Search results

Robert Franklin Hoxie was of the first generation of University of Chicago economists, a figure of significance in his own time. He is often heralded as the first of the Institutional economists and the impetus behind the field of labor economics. Yet today, his contributions appear as mere footnotes in the history of economic thought, when mentioned at all, despite the fact that in his professional and popular writings he tackled some of the most pressing problems of the day. The topics upon which he focused included bimetallism, price theory, methodology, the economics profession, socialism, syndicalism, scientific management, and trade unionism, the last being the field with which he is most closely associated. His work attracted the notice of some of the most famous economists of his time, including Frank Fetter, J. Laurence Laughlin, Thorstein Veblen, and John R. Commons. For all the promise, his suicide at the age of 48 ended what could have been a storied career. This paper is an attempt to resurrect Hoxie through a review of his life and work, placing him within the social and intellectual milieux of his time.

Employers regularly complain of a shortage of qualified scientists and advocate that to remain competitive more scientists need to be trained. However, using a survey of graduates from British universities, I report that 3 years after graduation less than 50% of graduates from science subjects are working in a scientific occupation.

Accounting for selection into major and occupation type, I estimate the wages of graduates and report that the wage premium of science graduates only occurs when these graduates are matched to a scientific occupation – and not because science skills are in demand in all occupations. I also provide additional evidence to assess whether science graduates are pushed or pulled into non-scientific occupations. Altogether, the evidence does not support the claim that science graduates are pulled by better conditions, financial or otherwise, into non-scientific jobs.

BOOKS are among the greatest and most wonderful achievements of human genius, they are also a powerful means of struggle for progress. The book accompanies man all his life; it is a creation of his brain and soul. It reflects the life of mankind and is the result of collective efforts of author and publisher, type‐setter and illustrator. But foremost a book is always and everywhere a social and political phenomenon. One of the most apt evaluations of the book was given by V. I. Lenin in 1917, when he was known to state to A. V. Lunacharsky, “The book is a great force indeed”.

In this article, the authors explore the emotional dimension of the strategies that researchers carry out to foster collaboration within research groups in science.

The authors have carried out fieldwork based on semi-structured interviews with members of high-performance research groups, supported by the analysis of ethnographic observations in the local work contexts of several of these groups.

As a result, the authors start from the representations of the principal investigators interviewed about collaboration, as a dynamic between the individuals involved and the group, to describe two forms of leadership strategies: ego-centered or group. Hence, the authors highlight that the emotional work of IPs consists of combining both strategies by activating and deactivating affection, warmth and spontaneity in interactions. The authors conclude by reviewing the contributions and some potential lines of study.

The main contributions and conclusions must be regarded considering several limitations of our work. First, the authors have focused on high-performance groups, so it would be expected that the research groups that do not have the support of European Research Council (ERC) do not present the observed dynamics. Concerning the analysis, the authors have focused on the link between situational (personal interaction) and organizational scales. Although the authors have attended social factors that imply the structure and changes of the professional sector of science (Whitley, 2000, 2014), future publications will allow the authors to delve into relationships on a broader scale, associating collaboration patterns and discursive positions. The authors will focus on (1) roles and social profiles and (2) features of scientific culture and its recent configuration.

The authors affirm that the emotional field is key to understanding how groups and individuals respond to these profound changes. In their work, scientific professionals do not only act based on rational and instrumental criteria but also driven by habits, affective networks and inertia of their organizational cultures. In this paper, the authors provide theoretical and practical keys to understand the complexity that collaboration creates within research groups as a contradictory reality that consists of a constant movement of individuals and the group.

As many of the interviewees expressed, there are no adequate spaces to learn and reflect on leadership and collaboration in science. The authors are science workers who are responsible for imagining and deciding how the authors want their research groups to function. Institutions must ensure the means so that this task can be carried out. Hopefully, this article will contribute to this irrevocable project.

The authors’ aim is to understand how well-known groups operate in their field, with a high level of resources and productivity, in order to identify and promote cutting-edge strategies in different scientific branches. Moreover, the authors want to recognize the importance of institutional infrastructures. For this reason, giving them a place in the framework of management studies allows to submit this issue to public debate for a wide audience of social scientists. Moreover, this permits to inquire about cross-disciplinary subjects, such as social and organizational psychology, sociology of work, studies about science and management studies.

Research on innovation and knowledge management practice would benefit from examining science‐based innovation work, that is, innovations derived from the ability to exploit scientific know‐how, in greater detail. While much engineering innovation work may be predetermined through rational breakdown analysis, there is always a factor of chance and luck in scientific work. Scientific work is never linear and predictable but must always be envisaged as the outcome of a combination of rule‐governed activities and a certain degree of unconditioned discoveries. The purpose of this paper is to report on how practicing laboratory researchers in a major pharmaceutical company regard their innovation work as being what is always of necessity inherently indeterminate and therefore put demands on top management to allow for a reasonable amount of risk‐taking.

Case study methodology based on interviews with 36 laboratory scientists and managers in a major pharmaceutical company.

The paper concludes that innovation research and knowledge management studies need to regard science‐based innovation as a specific form of innovation not wholly capable of being managed through rationalist management control systems.

The paper bridges studies of innovation work in pharmaceutical industry with the perception of risk‐taking among the practicing researchers.

The purpose of this article is to contribute to our stock of knowledge about who uses networks, how they are used, and what contribution the networks make to advancing the scientific enterprise. Between 1985 and 1990, the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) ACCESS data facility at the University of Wisconsin‐Madison provided social scientists in the United States and elsewhere with access through the electronic networks to complex and dynamic statistical data; the 1984 SIPP is a longitudinal panel survey designed to examine economic well‐being in the United States. This article describes the conceptual framework and design of SIPP ACCESS; examines how network users communicated with the SIPP ACCESS project staff about the SIPP data; and evaluates one outcome derived from the communications, the improvement of the quality of the SIPP data. The direct and indirect benefits to social scientists of electronic networks are discussed. The author concludes with a series of policy recommendations that link the assessment of our inadequate knowledge base for evaluating how electronic networks advance the scientific enterprise and the SIPP ACCESS research network experience to the policy initiatives of the High Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102–194) and the related extensive recommendations embodied in Grand Challenges 1993 High Performance Computing and Communications (The FY 1993 U.S. Research and Development Program).

This paper aims to provide evidence of pro-worker orientation and acceptance of socialist idealism in scientific management, with particular focus on Walter Polakov.

A range of original texts have been examined to identify the ideas expressed or accepted by the early scientific managers. These include Bulletin of the Taylor Society and the early publications of the socialist engineer and scientific manager Walter Polakov.

This paper shows how an avowed socialist is outspoken but unremarkable for the members of the Taylor Society in the 1910s and 1920s, contrary to the views expressed in textbooks and other histories which assert a deep antiworker bias in scientific management.

This is limited to a historical analysis of the role and extent of involvement of the Marxist engineer Walter Polakov in the US scientific management movement in the 1910s and 1920s.

This paper offers insights into the workings of the Taylor Society using a biographical approach. In so doing, it demonstrates, in a new way, the verity of claims that the original proponents of scientific management were not authoritarian or anti-worker in their views or ideals, but, rather, open to progressive and socialist ideals.

The purpose of this paper is to explore parallels between scientific management and the new scientific management to gain insight into applications of machine learning and artificial intelligence (AI) to human resource management and employee assessment.

Analysis of Taylor’s work and its interpretation by scholars is contrasted with modern analysis of human resource analytics to demonstrate conceptual and methodological commonalities between the old and the new forms of scientific management.

The analysis demonstrates how the epistemology, ethos and cultural trajectory of scientific management has resulted in a mindset that has influenced the implementation and objectives of the new scientific management with respect to human resources analytics.

This paper offers an alternative to the view that machine learning and AI as applied to work and employees are beneficial and points out why important challenges have been overlooked and how they can be addressed.

Commonalties between Taylorism and the new scientific management have been overlooked so that attempts to gain an understanding of how machine learning is likely to influence work, employees and work organizations are incomplete. This paper provides a new perspective that can be used to address challenges associated with applications of machine learning to work design and employee rights.

The Government have decided that the Scientific Civil Service is to be reorganized. They are deeply conscious of the contribution made by science towards the winning of the war, a contribution which may have altered the whole course of the war and has certainly shortened its duration. They are equally conscious of the contribution which science can make during peace to the efficiency of production, to higher standards of living, to improved health, and to the means of defence. They are resolved that the conditions of service for scientists working for the Government shall be such as to attract into the Civil Service scientifically qualified men and women of high calibre, and to enable them after entry to make the best use of their abilities, in order that scientists in the Government Service may play their full part in the development of the nation's resources and the promotion of the nation's well‐being.

Islamic science was originally viewed as mere translator and transmitter of Greek, Indian and pre‐Islamic Persian science. Recent research has shifted our understanding of Islam's contribution to what is now called “the exact sciences.” We now know that Islamic science “was even richer and more profound than we had previously thought.” A substantial amount of genuine science was done in Islam, it predated similar discoveries in the West, and it also impacted upon the Renaissance. For example, in the late 1950apos;s, E. S. Kennedy and his students at the American University of Beirut discovered an important work of a fourteenth century Muslim astronomer by the name of Ibn al‐Shatir. This discovery showed that Ibn al‐Shatir's astronomical inventions were the same type of mechanism used by Copernicus a few centuries later,” and may have played a key role in the Copernican revolution. Consequently, an unprecedented acceleration of research into Islamic science started from the 1950s onwards. Recently, historian of Islamic science George Saliba was able to show that one of Copernicus's Muslim contemporaries — Kliafri — was a “brilliant astronomer, whose ability to work with the mathematics of his time is unsurpassed, including that of Copernicus,” and that he could use mathematics much more fluently, and much more competently, than Copernicus could do.