Search results

The role of everyday citizens in the production of knowledge has become central to the study of media sociology. This interest is fueled by the growth of information communication technologies that have made it easier for amateurs to produce and disseminate content. The world of book reviewing – an exemplar of a field transformed by digitalization – concerns about the rise of amateurs manifests in the grievance that, “Nowadays, everyone’s a critic.” This chapter empirically investigates this idea by asking: Who is qualified to be a reviewer? The chapter draws on in-depth interviews with review editors, critics, and bloggers who have successfully crossed over to publish in some of the most important outlets in the English-publishing field. Analysis reveals that openness is central to ideas of what qualifies someone to be a book reviewer and how reviewers subsequently get work. Openness, however, is an example of noncertifiable skills, which are ascertained primarily through informal methods such as turning toward one’s personal and professional networks for recommendations from peers or relying on personal face-to-face encounters. A practical consequence of this selection criterion is that only reviewers who are known to book review editors in this specific way (i.e., their tastes and esthetic openness) are eligible candidates for professional review assignments. In this way, the commitment to openness as a professional value among book reviewers actually operates as a mechanism of closing their occupational boundaries.

Prior research suggests that perceived levels of a subordinate auditor’s competence affects audit reviewers’ judgments. We extend this line of research by investigating the effects of perceived client competence (hereafter, ClientComp) and its interaction with subordinate auditor’s competence (hereafter, AuditorComp) on audit reviewers’ judgments. Using data from highly experienced CPA audit managers, senior managers, and partners, we find a significant main effect for AuditorComp, but not for ClientComp. We also find that when AuditorComp is high, levels of ClientComp do not affect audit reviewers’ judgments. However, we cannot support the hypothesis that when AuditorComp is low ClientComp will significantly affect audit reviewers’ judgments. These mixed results suggest that in the post-SOX (2002) era regulatory environment, audit reviewers may be exercising heightened professional skepticism about ClientComp whenever they consider clients’ assertions.

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.

A persistent theme throughout the history of the Communication, Information Technologies, and Media Section of the American Sociological Association (CITAMS, formerly CITASA) has been that the work of section members has been underrepresented in sociology’s leading journals. This chapter empirically examines that claim, using data from the newly created American Sociological Review (ASR) Digital Archive, a collection of all manuscripts, published and unpublished, submitted to ASR between 1990 and 2010, along with all reviews of these manuscripts. Analyses in the chapter focus on a comparison of CITAMS and Methodology Section members’ participation in the ASR process as a manuscript author or reviewer. The findings of this chapter show that controlling for differences in the gender and age composition of the two sections, CITAMS members are significantly less likely than Methodology Section members to participate in the ASR publication process. This pattern is evident not only in the degree to which CITAMS members are asked to review papers, but also in the frequency with which they submit to ASR. Further analyses in the chapter look at membership in multiple sections and the possibilities for innovative collaboration. Increasing CITAMS involvement in the ASR publication process and amplifying the section’s voice in the discipline’s flagship journal may begin with more CITAMS members submitting manuscripts to ASR and collaborating with sociologists affiliated with other ASA sections.

Integrative reviews are an important method for understanding research in the field of special education. Reviews can help practitioners decide what methods to use in the classroom, researchers clarify directions for new research, and policymakers guide education improvement programs. We discuss the steps for conducting an integrative review, illustrating the process with a case study of an integrative review of large-scale testing accommodations for students with disabilities.

This paper examines beliefs and attitudes in the context of how they influence the decisions of university Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) as a preface to undertaking an empirical study in this area. It also aims at establishing a conceptual framework to guide the design of a questionnaire targeting beliefs about research ethics and the implications of these beliefs on review practices of HREC members throughout Australia.

Using content analysis of the extant body of the literature the paper examines the relationship between the concepts of beliefs and knowledge, beliefs and attitudes, and among beliefs, attitudes and behaviour in the context of research ethics.

The discussion suggests that ethics approval practices can, at times, be influenced more by personal beliefs than by contemporary review standards. It is also suggested that personal beliefs can be transmitted through the review process and that HRECs can serve to influence the transfer of values from reviewers to researchers.

The framework that this paper presents has the potential to appraise an array of perspectives which in turn would guide the design of professional development programs. In addition, an improved, more nuanced understanding of how HREC members make ethical decisions will positively impact and inform best practice in the review of ethical applications for research projects.

The paper presents a novel theoretical framework underpinning research ethics reviewer beliefs and attitudes within a contemporary context.

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).