The article studies corporate training in general as a line in research and a concrete issue about the degree of investigation of the issue of decision-making in this sphere of activity. The issue of decision-making is fundamental for management of corporate training, as training model depends on this mechanism. In previous studies this issue was touched upon only indirectly. To study this problem deeply it is necessary to understand the topical level of research on mentioned-above direction. The goal of the article is to study methods used in this sphere and current condition of this field of academic research. In order to attain the goals of the research descriptive literature review of sources from the international database Web of Science was carried out focusing on studying methodology and level of theoretical investigation. As a result the article identified several key trends in studying corporate training and revealed predominance of quantitative works even in conditions of insufficient theoretical investigation. Works being analyzed more often used concepts of training organization by K. Watkins and V. Marsic and the model of digital maturity by A. Back and S. Berhause.
AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.
AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.
AbstractIntuitions guide decision-making, and looking to the evolutionary history of humans illuminates why some behavioral responses are more intuitive than others. Yet a place remains for cognitive processes to second-guess intuitive responses – that is, to be reflective – and individual differences abound in automatic, intuitive processing as well.
Abstract
Gilead et al. offer a thoughtful and much-needed treatment of abstraction. However, it fails to build on an extensive literature on abstraction, representational diversity, neurocognition, and psychopathology that provides important constraints and alternative evidence-based conceptions. We draw on conceptions in software engineering, socio-technical systems engineering, and a neurocognitive theory with abstract representations of gist at its core, fuzzy-trace theory.
Management of Corporate Training and Decision-Making about Training
