INTELLECTUAL VIRTUE AND THE JUSTIFICATION OF PERSONS

In this paper, I develop a model of personal justification that is rooted in the intellectual virtues and the concept of epistemic praise. In particular, I show how a character‐based understanding of the virtues gives rise to an important emphasis on agents and how this provides the resources for dealing with several problems in epistemology.     

Fairness in Financial Reporting

ABSTRACT Public companies in most countries are legally required to publish annual accounts, and these are widely used for making financial decisions. To prevent users of accounts being misled into making disastrous decisions, all major Western countries have introduced controls on the ways accounts are presented. By British and EEC law a company's accounts must give a 'true and fair view' of its financial state.
It has become widely accepted that if accounts are prepared according to standards drawn up by the accounting profession itself, then they can be considered as being 'true and fair'. In this paper it is argued that such an interpretation of 'true and fair' gives inadequate protection to users. How users' interests might be better protected is discussed. Finally, it is suggested that Rawls' notion of a 'veil of ignorance' could be used to ensure that in the preparation of accounts equal regard is paid to the interests of different types of user.     

A FIELD STUDY OF PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL PURPOSE: RESEARCH- VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE- BASED RATINGS

Many researchers have discussed the theoretical and practical importance of rating purpose. Nevertheless, the body of empirical studies, the majority of which were conducted in a laboratory setting, focus on leniency. There has been little research on other effects of rating purpose. The present study examines 223 ratees in a field setting for whom there were both administrative-based performance appraisal ratings (which were actually used for personnel decisions) and research-based performance appraisal ratings (obtained for a validation study). Two of the hypotheses were supported; administrative ratings were more lenient than research-based ratings. The administrative-based ratings demonstrated a statistically significant relationship with ratee seniority, while the research-based ratings did not. There was mixed support for a third hypothesis: Research ratings were significantly correlated with a predictor, while the administrative ratings were not. The difference between the validity coefficients, however, was not significant. Contrary to the hypothesis, the rank order between administrative-based and research-based ratings was relatively high ( r = 33).