Search

This article presents information on 'Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology' as of March 2004. The journal publishes empirical and conceptual papers which aim to increase understanding of people and organizations at work. Its domain is broad, covering industrial, organizational, engineering, vocational and personnel psychology, as well as behavioural and cognitive aspects of industrial relations, ergonomics, human factors and industrial sociology. The editorial team reminds readers that research based on student samples is not usually acceptable, unless students are the most relevant population with which to test the research question/s. However, a little further comment and qualification concerning the nature of the data is needed in order to clarify the team's stance, and also to draw attention to some exceptions. One particular concern here is to discourage studies where causal hypotheses in well-researched areas are tested using entirely self-report survey data from a sample numbering perhaps in the low hundreds, the composition of which is characterized more by availability than special relevance to the research question/s. So, if a study used only cross-sectional self-report data but included some kind of experimental manipulation, other things being equal it could be publishable. A more general, and very important issue concerns the distinction between quantitative and qualitative data. The journal explicitly encourages papers based on the latter, and has done so for quite some time.

Neo-Weberian closure theory developed principally by Parkin appears at first glance to suffer from two opposing weaknesses — that its central concept of exclusion is either too broad or too narrow. This paper demonstrates that these objections are spurious. It then uncovers several real problems which have not yet been examined by the critics of closure theory. These problems have to do with Parkin's conceptions of usurpation, of the withdrawal of services, and of property, as well as with the ambiguity in the politics of Parkin's closure theory. The paper corrects these weaknesses and clarifies this ambiguity and concludes that closure theory so-corrected provides a promising framework for going beyond analyses focused narrowly on one particular means of domination and one particular set of monopolization and exclusion rules to a focus on monopolization and exclusion per se. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Through an elaboration of Stinchcombe's model of the structure of functional explanations, this paper attempts to integrate the notions of equilibrium structures, structural contradictions, and social conflicts. It proposes that two variables of an unquestionably empirical nature can account for the distinctions among the three structural forms: (1) the emergence of a double loop in the basic structure of functional systems and (2) the embodiment of systemic, mechanical forces in the intentions and actions of persons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]