconfident) in their workpaper error judgments. No differences are found in the calibration of staff and senior auditors across hierarchical level or type of error. The implications for audit effectiveness are discussed in the paper.

Common literature review methods such as systematic review and narrative review are poorly suited to the investigation of complex management phenomena. Systematic reviews are highly driven by protocol and procedure, and are oft-criticized as reductive and poorly equipped to examine the interaction between phenomena and context, nonlinear processes, and empirical outcomes that are less predictable. Narrative reviews, on the other hand, are pluralistic and iterative and thus better suited to descriptions of the complex and unpredictable; however, they tend to lack methodological transparency, trustworthiness, and pragmatism in application. The “realist synthesis” approach to literature review can be seen as the middle-ground between these two common methods, offering both methodological rigor alongside flexibility and nuance. Realist synthesis takes an explanatory frame, with a focus on unearthing the theorized causal mechanisms at play beneath a phenomenon of interest.

This study contributes to the cognitive processes and expertise research in judgment and decision-making in auditing. It uses the levels-of-processing theory (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) to investigate the amount of auditor attention given to information during internal control documentation procedures, and the effect of this attention on internal control information acquisition and risk assessment. Based on levels-of-processing, the attention required to complete an internal control questionnaire (ICQ) is predicted to result in the acquisition of more internal control information than when a completed ICQ is reviewed. In addition, auditors who complete an ICQ should assess control risk more like experts’ than auditors, who review an ICQ completed by another individual. Results suggest that the audit seniors who completed an ICQ retained significantly more internal control information than audit seniors who reviewed an ICQ completed by another individual. This result held when separately examining the internal control strengths and weaknesses. In addition, audit seniors who completed an ICQ-assessed control risk at a level comparable to the control risk assessments of audit managers in the same firm.

In 2013, the National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) of single ethical review was introduced into the Australian public health sector to address the timeliness of multisite clinical trials. A clinical trial is usually designed to test the effects of an experimental therapeutic product. While all research involving humans must comply with ethical guidelines, clinical trials testing products in Australia are also subject to stringent regulatory controls making the need to meet trial milestones critically import. Commercial clinical trials offer participating research sites substantial financial and clinical advantages. Concerns that bureaucratic processes have impeded commercial investment have influenced countries, including Australia, to introduce single ethical review, where one ethics review is accepted at multiple sites participating in the same research project. Although a central tenet of the NMA is the standardization of the behaviors and procedures of research review, concerns of inconsistency remain. This raises the question of whether the NMA does lead public healthcare agencies to adopt similar research governance practices.

A questionnaire survey was undertaken to explore the current experiences (n = 149) of the NMA in Victorian public health agencies, and 21 semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore expectations of the future of the NMA. The findings indicated that, while there was conformity to many of the process requirements of the NMA, a persistent focus on the needs of each individual healthcare agency rather than on complying with the national system weakened pressure on agencies to adopt standardization.

The NMA has the capacity to be a powerful tool in delivering quality clinical trial outcomes, maximize research resources and create dependable performance metrics if consistent policies and governance are followed.