Two-step calibration of design weights under two auxiliary variables in sample survey

Calibration on the available auxiliary variables is widely used to increase the precision of the estimates of parameters. Singh and Sedory [Two-step calibration of design weights in survey sampling. Commun Stat Theory Methods. 2016;45(12):3510–3523.] considered the problem of calibration of design weights under two-step for single auxiliary variable. For a given sample, design weights and calibrated weights are set proportional to each other, in the first step. While, in the second step, the value of proportionality constant is determined on the basis of objectives of individual investigator/user for, for example, to get minimum mean squared error or reduction of bias. In this paper, we have suggested to use two auxiliary variables for two-step calibration of the design weights and compared the results with single auxiliary variable for different sample sizes based on simulated and real-life data set. The simulated and real-life application results show that two-auxiliary variables based two-step calibration estimator outperforms the estimator under single auxiliary variable in terms of minimum mean squared error.     

A 25-year perspective on levels of analysis in leadership research

The purpose of this article is to present a comprehensive 25-year review of the incorporation of levels of analysis into conceptual and empirical leadership research published within Leadership Quarterly throughout its history. We assessed the population of Leadership Quarterly's research (790 research articles) on four key levels of analysis-based issues: (1) explicit statement of the focal level(s) of analysis; (2) appropriate measurement given level of constructs; (3) use of a multi-level data analysis technique; and, (4) alignment of theory and data. Prior reviews regarding levels of analysis incorporation into leadership research have been limited to major research domains. Results revealed that while both conceptual and empirical articles only explicitly state the focal level of analysis in approximately one-third of the articles, appropriate levels-based measurement and alignment between theory and data are relatively strong areas of achievement for the articles within Leadership Quarterly. Multi-level data analysis techniques are used in less than one-fifth of all articles. Although there is room for improvement, there is evidence that Leadership Quarterly is a premier outlet for levels-based leadership research. Given the increasing complexity of organizational science with regard to groups, teams and collectives, Leadership Quarterly has an opportunity to model for organizational research on how to build and test complicated multi-level theories and models.     

Developing and validating historiometric measures of leader individual differences by computerized content analysis of documents

Individual differences have been a part of leadership research since the days of trait theory. There has been an upsurge in interest in the topic due to recent theoretical and methodological advances. Also, there is increasing interest in measuring individual leader differences using nontraditional methods such as the quantitative analysis of archival data. We describe a general methodology for developing and validating measures of leader individual differences based on computerized language analysis of archival data. Two empirical examples focusing on narcissism among Fortune 100 CEOs illustrate the methodology. We summarize prospects and problems of computerized content analysis of archival materials.     

Leadership, affect and emotions: A state of the science review

This paper presents a selective, qualitative review of affect, emotions, and emotional competencies in leadership theory and research published in ten management and organizational psychology journals, book chapters and special issues of journals from 1990 to 2010. Three distinct themes emerged from this review: (1) leader affect, follower affect and outcomes, (2) discrete emotions and leadership, and (3) emotional competencies and leadership. Within each of these themes, we examine theory (construct definition and theoretical foundation) and methods (design, measurement and context) and summarize key findings. Our findings indicate that the study of affect and emotions in leadership fares well with regard to construct definitions across the first two themes, but not in the last theme above. Design and measurement issues across all three themes are a little less advanced. One serious gap is in a lack of focus on levels-of-analysis theoretically and methodologically. Our review concludes with recommendations for future theoretical and empirical work in this area.     

Neuroscience and Education – an Incompatible Relationship

To date, there has been little opposition to the growing influence of cognitive neuroscience in education from the education profession itself. However there is growing criticism from the fields of psychology and philosophy. This paper aims to summarize the central arguments found in literature critical of the claims made by cognitive neuroscientists who advocate its potential to improve education. The paper is organized around three sections which draw together assessments from psychology, philosophy and sociology of education. The first, “Brain, Mind and Culture,” lays out the general argument against neuro‐education and evaluates two common assumptions made by advocates of neuro‐education: that there is a causal relationship between brain and mind and that learning is a central tenet of education. The second section, “Promises and Problems,” critically considers an example of neuro‐educational research and then goes on to discuss how neuro‐education has detrimental consequences for two necessary conditions of liberal subject‐based education; disciplinarity and pedagogic authority. The final section, “Discourses of Risk, Vulnerability and Optimal Outcomes,” considers wider sociological literature to locate neuro‐education within its contemporary cultural context. The paper concludes with a summary of the main philosophical and moral objections to neuro‐education.