Suchergebnisse

This work was supported by the European Research Council, Starting Grant ref. 306337, by the Spanish government and FEDER Fund, grant ref. TIN2015-71537-P (MINECO/FEDER,UE), and by the Icrea Academia Award. The work of Javier Vazquez-Corral was supported by the Spanish government grant IJCI-2014-19516.

In grappling with the micro-macro problem in sociology, philosophers of the field are finding it increasingly useful to associate micro-sociology with theory reduction. In this article I argue that the association is ungrounded and undesirable. Although of a reductive "disposition," micro-sociological theories instantiate something more like "reductive explanation," whereby the causal roles of social wholes are explained in terms of their psychological parts. In this form, micro-sociological theories may actually have a better shot at closing the sociology–psychology explanatory gap, and resist many antireductionist arguments, including the well-known argument from "multiple realization."

Testimony issued by the Government Accountability Office with an abstract that begins "Americans spend billions of hours each year providing information to federal agencies by filling out information collections (forms, surveys, or questionnaires). A major aim of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is to minimize the burden that these collections impose on the public, while maximizing their public benefit. Under the act, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is to approve all such collections and to report annually on the agencies' estimates of the associated burden. In addition, agency Chief Information Officers (CIO) are to review information collections before they are submitted to OMB for approval and certify that the collections meet certain standards set forth in the act. For its testimony, GAO was asked to comment on OMB's burden report for 2004 and to discuss its recent study of PRA implementation (GAO-05-424), concentrating on CIO review and certification processes and describing alternative processes that two agencies have used to minimize burden. For its study, GAO reviewed a governmentwide sample of collections, reviewed processes and collections at four agencies that account for a large proportion of burden, and performed case studies of 12 approved collections."

The fallacies of the aggression-reducing strategies of control, catharsis, & cohabitation are examined. Aggression reduction through control or punishment may temporarily suppress aggressive behavior, but it has numerous side effects & fails to teach appropriate behavior. Aggression reduction through catharsis is a myth & has no legitimate basis in research. Cohabitation theory views aggression as an inevitable characteristic of human nature & offers little solution other than adaptation to its presence. Single-cause theories of aggression reduction overlook aggression's complexity. Aggression has multiple causes ranging from physiological predisposition to the presence of potential victims, & can best be reduced by a complex array of intervention modes introduced in an individualized manner. Emphasis should be placed on the unlearning of aggressive behavior.

Globalizing cooperative threat reduction : a survey of options / Sharon Squassoni -- Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction programs / Amy F. Woolf -- Nuclear threat reduction measures for India and Pakistan / Sharon Squassoni -- Expanding threat reduction and nonproliferation programs / Amy F. Woolf

Human Resources Managers are attempting to administer civil service selection systems to effectively meet the often competing needs of job seekers, taxpayers, hiring supervisors, and the many requirements of the legal, social and professional environments. As jobs become scarce and applicants more plentiful, the debate intensifies over whether to take steps to reduce the number of candidates who participate in examinations. The various stakeholders have widely polarized viewpoints on this subject. While acknowledging the unresolved philosophical issue, this paper explores available strategies for applicant reduction, which do not unfairly discriminate against any legally protected group. These strategies should be thoroughly evaluated and incorporated into an agency's selection procedures only after careful consideration of their impact on the overall objectives of the agency's civil service system.