Academic Centrarchy: a Political System of Governing Education and Technology

Journal of Academic Ethics - This article relies on two international projects to argue for the existence of a ‘centrarchy’ in the fields of education and technology (and beyond)....     

To Apologize or Justify: Leader Responses to Task and Relational Mistakes

Abstract

Leadership roles are complex, creating an environment where leaders are likely to make mistakes that result in negative outcomes. We shift the conversation in the literature from examining the effectiveness of mistake responses toward exploring why leaders use different mistake recovery methods. We employ an online experimental method to distinguish between task and relationship mistakes for leaders and suggest that different attributions are made for these two types of mistakes (Study 1). We found that task mistakes are viewed by leaders as more specific and less personal, and that relationship mistakes are viewed as more global, describing the leader’s stable characteristics rather than a specific event. From these findings, we predict that leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes and are more likely to justify their relationship mistakes rather than admit wrongdoing for them. We find support for these predictions using a mixed methods approach, employing a laboratory experiment (Study 2) and a critical incident method surveying a panel of leaders (Study 3). As such, this paper extends our understanding of the mistake recovery process for leaders by demonstrating that 1) leaders’ relationship mistakes are viewed as more globally representative of the leader than task mistakes, and 2) leaders are more likely to apologize for task mistakes but more likely to justify relationship mistakes. Relational and task mistakes, however, were not found to be different in regard to their ambiguity or the extent to which they were viewed as a mistake.     

Is it just me,or was that sexist? The role of sexism type and perpetrator race in identifying sexism

ABSTRACT

Despite sexism occurring frequently, people often do not identify it as such. Using a vignette design, the current project explored whether sexism was identified at a different rate and intensity depending on the specific form of sexism enacted (hostile or benevolently sexist behavior) and race (Black or White) of the man perpetrating sexist behaviors. When a Black man engaged in a benevolently (paternalistic) sexist behavior he was perceived as more sexist than a White man. However, White and Black men were perceived similarly when they engaged in a hostile (overtly negative and derogatory) sexist behavior. Overall, female participants identified sexism more often and viewed it as more sexist than male participants did, especially in the context of benevolent sexism. These findings suggest there are significant effects of perceiver gender and perpetrator race in the perception of sexism. This demonstrates the importance of examining both race- and gender-based discrimination together.     

Suicide Risk by Military Occupation in the DoD Active Component Population

Suicide risk based on occupational cohorts within the U.S. military was investigated. Rates of suicide based on military occupational categories were computed for the Department of Defense (DoD) active component population between 2001 and 2010. The combined infantry, gun crews, and seamanship specialist group was at increased risk of suicide compared to the overall military population even when adjusted for gender, age, and deployment history. The results provide useful information that can help inform the DoD's suicide prevention mission. Data limitations and recommended areas for future research are discussed.