Suchergebnisse

This paper discusses the agency of scientific disciplines and reconstructs it as representative
agency. In the case of disciplinary representative agency, individual and organizational actors are committed to the reflexive interests of a discipline and act on their behalf. This paper explores the essential forms and arenas in which this type of agency is exercised and discusses the relevance of some recent trends in science and higher education for the collective agency of disciplines.

Longitudinal research in organizations has gained momentum to the point where it may now be considered to reflect the tenor of the times, or zeitgeist, for organizational studies. An important part of that longitudinal research is what, borrowing and extending from the work of Ilgen and Hulin, is called the third scientific discipline. That discipline consists of numerous perspectives focusing on various aspects of chaos/complexity, dynamic systems, and processual approaches. These approaches are being increasingly applied across various organizational research fields such as social and industrial/organizational psychology and small-group and leadership studies. A dynamic systems approach is turned on itself to analyze the scientific development of third-discipline approaches. Although the jury is still out, these approaches appear to be making increasingly strong contributions to the longitudinal zeitgeist and to organizational studies in general.

Preface -- Contents -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- References -- Chapter 2: Core Concepts and Theory Building -- 2.1 General Remarks -- 2.2 Core Concepts -- 2.3 Holism, Ontology, Epistemology, Use of Findings, Transplants -- 2.4 Understanding and Rationality -- 2.5 Reasoning -- 2.6 Falsifiability -- 2.7 Explanatory Power -- References -- Chapter 3: The Research Question, Theories and Methods -- 3.1 General Remarks -- 3.2 The Research Question -- 3.2.1 General Remarks -- 3.2.2 Characteristic Questions -- 3.2.3 Generating Research Questions -- 3.3 Choice of Theory -- 3.3.1 General Remarks -- 3.3.2 Main Theories and Method Theories -- 3.3.3 Theories on Legal Argumentation and Interpretation as Method Theories -- 3.4 Method -- 3.4.1 General Remarks -- 3.4.2 Relevant Information -- 3.4.3 Relevant Sources -- 3.4.4 Collecting Information -- 3.4.5 Cases and Examples -- 3.4.6 Interpreting Information -- 3.4.7 Assessing Methodological Rigour and Practical Aspects -- References -- Chapter 4: Use of Findings -- 4.1 General Remarks -- 4.2 Pragmatic and Legal Use -- 4.3 Pragmatic Uses in Legal Science -- 4.4 Dealing with Legal Pluralism -- 4.5 A More Practice-Ready Curriculum -- References -- Chapter 5: System Building -- 5.1 General Remarks -- 5.2 Systems of Law -- 5.3 System of Language -- 5.4 System of Contexts -- 5.5 System of Theories -- 5.5.1 General Remarks -- 5.5.2 Main Theories and Method Theories, General Theories and Specific Theories -- 5.5.3 Approaches to the Substance Matter -- 5.5.4 Scientific Level -- References -- Chapter 6: Previous Attempts to Increase the Scientificity of Legal Science -- 6.1 General Remarks -- 6.2 Traditional Legal Science -- 6.2.1 General Remarks -- 6.2.2 Problems with Scientificity -- 6.2.3 Early Attempts to Define Doctrinal Research as a Science -- 6.2.4 New Points of View

In everyday language the terms psychology and psychological are used in very different meanings, without a clear definition of what the terms refer to. This article is an attempt to meet the need for clarification of the content and boundaries of psychology as a scientific discipline. This is a prerequisite for real scientific contribution to progress in cross-disciplinary research and to decision making in societal and cultural processes. Applying a holistic – interactionistic view as the frame of reference for planning, implementation, and interpretation of single studies, the target of theoretical and empirical analyses is the human psychobiological and social being in continuous interaction with his/her proximal and distal environment.

Is the field of Competitive Intelligence (CI) or Intelligence Studies (IS) a proper scientific field of study? The empirical investigation found that academics and professionals within CI and IS could not agree upon what dimensions, topics or content are handled by their own area of interest that is not covered by other areas of study. In fact, most topics listed as special for CI and IS are covered by other established scientific journals. Most topics are covered by other disciplines. The data also showed that the same group could not list any analysis that is not used by other areas of study. It shows that a majority of the analyses the respondents think are unique to their study come from the area of strategy and military intelligence. However, this does not mean that CI and IS do not have their own place or niche as a study and discipline. It is suggested here, but further investigation is encouraged, that CI and IS bring a number of unique dimensions to the social sciences.