Search

Presents a reply to the commentary of John W. Pawling regarding the author's paper "Early Perception of a High Plain in Michigan." Summary of the main points of the paper; Examination of the reviewer's comments; Contentions on Pawling's claims.

Just as the practice of administration is changing — as it is generally acknowledged to be — so is the study of administration. This process of viable, increasing change is the result not only of rapid social alteration and technical advancements, but also the number of able critics, the very activeness of professional organizations, the financial cornucopia of foundations interested in administrative processes, and the growing legions of social-behavioral scientists applying their knowledge and methods to the problems of administration. In these times of change it is becoming a prevalent suspicion that contemporary theories of administration are inadequate and perhaps even misleading and erroneous. In fact, a popular sport among students of administration is the cataloging, labeling, re-labeling and criticizing of the various administrative theories. These critics see the theories as being too abstract or too concrete, too limited to the descriptive or too drastically over reaching their evidence, too culture-bound, time-bound, or institution-bound, and too 'unscientific', that is, neither reliable nor valid. This paper reflects the present uneasiness with administrative research and theory, yet hopefully does not add to the current outcries or complaints. Rather we hope to offer a strategy for research on the administrative process which should be less open to the above charges. This strategy in essence suggests we do not over formalize too early in theory development, rather that we systematize the process of the step-by-step thinking we rely upon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents the reply of the researchers to the commentary of Wolf Roder on their paper about the settlement of Sosúa, Dominican Republic. Inadequacy of Roder's analysis and reasoning on the situation described in Soú Inaccuracy of the critic's definition of symbiosis; Appreciation of the researchers for the interest of Roder in liberation movement.

Comments on a research paper about the settlement at Sosúa, Dominican Republic by Richard Symanski and Nancy Burley that describes a phenomena which has led to major violent crises in the world. Inappropriateness of the authors' adoption of the viewpoint of the settler minority and description of an exploitative situation as one of symbiosis; Failure of the authors to place their case study in a broader context of hypotheses; Exhibition of ethnocentric blinders in the paper.

This article relates the authors' response to criticisms regarding their study on risk-adjusted rates of return and risk premiums.

The article presents a criticism of the concepts and methods developed and used by the Upsala School, in the statistical analysis of vegetation. After presenting the methods used by the Upsala school, the author states that the field method is straightforward and rapid. However, he declares that the constancy-minimal area concept used in the method does not consider in detail the case of plant associations in which there is only one dominant or abundant species. He asserts that before the method can be applied it must be tested over a wide range of plant communities. He concludes that the method is not of general application.

The article discusses the use of textbook analysis in determining course content for physical science general education courses. For several reasons, the approach concerning textbook analysis is criticized due to the following: One criticism is that textbook method of analysis is too limited in its outlook and its scope; second, is that underlying the method is the basic assumption that all authors include only those principles which they think to be most important for a student to know. The third criticism arises when the researchers investigate the validity of the method itself. A further criticism of the textbook method results from an attempt to use the educated but non-scientifically trained public as a source for determining the most important principles.

The article discusses remarks made by management scientist W.W. Daniel on the application of a social action frame of reference in industrial sociology. The author feels that Daniel's treatment contains a variety of confusions and errors which largely stem from excessively seeking critical effect. Daniel's argument, it is noted, suggests a lack of appreciation of the nature of the interplay between theory and research in developments within scientific undertakings. The author admonishes Daniel for attacking the social action approach in industrial sociology based on research methods and techniques used by its exponents and then substantiating this criticism by referencing the Luton research.

Studies the rationale of the semantic differential and other rating scale instruments as they pertain to communication research. Raymond Tucker's general criticism of semantic differential technique in communication research, providing an explanation in terms of reliability and "factor invariance"; Construct-dependent versus descriptive research in communications; Factor analysis of semantic differentials.

This article presumes that empirical research in communication is a part of a process directed toward the formulation of an adequate explanation of human communication behavior. It emphasizes that all research reports should be subjected to rigorous criticism before any attempt is made to apply their conclusions to the revision of explanatory formulations. The authors discuss the need for critical specialists who can provide objective critical analyses of current research and set standards for future research and reports. They also identify a tentative set of criteria for use in communication with some instances of their application.