Search results

Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford: the names of these universities instantly conjure up images of the highest attainments of higher education. Of course, great universities also operate great university presses. So any reference book with the name of Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard in the title possesses immediate credibility and saleability. But it was not always so. Prior to the latter half of the nineteenth century the Oxford and the Cambridge University Presses were known to the public primarily as publishers of the Bible. Oxford broke into reference publishing, and along with it widespread public recognition, by means of its famous dictionaries, of which the pinnacle was the massive Oxford English Dictionary. The Cambridge University Press [hereafter referred to as CUP] took a different approach to publishing scholarly reference works by producing authoritative and encyclopedic histories. According to S.C. Roberts, a long‐time secretary to the Syndics of the CUP, “apart from the Bible, the first book that made the Press well known to the general public was the Cambridge Modern History.”

Less than half a century ago almost the entire population of the United States lived upon food that was home‐grown and home‐prepared. With the exception of a few articles requiring a different climate than our own for their production, such as coffee, tea, sugar, spices, and chocolate, the inhabitants of the country lived exclusively upon food of their own producing, while the dealers of the city were supplied with the products of the neighbouring farms. Provisions of all kinds were supplied in an unprepared condition, and their preservation or preparation for the table was accomplished at the home.

Aarhus Kommunes Biblioteker (Teknisk Bibliotek), Ingerslevs Plads 7, Aarhus, Denmark. Representative: V. NEDERGAARD PEDERSEN (Librarian).

The new sub‐department of the Local Government Board, recently created for the purpose of dealing with problems relating to the food supply as regards character and quality, is one apparently whose energies will, in the first place, bo chiefly directed to the institution of some control over the purity of the milk supply of the country. This National Pood Bureau appears to be primarily the outcome of the appeals that have been made from time to time to the authorities to exercise the powers invested in certain Government departments more stringently. Presumably attention will not be limited to the milk supply, important though that be, but in the near future various questions relating to cattle in general will bo dealt with. The two subjects of milk and meat are too closely allied to permit of each one being treated separately or without reference to the other. At the same time, if these closely related questions of milk and meat are to be adequately dealt with it is impossible to leave out of sight the subject of the wholesomeness or unwholesomeness of the imported meat that comes in such immense quantities into this country from abroad. At the present time the bulk of the meat so imported reaches this country from the United States, and in increasingly large quantities from South America. The justifiable outcry that was raised some years ago regarding the American meat packing scandals has, it would seem, quite died down; but unfortunately we have the strongest evidence that the temporary falling off in the trade in imported preserved meat between this country and the United States, which followed upon the agitation, has had but little salutary effect, and that the quality of the meat sent to this country from the United States still leaves much to be desired.

58. In addition to Government control the co‐operative societies have their own organisations for controlling the health of the cattle and improving the cleanliness and quality of the milk produced by their members. These organisations co‐operate closely with the Government Keuringsdienst van Waren (Food Control Service) and welcome the Government's efforts; they say, however, that they can do far more than the Government officials could do unaided since they are in very intimate touch with the farmers, and have behind them the power to pay the farmer a lower price for his milk or to refuse it entirely, or expel him from the Society; these possibilities have greater compelling force than the necessarily more formal official methods of procedure and the threat of legal proceedings.

It has often been said that a great part of the strength of Aslib lies in the fact that it brings together those whose experience has been gained in many widely differing fields but who have a common interest in the means by which information may be collected and disseminated to the greatest advantage. Lists of its members have, therefore, a more than ordinary value since they present, in miniature, a cross‐section of institutions and individuals who share this special interest.

For many of the current leadership theories, models, and approaches, the answer to the question posed in the title, “Is leadership more than ‘I like my boss’?,” is “no,” as there appears to be a hierarchy of leadership concepts with Liking of the leader as the primary dimension or general factor foundation. There are then secondary dimensions or specific sub-factors of liking of Relationship Leadership and Task Leadership; and subsequently, tertiary dimensions or actual sub-sub-factors that comprise the numerous leadership views as well as their operationalizations (e.g., via surveys). There are, however, some leadership views that go beyond simply liking of the leader and liking of relationship leadership and task leadership. For these, which involve explicit levels of analysis formulations, often beyond the leader, or are multi-level in nature, the answer to the title question is “yes.” We clarify and discuss these various “no” and “yes” leadership views and implications of our work for future research and personnel and human resources management practice.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the mediating roles of work and family demands and work-life balance on the relationship between self-efficacy (to regulate work and life) and work engagement. Specifically, it seeks to explain how self-efficacy influences employees’ thought patterns and emotional reactions, which in turn enable them to cope with work and family demands, and ultimately achieve work-life balance and work engagement.

Structural equation modelling (SEM) of survey data obtained from a heterogeneous sample of 1,010 Australian employees is used to test the hypothesised chain mediation model.

The SEM results support the hypothesised model. Self-efficacy was significantly and negatively related to work and family demands, which in turn were negatively associated with work-life balance. Work-life balance, in turn, enabled employees to be engaged in their work.

The findings support the key tenets of social cognitive theory and conservation of resources (COR) theory and demonstrate how self-efficacy can lead to work-life balance and engagement despite the presence of role demands. Study limitations (e.g. cross-sectional research design) and future research directions are discussed.

This study incorporates COR theory with social cognitive theory to improve understanding of how self-efficacy enhances work-life balance and work engagement through a self-fulfilling cycle in which employees achieve what they believe they can accomplish, and in the process, build other skills and personal resources to manage work and family challenges.

A point repeatedly brought forward for the defence, or at all events for the purpose of mitigating the fine, in adulteration cases, is the statement that defendant's goods have been analysed on former occasions and have been found genuine. As illustrating the slight value of analyses of previous samples may be taken the average laudatory analyses on patent or proprietary foods, drinks, or medicine. The manufacturer calculates—and calculates rightly—that the general public will believe that the published analysis of a particular specimen which had been submitted to the analytical expert by the manufacturer himself, guarantees all the samples on the market to be equally pure. History has repeatedly proved that in 99 cases out of 100 the goods found on the market fall below the quality indicated by the published analyses. Not long ago a case bearing on this matter was tried in court, where samples of cocoa supplied by the wholesale firm were distributed; but, when the retailer tried to sell the bulk of the consignment, he had repeated complaints from his customers that the samples were a very much better article than what he was then supplying. He summoned the wholesale dealer and won his case. But what guarantee have the general public of the quality of any manufacturer's goods—unless the Control System as instituted in Great Britain is accepted and applied ? Inasmuch as any manufacturer who joins the firms under the British Analytical Control thereby undertakes to keep all his samples up to the requisite standard; as his goods thenceforth bear the Control stamp; and as any purchaser can at any time submit a sample bought on the open market to the analytical experts of the British Analytical Control, free of any charge, to ascertain if the sample is up to the published and requisite standard, it is plain that a condition of things is created which not only protects the public from being cheated, but also acts most beneficially for these firms which are not afraid to supply a genuine article. The public are much more willing to buy an absolutely guaranteed article, of which each sample must be kept up to the previous high quality, rather than one which was good while it was being introduced, but as soon as it became well known fell off in quality and continued to live on its reputation alone.

THE monumental History of Criticism by Professor Saintsbury, and Mr. Hall Caine's lighter series of studies would be sufficient to put anyone on their guard against accepting as final many of the critical decisions of the important literary reviews. Mr. Caine's book particularly is a revelation of error and spite such as makes one wonder that anonymous literary criticism should be received with toleration by bookmen.