Search results

Purpose
This study aims to investigate the role of minority dissent (MD) as an antecedent for task (TC) and relationship conflict (RC) in groups engaged in multiparty collaboration. The authors hypothesized that MD triggers both TC and RC and that the association between MD and RC is mediated by TC. Moreover, the authors hypothesized that the positive association between MD and RC is attenuated by social acceptance, while the positive association between TC and RC is attenuated by trust.


Design/methodology/approach
The authors have tested the hypotheses in 36 groups comprising in total 145 professionals that attended a two-day workshop on working across organizational boundaries and who filled in three surveys during a multiparty simulation. The authors used multilevel mediation analyses to test the hypotheses.


Findings
The results generally supported the role of MD as an antecedent for both TC and RC as well as the mediating role of TC in the relationship between MD and RC. The attenuating role of social acceptance in the relationship between MD and RC was fully supported, while the attenuating role of trust in the relationship between TC and RC was not supported.


Research limitations/implications
This study is based on a rather small sample and used a cross-lagged data collection design, and no causal claims can be derived from the findings. Behavioral multiparty simulations create a realistic context in which the authors investigate the dynamics of conflict transformation and explore the interplay of MD, TC and RC.


Social implications
As nowadays, multiparty systems are engaged in dealing with important societal challenges and because RC is detrimental for collaborative effectiveness, the results have important implications for facilitating effective collaboration in such complex systems.


Originality/value
This study makes an important contribution to the literature on conflict in multiparty systems by showing that as an antecedent of intragroup conflict, MD can have both a beneficial as well as a detrimental impact on the conflict dynamics of multiparty systems. It points out the importance of social acceptance as a buffer against the detrimental role of MD.

An attempt to analyze the role of periodicals in France by answering 2 complementary questions: how do French soc sci'ts make their ideas & their work known, & to what extent do they use, for this purpose, the various periodicals? How do readers, for their part, whether specialists or members of the wider public, get the information of interest to them on the soc sci's & their progress, & are periodicals the main source of information? A brief general account is given of various soc sci periodicals, indicating certain features which characterize the org of these sci's in France & their place within the U system & instit'ized res. The principal means of COMM between soc sci'ts is the specialized periodical, which is discussed giving results of a survey carried out in 1966. The org of the journals, their editorial policies & general' contents, circulation & profitability are indicated. It is apparent that this type of journal is not usually organized as an enterprise conceived & run on econ lines. This type of periodical ought rather to be viewed as an element in a soc system-that formed by the community of people engaged in a particular sci'fic activity. In this system the standard periodical appears as a traditional elemental, neither the form nor the function of which have been called in question for a long time & which, consequently, has not always been entirely adapted to the purposes it intended to fulfill. E. Weiman.

Types & character of primary soc sci publications in Japan are divided into the following categories: (1) res instit's (nat'l, public, private), (2) Coll's & U's (faculties, instit's, assoc's), (3) learned societies (on a nation-wide basis), (4) nonassociated federations or centers, & (5) commercial publishing firms. Editorial arrangements are described re selection of Ed's, Editorial board, panels of readers (referees), responsibility for contents, staff, publication, & finance. Re publication costs, there are a number of learned journals which do not cover them from sales & assoc membership dues, esp in category (3); deficits are covered out of funds originating from U or society sources, private funds, commercial funds, or Nat'l Gov (Ministry of Educ). Information is summarized re authors' fees. It is found that the scattering of specialized res articles in the same subject among many publications is very inconvenient for the user, as is the publication of specialized res articles in widely diff fields in the same journal, as practiced in U or Coll records, memoirs & bulletins. Re coverage, most journals seek to publish original res reports (in a single disciplinary area) &/or general coverage (in a broad, multidisciplinary area) & theoretical articles. Japanese soc sci journals published in foreign languages number less than 20, while the Japanese language journals with resumes published in more than 1 European language number 15. Translation problems are briefly discussed. Circulation figures are presented for these journals. Re readership, journals in categories (1) to (4) are exclusively addressed to academic &/or professional readers, esp memoirs & records. The periodicals in categories (2), (3) or (4) are directed also to members of assoc's or to the general public, while periodicals in category (5) are directed to professionals & the general public. No regular efforts are made to extend the circulation of most journals. An Appendix which lists the 28 member assoc's of the Union of Japanese Assoc's of Humanistic Studies, 4 Tables, & a Bibliog. E. Weiman.

This volume offers selected papers exploring issues arising from scientific discovery in the social sciences. It features a range of disciplines including behavioural sciences, computer science, finance, and statistics with an emphasis on philosophy. The first of the three parts examines methods of social scientific discovery. Chapters investigate the nature of causal analysis, philosophical issues around scale development in behavioural science research, imagination in social scientific practice, and relationships between paradigms of inquiry and scientific fraud. The next part considers the practice of social science discovery. Chapters discuss the lack of genuine scientific discovery in finance where hypotheses concern the cheapness of securities, the logic of scientific discovery in macroeconomics, and the nature of that what discovery with the Solidarity movement as a case study. The final part covers formalising theories in social science. Chapters analyse the abstract model theory of institutions as a way of representing the structure of scientific theories, the semi-automatic generation of cognitive science theories, and computational process models in the social sciences. The volume offers a unique perspective on scientific discovery in the social sciences. It will engage scholars and students with a multidisciplinary interest in the philosophy of science and social science.

This paper draws some bold conclusions from modest premises. My topic is an old one, the Neohumean view of practical rationality. First, I show that this view consists of two independent claims, instrumentalism and subjectivism. Most critics run these together. Instrumentalism is entailed by many theories beyond Neohumeanism, viz., by any theory that says rational actions maximize something. Second, I give a new argument against instrumentalism, using simple counterexamples. This argument systematically undermines consequentialism and rational choice theory, I show, using detailed examples of their many social science applications. There is no obvious fix.

Eric Anderson is Professor of Sport, Masculinities, and Sexualities at the University of Winchester. He is an interdisciplinary scholar who studies men's changing masculinities and sexualities. Professor Anderson is the architect of Inclusive Masculinity Theory and has publishednineteen books and overseventy research articles. Rory Magrath is Senior Lecturer in the School of Sport, Health and Social Sciences at Southampton Solent University. His research focuses on decreasing homophobia and the changing nature of contemporary masculinities, with a specific focus on professional football. He is the author of Inclusive Masculinities in Contemporary Football: Men in the Beautiful Game (2016) and coauthor of Out in Sport: The Experiences of Openly Gay and Lesbian Athletes in Competitive Sport (2016).

This book is an investigation of the ideological dimensions of the disciplinary discourses on science in line with the scholarly tradition of historical epistemology. It offers a programmatic treatment of the political-epistemological problematic along three entangled lines of inquiry: socio-historical, epistemological and historiographical. The book aims for a meta-level integration of the existing scholarship on the social and cultural history of science in order to consider the ways in which struggles for hegemony have constantly informed scientific discourses. This problematic is of primary relevance for scholars in Science Studies, philosophers, historians and sociologists of science, but would also be relevant for anybody interested in scientific culture and political theory.

The article contains the authors' reflections on the formation and substantiation of many aspects in soil science, concerning its connections with social sciences. Arguments about the exceptional importance of soil resources in the modern world and the importance of scientific research in soil science, which can become an important instrument of solving social problems, are found. It is shown that soil resources, being the basis of agricultural development, are the long-term capital through which different nations exist and develop. In order to maintain the normal living conditions of the population and to improve them, it is important to use this global resource wisely. The attitude of people to the soil is recognized as fundamental for nation's sustainable development and, moreover, the life expectancy of a civilization may depend on the people attitude to soils. In order to maintain collective well-being of people, a long-term interest of the society in soil protection needs to be reoriented – this should become a priority task for our civilization. The current state of soils can be a characteristic of the development of society as well as a criterion for assessing the activity of government and social stability in the country.

The fragmentation of disciplines into specialized subfields over the last few decades has been followed by the development of hybrid subspecialisms. (SJO)