Search results

Our primary aim is to discuss the variability that exists in the operationalization of race/ethnicity in research on genetic and biological markers. We employ Stuart Hall’s “floating signifiers” of race approach to explain the ambiguous manner in which researchers discuss the links between race and genetics.

We examine articles that use race/ethnicity and genetic or biological markers between 2000 and 2013 within three prominent genetic journals. We focused on original, empirical articles only. We utilize various race/ethnic-related search terms to obtain our sample and to categorize how terms were used.

A total of 336 articles fit our search criteria. The number of articles mentioning race/ethnicity and genetic or biological information increased over the time. A significant percentage of publications base their research on whites only. When discussions of race are included in studies, scientists often use multiple categories of race/ethnicity without much explanation.

We omit non-research articles and commentary for each journal, which could contain important discussions regarding race and genetics. This work highlights how race/ethnicity can vary in application and interpretation.

Our discussion of race/ethnicity as “floating signifiers” adds a layer of complexity to the longstanding debate regarding the importance of race/ethnicity in genetic research. The “floating” nature of race/ethnicity underlines how subjective the characterizations of samples are and how possible interpretations of results for groups can impact health disparities research. Given the increased use of genetic data by social scientists, there is a need for more cross-disciplinary discussions on the race–gene relationship.

There is a peculiar problem in the US that is proving to challenge core values that undergird our laws, interpersonal interactions, and challenge the civil rights of many. American society believes in harsh sentences for committing crimes without a system for rehabilitation from crime and absent from resources from a community level to prevent crimes. As crime has declined since the 1990s, policing behavior has grown to a level that reflects a disregard for humanity resulting in police-involved shootings, also known as “justifiable homicides” or deaths by legal intervention. This peculiar problem reifies old notions of racial inferiority and racial profiling that stem from a long history of lynchings in America, and highlights a broken legal system that shows bias toward poor communities and communities not of the racial and ethnic majority. When laws support one racial or ethnic group and those with resources, other communities become invisible and subjected to state-sanctioned violence that allows some police agencies and police officers to engage in behaviors that do not reflect their training foster an overwhelming sense of fear in these communities. We have observed that when communities fear the police and the larger society disbelieves the negative interactions with police, residents have begun to capture police encounters with community members on social media. Despite the video footage that has been collected documenting abuse of power, some police have been granted impunity for their actions, which further fuels fear in these communities. What we propose are ways to frame and solve negative police encounters with communities through an understanding of: (1) racial biases; (2) racial and gender consciousness; (3) ways to provide more equitable policing practices; (4) the enforcement of legal remedies for those who abuse power; and (5) the prevention of acts of discrimination by holding individuals culpable who informally police Black males. We believe these strategies aid in addressing the historical legacy of these behaviors and moves multiple systems and disciplines toward integrated solutions to eliminate “justifiable homicides.”

The purpose of this study is to examine the contribution of sharing knowledge processes aimed at promoting innovation in small businesses.

The empirical study was conducted in Israel on a sample of 202 businesses in face-to-face interviews.

The study demonstrated that small businesses in the industry sectors that seek to promote innovation must implement processes for sharing knowledge. Interestingly, these processes contribute mainly to product, marketing and organizational innovation and less to process innovation.

The study may contribute in a practical manner to assisting small businesses in the development and implementation of appropriate sharing knowledge processes for promoting innovation, and as a result, contribute to overall economic growth.

This study enriches the body of knowledge on managerial processes and on sharing knowledge processes for promoting innovation in this group of businesses, which has rarely been the focus of studies on innovation. The use of face-to-face interviews as a research tool facilitated obtaining knowledge that is generally not readily accessible.

Drawing on new insights from the experiences and perspectives of a prominent reporting client and its assurance team, the purpose of this paper is to explore the question: what are challenges to the legitimacy of corporate social responsibility (CSR) reporting and assurance?

Using a qualitative research approach, in-depth, semi-structured interviews are conducted with a Fortune 200 firm’s Vice President responsible for CSR oversight (including CSR reporting), and with the report’s assurance team from a Top 20 accounting firm. Questions are informed by existing literature, and analysis focuses on new insights that conform to, or contrast with, prior studies in areas that may challenge the legitimacy of CSR reporting.

The study documents that reporting and assurance may often serve the respective commercial and professional interests of the firm and the assuror, rather than providing accountability to the public interest. Specifically, the authors find that legitimacy-challenging instances of managerial capture of CSR reporting may co-exist in a firm with management-as-CSR-champion, in contrast with existing literature. Prior research has assumed these two constructs are not likely to co-exist within a single organization. The interviews suggest that managerial influence is fostered by the lack of reporting standards and the absence of agreement regarding the over-arching purpose of CSR reports and their assurance.

Going forward, researchers should consider the multifaceted role management can play in CSR reporting and assurance, rather than treating managerial capture and management-as-champion as mutually exclusive. Future research could also examine how standards may balance desired comparability with flexibility in CSR reporting.

The study will interest report users who may assume that a seemingly supportive management would not play a restrictive role in the reporting and assurance processes. Reporters and assurors will benefit from reading the perspectives provided by professionals engaged in similar work, including the challenges they face, such as the consequences resulting from the lack of standards for CSR reporting and assurance.

The study is the first to provide a behind-the-scenes view of the report–assuror dyad by interviewing both the reporting firm and the assurance team engaged on the same CSR report.