scholarly journals Differences and deficits in psychological research in historical perspective: A commentary on the special section.

2013 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-91 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cole
2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer L Tackett ◽  
Josh Miller

As psychological research comes under increasing fire for the crisis of replicability, attention has turned to methods and practices that facilitate (or hinder) a more replicable and veridical body of empirical evidence. These trends have focused on “open science” initiatives, including an emphasis on replication, transparency, and data sharing. Despite this broader movement in psychology, clinical psychologists and psychiatrists have been largely absent from the broader conversation on documenting the extent of existing problems as well as generating solutions to problematic methods and practices in our area (Tackett et al., 2017). The goal of the current special section was to bring together psychopathology researchers to explore these and related areas as they pertain to the types of research conducted in clinical psychology and allied disciplines.


Author(s):  
Sašo Slaček Brlek ◽  
Jernej Amon Prodnik

The intention of this paper is to provide a historical overview and an introduction to the interviews with Bodgan Osolnik, Breda Pavlič, Cees Hamelink, Daya K. Thussu, Peter Golding and Dan Hind presented in this special section. Following Marx, we entitled the section The Point Is to Change It! Critical Political Interventions in Media and Communication Studies. We discuss the need for critical theory to bridge the divide between theory and practice because this notion is central to all of the interviews in one way or another. We also provide a historical contextualization of important theoretical as well as political developments in the 1970s and 1980s. This period may be seen as a watershed era for the critical political economy of communication and for the political articulation of demands for a widespread transformation and democratization in the form of the New World Information and Communication Order initiative. We believe that many contemporary issues have a long history, with their roots firmly based in this era. The historical perspective therefore cannot be seen as nostalgia, but as an attempt to understand the historical relations of power and how they have changed and shifted. In our view, the historical perspective is crucial not only for understanding long-lasting historical trends, but also to remind ourselves that the world is malleable, and to keep alive the promises of the progressive struggles of the past.


2010 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 1279-1296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey Wood ◽  
Mike Wright

In this article we define and explain private equity, with particular emphasis on the heterogeneity of the phenomenon. We consider different theoretical perspectives of relevance to the study of private equity buyouts. In particular, we distinguish between approaches that take a zero-sum perspective (rational choice and financialization perspectives) and those with a more nuanced, complementary viewpoint (heterodox institutional and theories of action and structure perspectives). We discuss private equity in historical perspective. We then summarize the articles in this special section. Finally, we identify an agenda for further research that focuses upon employee relations and human resource aspects of private equity buyouts.


1990 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 571-575
Author(s):  
Charles F. Koopmann, ◽  
Willard B. Moran

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document