The most important years
In: The survey. Survey graphic : magazine of social interpretation, Band 36, S. 586-589
ISSN: 0196-8777
In: The survey. Survey graphic : magazine of social interpretation, Band 36, S. 586-589
ISSN: 0196-8777
It seems that there will be a general election before Christmas. This, it is believed, could break the impasse that has been created in Parliament by Brexit. However, as in all things associated with the 'B' word, it's likely that the outcome might result in unintended consequences.Psychologists looking for historical precedent, always a dangerous pursuit, might look to 1974 for indicators of how things may turn out. In 1974 there were two elections, in February and October, neither of which resulted in majorities. The first election, on 28thFebruary, had been called by incumbent Prime Minister Conservative Edward Heath who was beset by economic of inflation running at 20%, a trade (current account) deficit for the previous month of £383 million, the largest in history to that point and ongoing industrial relations problems including another miners' strike.
BASE
GESIS
In: Popular Government, Band 42, S. 10-13
In: Focus, S. 1-6
ISSN: 0015-5004
This ISTeC Distinguished Lecture was held on March 24, 2014 in Fort Collins, Colorado. ; Dr. Randy Schekman is currently an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and a Professor of Cell and Developmental Biology in the Department of Molecular and Cell Biology at the University of California, Berkeley. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine in 2013, together with Thomas C. Sudhof and James Rothman, "for their discoveries of machinery regulating vesicle traffic, a major transport system in our cells." ; ISTeC (Information Science and Technology Center) is a university-wide organization for promoting, facilitating, and enhancing CSU's research, education, and outreach activities pertaining to the design and innovative application of computer, communication, and information systems. ; Includes recorded lecture and PowerPoint presentation. ; The assessment of scholarly achievement depends critically on the proper evaluation and publication of research work in scholarly journals. Investigators face a dizzying array of journal styles that include commercial, not-for-profit and academic society journals that are supported by a mix of subscription and page charges. The Open Access (OA) movement, launched in Britain but greatly expanded by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), seeks to eliminate the firewall that separates published work from public access. OA journals are funded by a mix of page charges and philanthropic or foundation support. Most OA journals embrace a more liberal licensing agreement on the use and reuse of published work, favoring the creative commons license rather than a copyright held by the publisher. Some publishers, particularly commercial firms, view the OA movement as a threat to the viability of their business plan. Major commercial publishers, particularly Elsevier, have fought against government mandates for OA publication of publicly funded research. The most selective and successful journals, Science, Nature and Cell (a life science journal owned by Elsevier), maintain a firm hold on the high end of the scientific literature by appealing to investigators to submit only their most important work. Typically, these journals publish only a small fraction of the papers they receive and for the most part they rely on professional editors rather than active scholars to make key editorial decisions. These publishers, particularly Nature and Cell, reinforce their high standing by relying on a metric, the impact factor (IF) that computes the average number of citations of papers published in the journal during the preceding two-year period. As a consequence, many investigators, who quite naturally seek career advancement, strive to publish in these journals even at the expense of repeated cycles of review, wasteful additional experimental work and ultimately lost time. I will argue that it is time for scholars to reassume authority for the publication of their research work and to eschew the use of IF in the evaluation of scholarly achievement and favor OA publications over what I have called the "luxury" journals.
BASE
In: The Salisbury review: a quarterly magazine of conservative thought, Band 32, Heft 1, S. 14-16
ISSN: 0265-4881
In: Politická ekonomie: teorie, modelování, aplikace, Band 50, Heft 6, S. 755-758
ISSN: 0032-3233
In: Soviet Law and Government, Band 16, Heft 4, S. 25-38
In: Problems of economics, Band 9, Heft 2, S. 3-16
In: Problems & perspectives in management, Band 18, Heft 2, S. 409-417
ISSN: 1810-5467
Attitude is very crucial in determining the decision for a woman to stay in the job. This means that employees tend to have a desire to leave if they feel not attached to the company. Female employees who tend to be married have a role as an employee and family member. Married female employees will have high work engagement if they feel their work brings benefits to family life. This study aims to determine the effect of work-family enrichment on work engagement and turnover intention. The population of this research was 391 married women employees who worked at least a year in four-star hotels in Bali, Indonesia. The sample in this study is determined using a nonprobability sampling method with a saturated sample based on specified criteria, 331 questionnaires returned (response rate of 85%), but only 325 questionnaires were complete and feasible to be analyzed (usable response rate of 83%). Data were collected via questionnaire and analyzed using SEM (structural equation modeling). The results showed that married female employees were more enthusiastic about working when they could fulfill their multiple roles in work and be better family members. Their involvement in work seriously and feeling proud to be part of the company can reduce their intention to leave. This research is expected to be a consideration for management in making policies related to decreasing turnover intention.
In: Problems of economics, Band 1, Heft 8, S. 18-23
In: Electoral Studies, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 679-688
Recent British Election Studies have asked respondents to nominate 'the most important issue'. Responses to this question have been used to explain individual vote decisions and characterise the issue-component of those elections. This paper, however, finds limited evidence that individuals place more weight on those issues that they report as 'most important' when they vote. It also finds that aggregate responses to the MII question broadly match the estimated 'average' impact of those issues on voters. This suggests that even if voters have a limited understanding of what issues matter to themselves they have some understanding of what makes their fellow voters tick. [Copyright Elsevier Ltd.]