Fairness Reactions to Selection Methods: An Italian study

This study examined the fairness reactions to 10 personnel selection methods in a sample of Italian students. University students (N=137) were asked to rate the favorability of these selection procedures and then to evaluate them on eight procedural justice dimensions. Work‐sample tests were the most favorably rated of the selection methods, followed by résumés, written ability tests, interviews and personal references. Graphology was perceived negatively. Opportunity to perform and the perceived face validity of selection procedures were the strongest procedural justice dimensions for predicting the process favorability ratings. The results of this study are compared with those from similar studies conducted in other countries. Similar results have been found in the various countries where such research has been conducted to date.     

What constitutes globalised evidence? Cultural tensions and critical reflections of the evidence-based movement in New Zealand

The evidence-based movement (EBM) is grounded in a well-intentioned desire to ensure resources are invested in high quality initiatives that generate the intended impact. Nevertheless, recent critiques contest the appropriateness of translating an approach rooted in a medical model to socially complex initiatives. Globalised notions of evidence can also be damaging for programs operating in small, culturally diverse countries with limited resources. Given these polemic views, our aim was to examine local perceptions of the EBM in New Zealand, a small, vibrant, bicultural society with a mix of homegrown and imported programs. Using a snowball sampling approach, 79 professionals working in the education and social sectors completed an anonymous online survey that contained a series of closed and open-ended questions. The results show that although participants positively endorsed a variety of quality evidence markers, traditionally positivist methodological leanings received lower and more varied endorsements compared to more inclusive and pluralistic approaches. Many also expressed concern that the EBM emphasises a narrow and colonised view of evidence that does not align with Māori and Pacific worldviews, and undermines innovation. We discuss the implications as an avenue for advancing intervention and social programming research in an increasingly multicultural and globalised world.