Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a scale for measuring consumer doubt toward new products.

The scale was developed in several steps. A large pool of items to represent consumer doubt was generated. Experts reviewed the scale items for conciseness and clarity. An exploratory factor analysis to examine the unidimensionality, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of each construct was conducted. The model was then validated using partial least squares modeling. Finally, the scale and its form were validated, and potential response biases assessed. Data from three studies were used.

The results show that by focusing on reasons for deference, rather than acceptance, the scale yields new insight into innovation success and failure. The CDNP scale is a reliable and valid measurement instrument to assess consumer doubt toward new products.

For researchers, the results show that only considering positive aspects on innovation adoption can lead to only a partial understanding of how innovation diffuses in the market.

By overcoming consumer doubt at early stages of innovation launch, companies could overcome problems related to innovation failure.

The literature on innovation adoption has almost exclusively focused on why innovations succeed by examining consumer acceptance of innovations. Yet, a potentially more serious issue that would need to be tackled is why innovations fail. This paper focuses on consumer doubt toward new products, i.e. a lack of conviction that a new product will fulfill its promises. Three studies show that the scale of consumer doubt is valid, and it provides new insights into innovation adoption.

To examine a statement issued by Justice Antonin Scalia on November 10, 2014, concurrently with the Supreme Court ' s denial of certiorari in a criminal insider trading case, which raises profound questions about how the courts interpret the federal securities laws and the degree of deference they give to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the context of criminal enforcement.

The article discusses the points raised in the justice ' s statement and their potential implications for future securities enforcement cases.

The statement suggests that the traditional deference courts accord the SEC under the landmark decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (1984) may be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent with the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguous criminal laws be interpreted in a defendant ' s favor.

Expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

There remain several underaddressed issues in the procedural justice literature. The authors draw from a rich body of psychological research on how the sociopolitical orientation to group inequality influences individual views on government and apply this to perceptions of procedural justice.

This study uses a laboratory-style experimental design to examine the extent to which social dominance orientation (SDO) shapes how people view the language of law enforcement. Four treatments are tested: procedural justice, rapport, deference, and direct.

The authors find that, overall, exclusively emphasizing rapport – as opposed to procedural justice, deference, or directness – is not beneficial to fostering positive perceptions of police. Additionally, a higher SDO score is associated with lower perceptions of officer respect in the video and regardless of condition. Finally, while higher SDO score is correlated with greater trust in police (both a specific officer and the police in general), it is also associated with a lower sense of obligation to obey both the officer in the video and the police as an institution. Further, procedural justice or direct communication styles can attenuate the negative impact of SDO on views of police better than rapport or deference communication styles. Thus, the picture that emerges from this research is more nuanced than a straightforward relationship between SDO and support for police.

This study used an experimental design to examine for the first time the role that a sociopolitical orientation may play in procedural justice theory. While research finds strong links between procedural justice and increased cooperation with police, obligation to obey, and trust in police, few studies have delved into the individual-level factors that research has yet to delve into whether sociopolitical orientation may play a role in informing police actions and communication training.

Drawing on sociological role theory, this chapter introduces and explains the distinction between cosmopolitan and local role orientations as status categories in international teams. Qualitative data from a multimethod field study conducted at a leading international development agency illustrates that the high status of cosmopolitans and locals in this setting was based on expectations that these team members would enable their teams to more effectively interpret knowledge obtained from outside sources. The possible dynamics of status rivalry and deference in teams with cosmopolitan and local membership are explored, and their implications for team performance are addressed. Thus, status in groups is viewed as both contested and contingent on the situation.

Status, which is based on differences in esteem and honor, is an ancient and universal form of inequality which nevertheless interpenetrates modern institutions and organizations. Given its ubiquity and significance, we need to better understand the basic nature of status as a form of inequality. I argue that status hierarches are a cultural invention to organize and manage social relations in a fundamental human condition: cooperative interdependence to achieve valued goals with nested competitive interdependence to maximize individual outcomes in the effort. I consider this claim in relation to both evolutionary arguments and empirical evidence. Evidence suggests that the cultural schema of status is two-fold, consisting of a deeply learned basic norm of status allocation and a set of more explicit, variable, and changing common knowledge status beliefs that people draw on to coordinate judgments about who or what is more deserving of higher status. The cultural nature of status allows people to spread it widely to social phenomena (e.g., firms in a business field) well beyond its origins in interpersonal hierarchies. In particular, I argue, the association of status with social difference groups (e.g., race, gender, class-as-culture) gives inequalities based on those difference groups an autonomous, independent capacity to reproduce themselves through interpersonal status processes.

The sociology of education has various traditions which examine the connections between education, culture, and inequality. Two of these traditions, symbolic interactionism and critical theory, tend to ignore each other. This paper creates a dialogue between these traditions by applying symbolic interactionist (SI) and radical interactionist (RSI) sensibilities to an important study for resistance theory, Paul Willis’ classic ethnography Learning to Labor (1977). The SI reading of Learning to Labor emphasizes the importance of group interactions and the creation of meaning, while the RSI reading highlights how domination unfolds in social interaction. We argue that SI and RSI have much to offer Learning to Labor, as these readings can avoid some of the critiques commonly leveled on the book regarding the linkage between theory and data, structure and agency, and the book’s conceptualization of culture. Likewise, we argue that the data in Learning to Labor have much to offer SI and RSI, as the material provides grist to further understand the role of symbols in domination while identifying escalating dominance encounters that create a set of patterned interactions that we describe as a “grinding” social order.

Since its inception, the term ‘corporate governance’ (CG) has attracted mainstream attention, continuing to generate discussion among academics, practitioners and policy-makers. This heightened interest generally revolves around clarifying the principles of CG, both in theory and practice. This is particularly important in the context of emerging economies, where the sociocultural ethos and values often differ from those of most developed economies, where the CG concept was conceived and developed. In this vein, this chapter draws on empirical data to explore practical CG challenges faced by corporations in the Nigerian manufacturing and banking sectors. Nigeria is a country whose dominant national culture is one of high-power distance (HPD), which endorses servant-master relationships and encourages deference to authority. In this study, we found that HPD culture can undermine stakeholders’ ability to hold corporate executives to account on practices and behaviours that are antithetical to principles of corporate integrity and ethics, accountability, transparency, autonomy and stakeholder engagement, which in turn, leads to (and exacerbates) corporate misgovernance among businesses in the sectors. The theoretical and practical implications of the study are expatiated in the discussion section.

This paper aims to explore how researchers in general, and field researchers in particular, might respond to systems of governance of the researchers' activity in ways that can support rather than distort the quality of the research.

We draw upon literature on serendipity to develop a framework for engaging with the positive and negative potentials of systems of governance. We ground our analysis in discussion of participation in the field comprising two parts: first, the examination of our own activities and second, the accounts of participation found in two career-autobiographical interviews with emeritus professors of management accounting from Japan.

We highlight the potential for a productive tension between two contrasting perspectives that researchers might take on governance of their activity. A contractual perspective sees the value of targets and detailed pre-planning. A reflexive perspective sees the value of exploring the unexpected and considering many alternatives. We offer a framework for considering serendipity and the conditions that facilitate serendipity to help researchers maintain a productive tension between these perspectives.

We build upon retrospective accounts of two successful individuals whose careers evolved in a specific context. The intention is not to set out what might be generally achievable in a research career, nor to propose specific lines of action or planning in relation to specific systems of governance, since these vary across countries and over time. Rather, the paper draws on these materials to illuminate the more general challenge of preparing for serendipity in a way that goes beyond simple opportunism.

We analyse how researchers' mindfulness of serendipity and the nature of contexts that facilitate serendipity can encourage a productive tension between contractual and reflexive perspectives on governance of academic activity.

This study aims to investigate Australian civil tribunal decisions to ascertain compliance with decisional quality standards in Australian law, with a particular focus on strata and community title cases.

An orthodox doctrinal legal analysis and assessment of cases and tribunal policies was adopted. All Australian jurisdictions were surveyed, including federal, state and territory jurisdictions. The case law in each jurisdiction was screened to identify whether the principles applicable to decisional quality were engaged and then analysed as to the extent of that engagement.

Where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, tribunals are obliged to address those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. However, appellate decisions disclose a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers, and there is a need for a more disciplined approach to ascertain whether any errors have been made by a tribunal lie on the critical path to the decision. As strata and community title disputes become more complex, the importance of decisional quality standards can only increase.

Up to date as of 1 March 2023.

The present position would appear to be that where a party presents a substantial, clearly particularised argument relying upon established facts, a tribunal must address its mind to those facts and the arguments by way of an active intellectual process. The requirement is limited to circumstances prescribed by a statute and factual and legal issues which are necessary to be determined in order for the tribunal to be satisfied as to circumstances prescribed by a statute. However, where the errors are not gross and plainly obvious, appeals from defective tribunal decisions are unlikely to succeed. There is a degree of deference not often accorded to judicial officers. That deference is unfortunate when tribunals are allocated jurisdiction over what quite often are significant property disputes.

The impact on community living of uncorrected poor quality tribunal decisions can be immense, depending on the degree of error. For example, water ingress into people’s homes might remain unremedied for many years, as, for example, occurred in the Marinko case.

The research and analysis is entirely original. A search of journals and textbooks did not identify any prior analysis, at least in the Australian context, relating to decisional quality standards of tribunals.

As a way of assessing the ability of organizations to discover and manage unexpected failures in organizational capabilities of knowledge management (KM), this study aims to develop a measurement instrument that involves the five reliability dimensions of preoccupation with failure, reluctance to simplify interpretations, sensitivity to operations, commitment to resilience, and deference to expertise.

To generate measurement items, previous research related to organizational reliability, high reliability theory, mindfulness, and required organizational capabilities of KM was reviewed. The measurement instrument was then verified in terms of reliability and validity, empirically using data from 240 companies in North America. Internal consistency of measurements, measurement item reliability, and construct reliability were examined to ensure the reliability of the instrument. Based on confirmatory factor analysis using structural equation modelling, construct validity was also tested.

The reliability evaluation instrument for KM suggested in this study was constructed with four dimensions, preoccupation with failure in KM, sensitivity to KM operations, commitment to resilience in KM, and deference to expertise. The related measurement items were also identified.

This instrument is useful for researchers and executives looking for appropriate outcomes through the implementation of KM initiatives. Furthermore, the study provides a starting point for further research on KM reliability.

To date, while many of the KM success or failure studies have relied on developing success factors or organizational capability requirements, few studies have been conducted to identify evaluation measures that can assess the cognitive infrastructure that enables simultaneous adaptive learning and provides organizational reliability infrastructure through the management of unwanted, unanticipated, and unexplainable failures in KM-required capabilities.