Denn sie wissen was sie tun!

Information and communication technologies (IT) permeate both the business and the private world. They cause profound changes for companies in terms of structure, leadership, culture, education and the position of individuals within the context of the company. Established structures, decision making habits and methods of communication are being called into question. This means that communication is neither explicitly controllable nor in some cases even specified, but it also should not be viewed as arbitrary. Structures which are treated as contingent require meta-management, reflection and determination. Leaders are forced to act within a constellation of tensions between the reduction and the expansion of complexity as basic functions of structuring. Ideally this type of steering takes place consciously and with a view toward the future, taking into account the increasing complexity and dynamics of the environment and the corporate culture. Empirical studies of our four intervention research projects show that the situation for many companies is sobering. Companies cannot always entirely interpret the rapid development of communication technologies and the consequences it brings with it, nor can they completely make use of its potential advantages. Companies and individuals are forced to think actively within the networked economy. The demand for further education shifts between the company (expertise, employee loyalty) on the one hand and the responsibility of the individual for his or her own development on the other. Agreements are the key to bringing harmony and new solutions to the conflicts among the differing interests of individuals, subsystems and the company as a whole. Considering the complex requirements for companies and management caused by IT, this article shows that reflective observation of intervention research, guided by theory and with a focus on targeted change of management practice, is a process which provides new opportunities for action in both theory and practice. In this process, focusing (systemization) and reflection (enhancement of perspectives) are fundamental keys for dealing with complexity.     

Clinton and the playing-the-gender-card metaphor in campaign news

This article offers a critical discourse analysis of the use of the playing-the-gender-card metaphor in US campaign coverage, with a focus on its use in Senator Hillary Clinton's campaign for president in 2007. I argue that the media use the gender-card metaphor to stand in for a variety of complex arguments about women in politics. The essay serves as a case study to validate how political metaphors can be used to obscure socially unacceptable and empirically unsupportable arguments. It also reveals that it is taboo for women candidates to talk about sex discrimination on the campaign trail and that the culture operates to silence its legacy of proscribing women from the political field. Finally, the essay encourages future women candidates to plan rhetorical responses to the gender-card metaphor by understanding the latent arguments and connotations buried in it.     

Issue Saliency and Gender Stereotypes: Support for Women as Presidents in Times of War and Terrorism*

Objective. This article examines how issue saliency affects the public's perceptions of whether a man or a woman would make a better president when considering the most important problem facing the nation. Method. The study uses telephone survey data of adults in the United States collected by the Annenberg Public Policy Center in September 2003. Multinominial logistic regression models were conducted to parse out the effects of issue saliency on presidential gender preference while taking demographic characteristics and party identification into account. Results. People who said that terrorism, homeland security, and/or U.S. involvement in Iraq was the most important problem facing the nation were more likely to say that a man would do a better job handling the issue as president. Conclusion. This study finds that issue saliency affects presidential gender preference above and beyond demographic and party identification variables.     

Estimation of Main Effect When Covariates Have Non-Proportional Hazards

The Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression model has been widely used to analyze survival data in clinical trials and observational studies. In addition to estimating the main treatment or exposure group effect, it is common to adjust for additional covariates using the Cox model. It is well known that violation of the PH assumption can lead to estimates that are biased and difficult to interpret, and model checking has become a routine procedure. However, such checking might focus on the primary group comparisons, and the assumption can still be violated when adjusting for many of the potential covariates. We study the effect of violation of the PH assumption of the covariates on the estimation of the main group effect in the Cox model. The results are summarized in terms of the bias and the coverage properties of the confidence intervals. Overall in randomized clinical trials, the bias caused by misspecifying the PH assumption on the covariates is no more than 15% in absolute value regardless of sample size. In observational studies where the covariates are likely correlated with the group variable, however, the bias can be very severe. The coverage properties largely depend on sample size, as expected, as bias becomes dominating with increasing sample size. These findings should serve as cautionary notes when adjusting for potential confounders in observational studies, as the violation of PH assumption on the confounders can lead to erroneous results.     

Social-ecological research in urban natural areas: an emergent process for integration

Urban Ecosystems - Understanding the structure and function of urban landscapes requires integrating social and ecological research. Here, we integrate parallel social and ecological assessments of...     

Applying the Housing First approach to single-site permanent supportive housing

This study explored how the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) program applies Housing First principles in the context of ten single-site programs. Focus group discussions with 64 HUD-VASH staff and community partners explored how the programs were influenced by Housing First principles and specific strategies to implement these principles in a single-site setting. Focus group respondents described resourceful ways that the principles of Housing First were implemented in their programs specifically related to (1) housing choice and structure, (2) separation of housing and services, (3) service philosophy, and (4) service array. Several of the Housing First domains cite the importance of integrated housing and the provision of services off-site; it was of particular interest to learn how single-site programs address these issues logistically. Lessons learned from this study include the importance of leveraging the independent yet overlapping tasks of case management and property management to ensure functional – if not geographic – separation of housing and services; maintaining staff on-site to address Veterans’ needs; working with community service organizations to complement the array of service available to residents; and housing single-site programs in mixed-use buildings.