Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a design strategy that investigates the systematic use of interdisciplinary knowledge through a transparent decision-making process. The study identifies relevant design parameters that should be considered in the development of this design strategy.

The empirical data were collected through observations of the design process of two new sport facilities, meetings with sport, well-being and aging experts and through semi-structured interviews with end-users. The development of the proposed design strategy is based on a methodology with elements from “Knowledge to Action (KTA),” “Action research” and a “List of value concepts.” The rigid timetable guaranteed systematic progress, where both knowledge from the end-users and experts were incorporated throughout the decision-making process.

The two case studies documented results involving end-users and experts in a systematic way. In conclusion, it was apparent that the use of interdisciplinary collaboration informed the design outcome.

Based on the two cases, the following advice can be given to the architectural profession: architects should use the KTA model or similar in order to target the search for relevant interdisciplinary knowledge and ensure that relevant evidence is involved in the design process of upcoming projects regarding sport and recreation. Architects should make the design process transparent so that one can see which design decisions have been made through the design process. This must be done to ensure that there is greater coherence between vision and practice.

The study showed how architects could import knowledge, skills and values from other disciplines such as environmental psychology and active living research to improve the decision-making process of future sport and recreation projects. It was also clear that this design decision process could be made more transparent in the effort to allow the various stakeholders to take ownership of the resulting design outcomes.

The main body of literature that has developed about educator stress indicates ours is a profession marked by high levels of distressful encounters and that educators are not faring well in this environment. The authors believe this case is over‐stated and that education, as a field, is not nearly so marked by the littered casualties of distress that the literature would have us believe exist. This conclusion is founded on both a small literature base which holds a contrary point of view, and on three studies of administrators and teachers which consistently indicate educators are much more adaptable and consequently, less stressed, than we have been led to believe. The purpose of the first study was to identify the levels of stress school principals experience on the job and to investigate the impact of perceived locus of control and powerlessness on their stress levels. The second study examined the extent to which school principals' perceived level of stress is related to their role relationship with groups internal and external to the school organization. The goals of the third study were to establish the levels of teachers' perceived stress, the organizationally‐based factors that are most stress‐inducing, and the predominant ways in which teachers manifest stress. The results of these studies, with great consistency, indicate low educator stress. These findings have important implications for the development of new approaches to stress research and for policy decisions concerning allocation of organizational resources to stress management design and staff development.

In the last four years, since Volume I of this Bibliography first appeared, there has been an explosion of literature in all the main functional areas of business. This wealth of material poses problems for the researcher in management studies — and, of course, for the librarian: uncovering what has been written in any one area is not an easy task. This volume aims to help the librarian and the researcher overcome some of the immediate problems of identification of material. It is an annotated bibliography of management, drawing on the wide variety of literature produced by MCB University Press. Over the last four years, MCB University Press has produced an extensive range of books and serial publications covering most of the established and many of the developing areas of management. This volume, in conjunction with Volume I, provides a guide to all the material published so far.

In this paper, I compare Theodore Schatzki’s practice theory, the existential phenomenology of Martin Heidegger upon whom Schatzki drew in its formation, and my own theory of institutional logics which I have sought to develop as a religious sociology of institution. I examine how Schatzki and I both differently locate our thinking at the level of practice. In this essay I also explore the possibility of appropriating Heidegger’s religious ontology of worldhood, which Schatzki rejects, in that project. My institutional logical position is an atheological religious one, poly-onto-teleological. Institutional logics are grounded in ultimate goods which are praiseworthy “objects” of striving and practice, signifieds to which elements of an institutional logic have a non-arbitrary relation, sources of and references for practical norms about how one should have, make, do or be that good, and a basis of knowing the world of practice as ordered around such goods. Institutional logics are constellations co-constituted by substances, not fields animated by values, interests or powers.

Because we are speaking against “values,” people are horrified at a philosophy that ostensibly dares to despise humanity’s best qualities. For what is more “logical” than that a thinking that denies values must necessarily pronounce everything valueless? Martin Heidegger, “Letter on Humanism” (2008a, p. 249).

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 authors propose to estimate a varying coefficient panel data model with different smoothing variables and fixed effects using a two-step approach. The pilot step estimates the varying coefficients by a series method. We then use the pilot estimates to perform a one-step backfitting through local linear kernel smoothing, which is shown to be oracle efficient in the sense of being asymptotically equivalent to the estimate knowing the other components of the varying coefficients. In both steps, the authors remove the fixed effects through properly constructed weights. The authors obtain the asymptotic properties of both the pilot and efficient estimators. The Monte Carlo simulations show that the proposed estimator performs well. The authors illustrate their applicability by estimating a varying coefficient production frontier using a panel data, without assuming distributions of the efficiency and error terms.

Following the successful transition of Archnet-IJAR to Emerald, the introduction of new process and editorial teams, and the production of the first issue last March (Volume 13, Issue 1), the purpose of this paper is to outline key aspects of the contributions published in this edition of Archnet-IJAR: International Journal of Architectural Research, Volume 13, Issue 1, July 2019.

Premised on two generic understandings of built environment research: conceptual frameworks and experimental fieldworks, a classification of topical contents and an identification of approaches within the studies published in this edition, a narrative on evolving interests and themes is developed to outline these undertakings.

Five themes are identified from 13 papers contributed by 27 researchers from academic institutions in 13 countries and territories. Themes include: complexity and prosperity of informal settlements and slums; east–west dialectics of environmental design research and sustainable urbanism; educating future built environment professionals; grassroots research and design strategies; and performance, perception and behavior.

Understanding and appreciating various research approaches for unveiling key aspects of built environment realities including the spatial and social dimensions would facilitate effective contributions in architectural and urban research. This is coupled with the advancing thematic aspects that enthuse a re-thinking of the key purpose of architectural and urban research while stimulating future research endeavors.

The following classified, annotated list of titles is intended to provide reference librarians with a current checklist of new reference books, and is designed to supplement the RSR review column, “Recent Reference Books,” by Frances Neel Cheney. “Reference Books in Print” includes all additional books received prior to the inclusion deadline established for this issue. Appearance in this column does not preclude a later review in RSR. Publishers are urged to send a copy of all new reference books directly to RSR as soon as published, for immediate listing in “Reference Books in Print.” Reference books with imprints older than two years will not be included (with the exception of current reprints or older books newly acquired for distribution by another publisher). The column shall also occasionally include library science or other library related publications of other than a reference character.

This study aims to explore the controllability of risk culture, identify and categorize risk culture controls used in firms and explore how industry and ownership structure affect the use of different risk culture controls.

This explorative study is based on 32 semi-structured interviews with 37 participants who are heads of risk management or top managers in German firms from different industries with different ownership structures.

Interviewees perceive risk culture to be largely controllable. The authors identify a wide spectrum of risk culture controls, ranging from leadership and motivational controls to risk competence controls; in each category, the authors find value-, symbol- and clan-based controls. Leadership controls were most extensively discussed by the interviewees. The use of risk culture controls varied based on industry and ownership structure.

Due to the explorative character of the approach, the authors cannot claim representativeness for the results. The study is limited to one point in time and to a German sample. The findings imply that companies should select risk culture controls according to their own context and that implementation requires support by the top and middle management.

The authors respond to the call for more organizational studies on risk management that consider cultural paradigms (Arena et al., 2010; Mikes, 2011; Power, 2009). The study systematically identifies risk culture controls used in corporate practice and categorizes them. It provides tentative evidence of the relevance of context-specific factors for the use of risk culture controls.

When I arrived at Stanford in the fall of 1993, the university was a thriving site of organizational research. The department of sociology served as a sort of epicenter, with workshops on organizational ecology (led by Mike Hannan), organizations in the world polity (John Meyer and Francisco “Chiqui” Ramirez), and healthcare organizations (Dick Scott). In the school of education, Jim March was intriguing a new generation of students with his puzzles and wisdom. In addition to Mike Hannan's joint appointment, the Graduate School of Business featured such luminaries as Jeff Pfeffer, Joanne Martin, Jim Baron, Joel Podolny, and Bill Barnett. Slightly further afield, Ray Leavitt and Michael Fehling had begun to train engineers to think about organizational issues, as they developed computer simulations with nuanced attention to cognitive and decision-making processes. Steve Barley would join (what was then) the department of industrial engineering in 1994 and Mark Granovetter would join the department of sociology in 1995, adding fresh insights from the sociology of work and economic sociology, respectively, to what was already a firm foundation for organization studies. The umbrella organization that linked many of these efforts was the Stanford Consortium on Organizational Research (SCOR), which had been guided by Dick Scott's able leadership since 1988 and hosted an annual organizations conference at the beautiful Asilomar retreat in Monterey, California.