Employment motivations of farm spouses

In the study reported here, reasons for working off the farm and reasons for not working off the farm are examined as a function of gender and socioeconomic characteristics. Women are significantly less likely than men to work off the farm to supplement farm income, and significantly more likely to work off the farm for personal reasons. A logistic regression analysis finds that men, those employed fulltime off the farm, and those with lower household incomes are most likely to cite economic reasons for working off the farm. Men are nearly twice as likely as women to cite time constraints as the primary reason for not working off the farm, while only women cite family responsibilities. Logistic regression reveals that men, those with higher household incomes, and those with livestock operations are most likely to cite lack of time as the primary reason for not working off the farm.Patricia J. Wozniak is Associate Professor in the Department of Experimental Statistics, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. Her research interests include family life and family economics, as well as the application of statistics to the social sciences. She received her Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Wisconsin—Milwaukee.Kathleen K. Scholl is Senior Coordinator of the Economics Team of the Public Policy Institute at the American Association of Retired Persons, 1909 K Street NW, Washington, DC 20049. She received her Ph.D. from Purdue University.     

Johnson and Johnson phantom recall: A fall from grace or a re-visit of the ghost of the past

This paper addresses and evaluates the case of Johnson and Johnson's crisis management. In an attempt to analyze the case, the paper overviews Johnson and Johnson's Tylenol product tampering in the 1980s and its recent phantom recall of Children's Motrin. The assessment of the company's crisis management was done using the anticipatory model of crisis management (AMCM). Conclusions drawn from this assessment put Johnson and Johnson in a different spotlight than it had enjoyed during its earlier crisis management efforts. Implications for organizational crisis management efforts are also presented.     

The Career Path Tournament: Developing Awareness of Sociological Barriers to Career Advancement

The author of this article presents the Career Path Tournament, a game for heightening participants' awareness of sociological factors (e.g., race, gender, and discrimination in hiring) influencing career advancement and of the need to anticipate and cope with these factors. The game, which is based on Rosenbaum's (1976, 1981, 1984) Tournament Model, is intended for junior high, high school, and college students in a classroom setting. Undergraduate participants' (N = 74) quantitative and qualitative evaluations of the game are presented as evidence that the game raised awareness of sociological barriers and provided participants with helpful suggestions for adaptively coping with these barriers.     

Restrictive Control and Information Pathologies in Organizations

Although the relation of power to knowledge is an often discussed theme, a psychological and sociological scrutiny of the issue is lacking. A new conceptual and theoretical approach to this issue is presented here that distingushes between restrictive and promotive control. Restrictive control is a form of power exertion in which one actor pushes his wishes through against the interests of another actor. In contrast, if an actor influences the other in line with his or her interests, this is called promotive control. Information pathologies, i.e., avoidable failures of distributed information processing, are introduced as an inverse measure for the quality and quantity of knowledge production. It is hypothesized that restrictive control has negative consequences for the production of new or better knowledge, because it induces information pathologies that in turn lower the effectiveness of joint action. These two hypotheses are tested in a study on 21 successful and 21 unsuccessful innovations with a dual qualitative and quantitative approach. The interpretive analysis of interviews with the main actors of each innovation case as well as the statistical analysis of questionnaire responses by the same actors strongly corroborate both hypotheses. Methodological problems, theoretical perspectives, and practical consequences are discussed.     

New Rage,New Perspectives?

The Eurozone crisis has led to a long and remarkable protest wave. Civil society raised its voice against the ever-harsher austerity measures implemented to deal with the crisis. The article focuses on the role of civil society and its potential to contribute new perspectives to the debate. Such a contribution would depend on two preconditions: 1. Civil society actors need to mobilize successfully to make their voices heard. 2. Civil society actors contribute a perspective that differs to the perspectives of actors from institutionalized politics. Both preconditions are analyzed empirically for two countries that are in very different situations in the crisis scenario: Greece and Germany. Greece has been hit most severely by the crisis; Germany is the most prominent country defining the crisis management, and it provides the largest share of credit guarantees for “crisis countries.” Social movement theory is used to explain the differing evolution of protests in the two countries. In the early phase of the crisis, the established landscape of political parties in both countries offered few opportunities for their citizens to vote in opposition to the crisis management, which is conducive to extra-parliamentary protest. Differences in deprivation, discursive opportunities and the resource basis of mobilization structures can explain differences in protest frequency but also to some extent the evolution of protest over time. Taking up Habermas’ argument regarding the specific perspective of civil society actors in the public debate, we then analyze to which extent the arguments of civil society actors deviate from those of more institutionalized actors. A discursive actor attribution analysis unveils that civil society actors are more sensitive to social problems and grand systemic questions. Moreover, civil society actors are less hesitant to blame actors on the EU level and other EU Member States, even though their overall contribution to the crisis debate is rather marginal.     

Crisis communication in public arenas

This paper presents the results and recommendations from a survey regarding arena crisis management. The survey was completed by 150 members of the International Association of Assembly Managers (IAAM). Results indicate a heavy reliance on the two-way radio as a means of communication at the outset, and during, an arena crisis.     

Work Motivation: The Incorporation of Self-Concept-Based Processes

This paper proposes a metatheory of workmotivation incorporating theories of self-concept thathave been proposed in the sociological and psychologicalliteratures. Traditional theories of work motivation are reviewed, and the self-concept-basedsources of motivation are presented. How theself-concept influences behavior in organizations isexplained and used to develop a metatheory ofmotivational sources. Both research and managerial implications ofthe model are presented.     

The Constructivist Résumé: Promoting the Career Adaptability of Graduate Students in Counseling Programs

The authors present the constructivist résumé, an original approach developed to promote professional identity development and career adaptability (i.e., concern, curiosity, confidence, and control) in students completing graduate‐level counselor training programs. The authors discuss underlying theories, including Super's (1990; Super, Savickas, & Super, 1996) life span, life space theory and Peavy's (1998) SocioDynamic Counseling Model, and their applications to career counseling. They also provide a detailed case illustration, make practical recommendations, and note the advantages and limitations of the approach.     

Hegemony's Dirty Tricks: Explaining Counter-Globalization's Weakness in Times of Neoliberal Crisis

Against the backdrop of the international financial and sovereign debt crisis, this article revisits the development of the counter-globalization movements in the global North over the past thirteen years. How can we explain that the systemic failures of the current order are not being met through a broad ideological formation posing a serious challenge to the neoliberal hegemony in international politics and political economy? Why have the mass protests at summit meetings and democratic deliberation experiments at social forums not prepared the ground for such an ideological formation? Drawing on (neo-)Gramscian concepts, this paper argues that the counter-globalization movements' ‘war of maneuver’ has not been complemented by an adequate ‘war of position’. Counter-hegemonic dissent articulated broadly on the streets has not translated into counter-hegemonic capacity. Without focusing on movement-internal reasons, this article highlights the role played by the strength of the opponent in preventing such success. Our analysis sheds light on three important macro-contextual factors: the difficulties created for establishing counter-hegemony in international politics when hegemonic powers insulate themselves from critique; the co-optation of critical discourse that is achieved by bending critique into a new legitimation strategy for neoliberal measures; and the de-politicization of power relations by current international security discourses and policies. Together, these macro-contextual factors help explain how neoliberal forces successfully prevent counter-globalization movements from moving from ‘war of maneuver’ to ‘war of position’ and becoming counter-hegemonic, even in times of neoliberal crisis.

Desde el punto de vista de la crisis de la deuda soberana y financiera internacional, este artículo vuelve a tratar el desarrollo de los movimientos antiglobalización en el norte global, durante los últimos trece años. ¿Cómo podemos explicar que los fallos sistémicos del orden actual no se hayan satisfecho mediante una formación ideológica amplia, planteando un reto serio a la hegemonía neoliberal en las políticas internacional y económica? ¿Por qué no han preparado el terreno, las protestas masivas en las reuniones cumbre y en los experimentos de deliberación democrática en los fórums sociales, para tal formación ideológica? A partir de conceptos (neo-)gramscianos, este artículo sostiene que ‘los movimientos antiglobalización, ‘la guerra de maniobra’ no han sido complementados por una adecuada ‘guerra de posición’. La disidencia antihegemónica ampliamente articulada en las calles, no se ha reflejado en una capacidad antihegemónica. Sin enfocarse en las razones de los movimientos internos, este artículo destaca el rol jugado por la fuerza del oponente, para prevenir tal logro. Nuestro análisis esclarece tres importantes factores macrocontextuales: las dificultades creadas para establecer una antihegemonía en la política internacional, cuando los poderes hegemónicos se aíslan de la crítica, la cooptación de un debate crítico que se logra doblegando a la crítica a una nueva estrategia de legitimación para medidas neoliberales; y la despolitización de las relaciones del poder mediante debates de seguridad y política. Juntos, estos factores macrocontexuales ayudan a explicar cómo las fuerzas neoliberales previenen exitosamente a los movimientos antiglobalización de pasar de una ‘guerra de maniobra’ a una ‘guerra de posición’ y volverse antigemónicos, incluso en tiempos de crisis neoliberales.

以国际金融和主权债务危机为背景,本文重新思考过去13年的全球的北方的反全球化运动的演变。我们如何解释,当前秩序的系统性失败并未产生一个对国际政治和国际政治经济中的新自由主义霸权构成严峻挑战的宽广的意识形态构成？为什么在各类峰会中的大规模抗议和在各类社会论坛中民主的主张之实验没有为这样的意识形态构成准备依据？借助（新）葛兰西主义的概念,本文认为,反全球化运动的“策略战争”（war of maneuver）并未被足够的“立场战争”（war of position）所补充。 街头的广泛的反霸权的异议并未转化为反霸权的能力。并未聚焦于运动的内部理由,本文强调反全球化的优点组织了这样的成功。我们的分析着重于三大重要的宏观背景因素：国际政治中建立反霸权的困难性,当霸权的各国不理会批评;批评的话语的被吸收,新自由主义措施的新立法策略纳入了一些批评;由目前的国际安全话语和政策而存在的大国关系的去政治化 （de-politicization） 。综合起来,这些宏观的背景因素帮助解释了,即使在新自由主义的危机时代,新自由主义势力如何成功地阻挡了反全球化运动从“策略的战争”到“立场的战争”以及反霸权。

? ?? ?? ????? ??????? ???? ? 13? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ?? ????. ?? ??? ?? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ? ??? ?? ???? ????. ? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????. ? ?? (?) ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ‘???’? ??? ???? ???? ????. ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???. ? ?? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??, ??? ??? ??? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????. ??? ??? ? ?? ??? ???-??? ??? ??? ???: ????? ??? ?????? ???? ??? ? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ???; ??? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??; ??? ?? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????. ??? ???-??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ‘???’?? ‘???’?? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?-????? ?? ?? ????? ?? ? ????? ????? ??? ??.

На фоне международного финансового и полновластного долгового кризисов, статья пересматривает развитие антиглобализационных движений в странах Севера за последние тринадцать лет. Как можно объяснить, что системные сбои существующего порядка не решаются в рамках широкого идеологического формирования, представляя серьезную проблему для неолиберальной гегемонии в международной политике и политической экономии? Почему массовые протесты против встреч на высшем уровне и демократические эксперименты, рассмотренные на социальных форумах не подготовили почву для такого идеологического формирования? С опорой на неограмшианские понятия, в статье утверждается, что “маневренная война” антиглобализационных движений не была дополнена адекватной “позиционной войной”. Контргегемонистское инакомыслие, широко сформулированное на улицах, не привело к контргегемонистской мощи. Не сосредотачиваясь на причинах внутри движения, эта статья выдвигает на первый план роль, которую силы противника играют в предотвращении такого успеха. Наш анализ проливает свет на три важных макроконтекстных фактора: созданы трудности для основания контргегемонии в международной политике, при изоляции гегемонистских держав от критики; кооптация критического дискурса, которая достигается путем перехода критики в новую стратегию легитимизации неолиберальных мер; и деполитизации властных отношений на действующих международных дискурсах о безопасности и политике. Вместе эти макроконтекстуальные факторы помогают объяснить, как неолиберальные силы успешно препятствуют тому, чтобы антиглобализационные движения перешли от “маневренной войны” к “войне позиционной” и стали контргегемонией даже во времена неолиберального кризиса.