Abstract The idea that a new generation of students is entering the education system has excited recent attention among educators and education commentators. Termed ‘digital natives’ or the ‘Net generation’, these young people are said to have been immersed in technology all their lives, imbuing them with sophisticated technical skills and learning preferences for which traditional education is unprepared. Grand claims are being made about the nature of this generational change and about the urgent necessity for educational reform in response. A sense of impending crisis pervades this debate. However, the actual situation is far from clear. In this paper, the authors draw on the fields of education and sociology to analyse the digital natives debate. The paper presents and questions the main claims made about digital natives and analyses the nature of the debate itself. We argue that rather than being empirically and theoretically informed, the debate can be likened to an academic form of a ‘moral panic’. We propose that a more measured and disinterested approach is now required to investigate ‘digital natives’ and their implications for education.
Few historical issues have occasioned such discussion since at least the time of Marx as the transition from feudalism to capitalism in Western Europe. The Brenner Debate, which reprints from Past and Present various article in 1976, is a scholarly presentation of a variety of points of view, covering a very wide range in time, place and type of approach. Weighty theoretical responses to Brenner's first formulation followed from the late Sir Michael Postan, John Hatcher, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie and Guy Bois; more particular contributions came from Patricia Croot, David Parker, Arnost Klìma and Heide Wunder on England, France, Bohemia and Germany; and reflective pieces from R. H. Hilton and the late J. P. Cooper. Completing the volume, and giving it an overall coherence, are Brenner's own comprehensive response to those who had taken part in the debate, and also R. H. Hilton's introduction that aims to bring together the major themes in the collection of essays. The debate has already aroused widespread interest among historians and scholars in allied fields as well as among ordinary readers, and may reasonably be regarded as one of the most important historical debates of prevailing years.
Ecological Modernisation Theory has been faced with various challenges from different theoretical perspectives throughout the years. This contribution reviews the various debates ecological modernisation ideas have been engaged in. The article starts with a historical perspective on some of the earlier debates that paralleled Ecological Modernisation from its birth in the early 1980s to its maturation. These initial debates with earlier neo‐Marxists and deindustrialisation/counterproductivity theorists were formative for Ecological Modernisation Theory, but are no longer all of similar relevance today. Subsequently we concentrate on more contemporary discussions, which only to some extent reflect similar topics. We will respectively enter into discussions with constructivists and postmodernists on the material foundation of social theory, review and refine the controversies with eco‐centrists on radical versus reformist environmental reforms and contribute to neo‐Marxist understanding of social inequalities in environmental problems and reform.
In this paper we attempt to map the development of organizational learning as a field of academic study by examining the rise and fall of specific debates. This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review of the field since there is now far too much material available to allow full coverage in any single publication. Rather, we have identified some of the key debates, and these have been organized along the simplistic time‐line of past, present and future. Our purpose is two‐fold: first, to note how the nature and language of the key ideas in organizational learning have changed over time; and second, to locate the papers in this Special Issue within the context of the developing field. It is perhaps no accident that we see most of the papers as closely associated with new, and emerging, issues, but we also find it interesting to note that many of these current or emergent issues actually have roots within some of the earlier debates.
This study attempts to find appropriate interaction analysis/content analysis techniques that assist in examining the negotiation of meaning and co-construction of knowledge in collaborative learning environments facilitated by computer conferencing. The authors review strengths and shortcomings of existing interaction analysis techniques and propose a new model based on grounded theory building for analyzing the quality of CMC interactions and learning experiences. This new Interaction Analysis Model for Examining Social Construction of Knowledge in Computer Conferencing was developed after proposing a new definition of “interaction” for the CMC context and after analyzing interactions that occurred in a Global Online Debate. The application of the new model for analysis of collaborative construction of knowledge in the online debate and in a subsequent computer conference are discussed and future research suggested.
We appreciate the helpful suggestions on earlier drafts of this paper from Charles Fombrun, John Bryson, William Gomberg, and anonymousASQ reviewers. We also appreciate the support of the Center forthe Study of Organizational Innovation at the University of Pennsylvania and the Charles F. Kettering Foundation for release time to prepare this paper. The diverse schools of organizational thought are classified according to micro and macro levels of organizational analysis and deterministic versus voluntaristic assumptions of human nature to yield four basic perspectives: systemstructural, strategic choice, natural selection, and collective-action views of organizations. These four views represent qualitatively different concepts of organizational structure, behavior, change, and managerial roles. Six theoretical debates are then identified by systematically juxtaposing the four views against each other, and a partial reconciliation is achieved by bringing opposing viewpoints into dialectical relief. The six debates, which tend to be addressed singly and in isolation from each other in the literature, arethen integrated ata metatheoretical level. The framework presented thus attempts to overcome the problems associated with excessive theoretical compartmentalization by focusing on the interplay between divergent theoretical perspectives, but it also attempts to preserve the authenticity of distinctive viewpoints, thereby retaining the advantages associated with theoretical pluralism.*
This paper surveys the convergence literature. It begins by laying out different definitions of convergence and by showing the link between the convergence issue and the growth theory debate. The paper then follows the convergence research conducted along four different approaches, namely the cross‐section, panel, time‐series, and distribution approaches. The paper shows the association of these methodological approaches with various definitions of convergence and highlights the connections among the convergence results. It shows that, despite some impressions to the contrary, there is considerable agreement among the results. Although the convergence research might not have solved the growth debate entirely, it has helped both the neoclassical and the new growth theories to adapt and evolve. The research on convergence has established new stylized facts regarding cross‐country growth regularities. It has brought to fore the existence of large technological and institutional differences across countries and has given rise to new methodologies for quantifying and analyzing these differences. This is providing a new information base for analysis of technological and institutional diffusion and for further development of growth theory in general.
Designing and carrying out effective and valid research are the desired goals of all researchers, and demonstrating the trustworthiness of one's dissertation research is a requirement for all doctoral candidates. For qualitative researchers, reaching the desired goal and meeting the requirement of trustworthiness become particularly problematic due to the considerable debate about what it means to do valid research in the field of qualitative inquiry. This article reviews the various approaches to the validity problem in the hope of turning this debate into a dialogue. Validity is traced from its origins in the realist ontology and foundational epistemology of quantitative inquiry to its reformulations within the lifeworld ontology and non-foundationalism of interpretive human inquiry. Various recent qualitative approaches to validity are considered, and interpretive reconfigurations of validity are reviewed. Interpretive approaches to validity are synthesized as ethical and substantive procedures of validation.
Much research in the last two decades has demonstrated that human responses deviate from the performance deemed normative according to various models of decision making and rational judgment (e.g., the basic axioms of utility theory). This gap between the normative and the descriptive can be interpreted as indicating systematic irrationalities in human cognition. However, four alternative interpretations preserve the assumption that human behavior and cognition is largely rational. These posit that the gap is due to (1) performance errors, (2) computational limitations, (3) the wrong norm being applied by the experimenter, and (4) a different construal of the task by the subject. In the debates about the viability of these alternative explanations, attention has been focused too narrowly on the model response. In a series of experiments involving most of the classic tasks in the heuristics and biases literature, we have examined the implications of individual differences in performance for each of the four explanations of the normative/descriptive gap. Performance errors are a minor factor in the gap; computational limitations underlie non-normative responding on several tasks, particularly those that involve some type of cognitive decontextualization. Unexpected patterns of covariance can suggest when the wrong norm is being applied to a task or when an alternative construal of the task should be considered appropriate.
Modularity has been the subject of intense debate in the cognitive sciences for more than 2 decades. In some cases, misunderstandings have impeded conceptual progress. Here the authors identify arguments about modularity that either have been abandoned or were never held by proponents of modular views of the mind. The authors review arguments that purport to undermine modularity, with particular attention on cognitive architecture, development, genetics, and evolution. The authors propose that modularity, cleanly defined, provides a useful framework for directing research and resolving debates about individual cognitive systems and the nature of human evolved cognition. Modularity is a fundamental property of living things at every level of organization; it might prove indispensable for understanding the structure of the mind as well.
Journal Article Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate Get access Neorealism and neoliberalism: the contemporary debate. Edited by David A. Baldwin. New York: Columbia University Press. 1993. 377pp. Index. $56.50; ISBN 0 231 08440 4. Pb.: $19.50; ISBN 0 231 08441 2. Roger Morgan Roger Morgan 1European University Institute, Florence Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar International Affairs, Volume 70, Issue 3, July 1994, Pages 521–522, https://doi.org/10.2307/2623712 Published: 01 July 1994
In information societies, operations, decisions and choices previously left to humans are increasingly delegated to algorithms, which may advise, if not decide, about how data should be interpreted and what actions should be taken as a result. More and more often, algorithms mediate social processes, business transactions, governmental decisions, and how we perceive, understand, and interact among ourselves and with the environment. Gaps between the design and operation of algorithms and our understanding of their ethical implications can have severe consequences affecting individuals as well as groups and whole societies. This paper makes three contributions to clarify the ethical importance of algorithmic mediation. It provides a prescriptive map to organise the debate. It reviews the current discussion of ethical aspects of algorithms. And it assesses the available literature in order to identify areas requiring further work to develop the ethics of algorithms.
This book transcends current debate on government regulation by lucidly outlining how regulations can be a fruitful combination of persuasion and sanctions. The regulation of business by the United States government is often ineffective despite being more adversarial in tone than in other nations. The authors draw on both empirical studies of regulation from around the world and modern game theory to illustrate innovative solutions to this problem. Their ideas include an argument for the empowerment of private and public interest groups in the regulatory process and a provocative discussion of how the government can support and encourage industry self-regulation.
The second edition of The Great Psychotherapy Debate has been updated and revised to expand the presentation of the Contextual Model, which is derived from a scientific understanding of how humans heal in a social context and explains findings from a vast array of psychotherapies studies. This model provides a compelling alternative to traditional research on psychotherapy, which tends to focus on identifying the most effective treatment for particular disorders through emphasizing the specific ingredients of treatment. The new edition also includes a history of healing practices, medicine, and psychotherapy, an examination of therapist effects, and a thorough review of the research on common factors such as the alliance, expectations, and empathy.
Kosslyn (psychology, Harvard U.) presents a 20-year research program on the nature of high-level vision and mental imagery--offering his research as a definitive resolution of the long-standing “imagery debate,” which centers on the nature of the internal representation of visual mental imagery. He combines insights and empirical results from computer vision, neurobiology, and cognitive science to develop a general theory of visual mental imagery, its relation to visual perception, and its implementation in the human brain.
Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content. Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity. Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ 2 (1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ 2 (1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ 2 (1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ 2 (1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ 2 (1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ 2 (1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive. Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination. Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content.
This study examined how top management team diversity variables and debate interacted to influence two measures of company financial performance. Further, it assessed the degree to which decision c...
The debate over the nature of mental imagery, especially with respect to the interpretation of recent findings on the transformation of images.” has failed to focus on the crucial differences between the so-called “analogue” and “propositional” approaches. In this paper I attempt to clarify the disagreements by focusing on the alleged spatial nature of images and on recent findings concerned with “rotation” and “scanning” of mental images. It is argued that the main point of disagreement concerns whether certain aspects of the way in which images are transformed should be attributed to intrinsic knowledge-independent properties of the medium in which images are instantiated or the mechanisms by which they are processed, or whether images are typically transformed in certain ways because subjects take their task to be the simulation of the act of witnessing certain real events taking place and therefore use their tacit knowledge of the imaged situation to cause the transformation to proceed as they believe it would have proceeded in reality. The fundamental difference between these t o modes of processing is examined, and certain general difficulties inherent in the analogue account are discussed. It is argued that the tacit knowledge a count is more plausible, at least in the cases examined, because it is a more general account and also because certain empirical results demonstrate that both “mental scanning” and “mental rotation” transformations can be critically influenced by varying the instructions given to subjects and the precise form of the task used and that the form of the influence is explainable in terms of the semantic content of subjects' beliefs and goals—that is, that these operations are cognitively penetrable by subjects' beliefs and goals. Functions that are cognitively penetrable in this sense, it is argued, must be explained, at least in part, by reference to computational cognitive processes whose behavior is governed by goals, beliefs, and tacit knowledge rather than by properties of analogue mechanism.
Originally propounded by the sixteenth-century scholars of the University of Salamanca, the concept of purchasing power parity (PPP) was revived in the interwar period in the context of the debate concerning the appropriate level at which to re-establish international exchange rate parities. Broadly accepted as a long-run equilibrium condition in the post-war period, it was first advocated as a short-run equilibrium by many international economists in the first few years following the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system in the early 1970s and then increasingly came under attack on both theoretical and empirical grounds from the late 1970s to the mid 1990s. Accordingly, over the last three decades, a large literature has built up that examines how much the data deviated from theory, and the fruits of this research have provided a deeper understanding of how well PPP applies in both the short run and the long run. Since the mid 1990s, larger datasets and nonlinear econometric methods, in particular, have improved estimation. As deviations narrowed between real exchange rates and PPP, so did the gap narrow between theory and data, and some degree of confidence in long-run PPP began to emerge again. In this respect, the idea of long-run PPP now enjoys perhaps its strongest support in more than thirty years, a distinct reversion in economic thought. Our willingness to pay a certain price for foreign money must ultimately and essentially be due to the fact that this money possesses a purchasing power as against commodities and services in that country. On the other hand, when we offer so and so much of our own money, we are actually offering a purchasing power as against commodities and services in our own country. Our valuation of a foreign currency in terms of our own, therefore, mainly depends on the relative purchasing power of the two currencies in their respective countries.
The contingent valuation method, wherein sample surveys are used to elicit individuals’ willingness to pay for certain types of policies, is playing an important role in government decision-making. The most prominent applications are in the valuation of damages to natural resources from oil spills. But the contingent valuation method will be more important still if it is used to expand the range of impacts included in applied benefit-cost analyses. This paper explains the origins of the contingent valuation method and the route through which it came to be the center of both an academic and a legal debate.