Search results

Over the last twenty years, many studies have examined the impact of structured writing programs on improving accounting students’ writing skills. In this chapter, we extend this research by using writing assignments that are representative of the workplace writing experiences that students encounter in their professional careers, by developing an evaluation instrument to assess the effectiveness of structured writing programs, and by using business advisory board members to evaluate improvement in students’ writing. Our results suggest that our new approach to designing writing assignments representative of workplace writing helps students improve their writing skills. Our business advisory board members’ ratings indicate that the overall quality of the students’ writing improved over two semesters of completing a series of workplace writing assignments. Specifically, our structured writing program improved students’ business writing skills in the areas of organization (paragraph unity, layout, and conclusion) and style and tone (conciseness and word choice). Students also improved in their ability to explain technical aspects of accounting work and in certain aspects of spelling, punctuation, and grammar. The results and tools provided in this study should assist other programs in either implementing or improving a structured writing program.

In March 2004, the NASD and the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE,” together with the NASD, the “SROs”) issued a joint memorandum (the “2004 Joint Memorandum”) that provides interpretative guidance on NASD Rule 2711 and the research analyst provisions of NYSE Rules 351 and 472, as amended in July 2003 (the “SRO rules”), and addresses issues raised by members regarding these rules. The SROs state in the 2004 Joint Memorandum that the guidance provided in their first joint memorandum issued in July 2002 (the “2002 Joint Memorandum”) continues to apply unless stated otherwise in the 2004 Joint Memorandum. This article will identify and discuss the major issues addressed in the 2004 Joint Memorandum and attempt to provide general guidance to practitioners seeking to understand the implications of these issues for their clients” research analysts’ activities. In analyzing the application of the SRO rules and derivative material, including the 2004 Joint Memorandum, the starting point always must be an understanding of what activities and materials the SRO rules address. The SRO rules apply to registered broker‐dealers that are members of either the NYSE or NASD (“member firm” or “member firms”) with research analysts who produce “research reports” and “public appearances” with regard to any “equity security” as defined in section 3(a)11 of the Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”).

This article is a philosophical investigation of the “Freedom and Authority Memorandum”, written by A.W. Jones then Director‐General of Education in South Australia. The article has several purposes. First, it is an example of the contribution that philosophy can make to the formulation of educational policy. Second, it compares and contrasts two institutional styles for the purpose of elucidating the kind of bureaucratic organization commended by the memorandum. Third, the article attempts to demonstrate that contractual consent theory, in and of itself, does not dissolve many of the most serious problems that revolve around ideas of freedom and authority. Last, the article illustrates why, given the assumptions of institutional collectivism, the commitment to institutional individualism implicit in the “freedom and Authority Memorandum” cannot necessarily lead to happiness.

Worker classification continues to be a highly litigated area of taxation. That is, the status of a worker as an employee or independent contractor remains a topic closely scrutinized by the Internal Revenue Service. This study examines factors that the judiciary deems relevant in ruling whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. A backward stepwise logistic regression model is implemented to categorize the factors that best predict the court’s decision on whether a worker is either an employee or independent contractor pursuant to the factors in Revenue Ruling 87-41 (1987-1 CB 296), judge gender, and political affiliation. The results indicate three factors (supervision/instructions, continuing relationship, and the right to discharge) are capable of accurately predicting 93 percent of the decisions made by the US Tax Court. Other findings support notable statistical differences between male and female judges rendering decisions and reaching conclusions. Also, there is a statistically significant difference based on the type of industry. Political affiliation appears to have no significant impact on judicial rulings.

The paper will concentrate on the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) from the point of view of the contemplative social sciences (CSS). It will analyze how the mind is engaged in the construction of concept and what the role is of the consciousness of the mind's work in creating a theory that is based on the analysis of empirical data. We will review the research and analytical methods that could be inspirations for Contemplative Grounded Theory (CGT): constructivist grounded theory, classic grounded theory, transformational grounded theory, sociological introspection, holistic ethnography, mindful inquiry and transformational phenomenology, and contemplative qualitative inquiry.

We can find in many classical books from grounded theory (GT) some seeds of contemplative thinking, and we can reconstruct them (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). We would like to develop the inspirations more and perhaps change the sense of GT after the contemplative turn. We would like to show the possibilities of using CGT in research and also its limitations. Some empirical examples from research and analysis will be given to show how contemplation could be used in GT.

This paper has five objectives. First, to draw attention to serious weaknesses in Kaminsky's analysis of the South Australian “Freedom and Authority” memorandum. Second, to sketch out how Kaminsky could have presented a more realistic picture of A.W. Jones's position both with regard to the memo, and school governance in general. Third, to show that had Kaminsky pursued this suggested line of analysis he would have found that Jones confused ends‐type policy‐making with technico‐professional decision‐making, which led Jones into error concerning the respective roles of lay people and professionals in educational policy‐making. Fourth, to illustrate how Jones's radical indictment of the lack of “democracy” in Australian schools in the mid 1970s was conjoined with conservative and technocratic decisional proposals. Finally, to suggest that the issues raised in my criticism of Kaminsky and Jones are of crucial importance to all those interested in school governance.