Disability,Respect and Justice

Recent political philosophers have argued that criteria of social justice that defend distributing resources to individuals on the basis of the disadvantages of their natural endowments are disrespectful and disparaging. Clearly influenced by the social model of disability, Elizabeth Anderson and Thomas Pogge have recently defended criteria of social justice that distribute resources to people with disabilities on the basis of eliminating discrimination, not making up for so‐called natural disadvantage. I argue that it is implausible to suggest that just entitlements for people with disability can be secured solely by eliminating discrimination. Resources for people with disabilities must sometimes be justified on the grounds that some natural endowments pose disadvantages even in societies that do not discriminate. I argue further that there need be nothing at all disrespectful about this way of explaining disadvantage; nor have proponents of the social model of disability or political philosophers provided any compelling reasons for supposing that it is disrespectful. There is thus no motivation for Anderson's and Pogge's attempts to secure justice for people with disabilities by appealing solely to the imperative to eliminate discrimination.     

Experiments in Group Decision Making Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-Face Versus Computerized Conferences

A 2 × 2 factorial design was used to explore the process and outcome of small group problem-solving discussions for two modes of communication (face-to-face and computerized conferencing) and two types of tasks (a qualitative human relations task and a scientific ranking test with a criterion solution). Interaction process was coded using Bales Interaction Process Analysis. There were two to three times as many communication units in the face to-face groups consisting of five members each as in the computerized conferencing mode of communication during the same elapsed time. Group decisions were equally good in the two modes, but the groups were less likely to reach agreement in the computerized conferencing mode. There were proportionately more of the types of task-oriented communication associated with decision quality in the computerized conferences.     

EQUIVOCAL MESSAGES IN ORGANIZATIONS

This study examined the impact of ambiguous messages and organizational level on the processing of equivocality. Using Weick's (1979) model as a theoretical frame, investigators measured the number of rules, the number of people, and the frequencies of message categories generated in two zero-history organizations. Subjects used more rules and more people to process Hi ambiguous messages than they did to process Lo ambiguous messages. Analysis of group interaction revealed that most groups spent their talk time reducing equivocality. Workers and foremen reduced ambiguity by adding interpretations while managers proposed specific action steps. This study suggested that misunderstandings in organizations might evolve from divergent approaches to the management of equivocality. Since some degree of equivocality is present, in all organizational inputs (Weick, 1979), the way individuals interpret and process this ambiguity is a key to understanding how organizations make sense of their activities.