The relationship between career decision status and important work outcomes

This paper describes a longitudinal study exploring the relationship between career decision status and work outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, organizational commitment and performance) in a group of newly appointed graduates. Graduates employed into similar roles in a large Multinational Consultancy were tracked over 12 months at three time intervals: on appointment; 6 months after appointment and 12 months after appointment. It was concluded that job satisfaction promotes career comfort, decidedness predicts organizational commitment and this relationship is moderated by met expectations, and that neither being decided or comfortable predicts performance. Some evidence was found to suggest that those employees claiming high self-clarity (that is knowledge of their abilities, skills, and personality) were rated as higher performers. It was concluded that career decidedness is still relevant to a contemporary work environment, but that comfort with career decisions and knowledge of self (i.e. self-clarity) has the potential for far greater impact.     

‘You Are What You Read:’ Is selective exposure a way people tell us who they are?

Selective exposure is the tendency to gather viewpoint-congenial versus viewpoint-uncongenial information. Extant models of selective exposure suggest this tendency occurs because people anticipate reading congenial (vs. uncongenial) information will cause more favourable intrapersonal consequences. However, these models ignore the notion that people's information choices are, in part, symbolic gestures designed to convey identity-relevant beliefs to an audience through information display. Drawing from perspectives that emphasize human consumption as symbolic and a way to signal one's identity, we suggest that selective exposure pertains not only to information processing but also to conveying identity through information display. Experiment 1 showed that people characterize information display as a way to communicate their views to an audience. Experiments 2–4 showed that people are averse to displaying uncongenial versus congenial information (without processing the information), anticipate feeling more uncomfortable and more inauthentic merely displaying (without processing) uncongenial versus congenial information, and that people's intentions to engage in selective exposure in daily life are a function of their belief that selective-exposure displays convey their identity. None of these studies or findings can be generated from extant selective-exposure theories. Thus, selective-exposure theories are likely incomplete because they ignore people's beliefs and goals regarding information display.     

Shadow and Spirituality

When we confront the meaning of spirituality in education confusion and conflict can arise as they arise from the confrontation with spirituality in ourselves. This occurs both at the personal and at the collective level, according to writers such as C.G. Jung. Failure to understand that human spirituality includes a shadow side of this kind is precisely what leads many forms of human spiritual expression, including organized religion, into deep splits and schisms. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the willing, but perhaps, nä L ve attempts of contemporary educationalists to understand spirituality within education in a wholly positive light have themselves run into trouble. This paper will attempt to argue that without balancing contemporary educational debate about spirituality against some writers', including C.G. Jung's, deepest insights into the place of shadow in spirituality, children will yet again be sold a misfaction [1] about the nature of that aspect of human being and becoming. This, in turn will merely deepen the chaos, confusion and conflict arising from the earnest and well-intentioned, but perhaps nä L ve, attempt to make spirituality part of the cross-curricular experience of all children in all common schools.[2]     

The specificity of the generality problem

In “Why the generality problem is everybody’s problem,” Michael Bishop argues that every theory of justification needs a solution to the generality problem. He contends that a solution is needed in order for any theory to be used in giving an acceptable account of the justificatory status of beliefs in certain examples. In response, first I will describe the generality problem that is specific to process reliabilism and two other sorts of problems that are essentially the same. Then I will argue that the examples that Bishop presents pose no such problem for some theories. I will illustrate the exempt theories by describing how an evidentialist view can account for the justification in the examples without having any similar problem. It will be clear that other views about justification are likewise unaffected by anything like the generality problem.     

FIXED EFFECTS ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BY REGRESSION ANALYSIS

This paper is concerned with the solution of typical analysis of variance problems using general purpose multiple regression computer programs. Specific models, restrictions on the parameters for hypothesis testing, and computational aspects are discussed. It is argued that this approach has many pedagogical advantages over traditional procedures.