scholarly journals Connecting the Dots: Engaging Wider Forms of Openness for the Mutual Benefit of Musicians and Musicologists

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-46
Author(s):  
Mark R. H. Gotham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Connecting The Dots

While it is encouraging to see renewed attention to 'openness' in academia, that debate (and its interpretation of the F.A.I.R. principles) is often rather narrowly defined. This paper addresses openness in a broad sense, asking not so much whether a project is open, but how open and to whom. I illustrate these ideas through examples of my own ongoing projects which to seek to make the most of a potential symbiosis between academic and wider musical communities. Specifically, I discuss how these communities can both benefit from – and even work together on building – highly accessible and interoperable corpora of scores and analyses when ambitious openness is factored into decision making from the outset.

Veil-piercing

2019 ◽  
pp. 813-888
Author(s):  
Carsten Gerner-Beuerle ◽  
Michael Schillig
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Cost ◽  
Limited Liability ◽  
Individual Case ◽  
Broad Sense ◽  
Corporate Activity ◽  
Ex Post ◽  
The Social ◽  
Ex Ante ◽  
Legal Concepts

This chapter focuses on strategies that, in a broad sense, set the principle of limited liability aside in order to reach (the assets of) the natural or legal persons that benefit from corporate activity. These concepts are complementary to the ex ante strategies discussed in previous chapters. They are ex post in the sense that they will be triggered only if and when the former have failed for some reason. Their aim is to internalize as far as possible the social cost of corporate activity in order to set appropriate incentives for corporate decision-making. The legal concepts under consideration are largely standard based with open textured norms whose application heavily depends on the factual settings in every individual case. Consequently, the challenge is to provide workable criteria and coherent guidance for courts in order to ensure predictability for entrepreneurs and their legal advisers.

Representing Joint Rule as the Murshid-i Kāmil’s Will

2016 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-321
Author(s):  
Tilmann Trausch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Medieval Studies ◽  
Absolute Power ◽  
Medieval Europe ◽  
The Ideal

At first glance, early Safavid Iran may not be the ideal place to search for forms of consensual rule in the early modern Persianate world, as there where neither estates nor institutionalised procedures for consens-us-based decision-making. However, perhaps it is no less suitable for such considerations than any other non-European realm. As with most other contemporary or present-day rulers, the early Safavids claim for absolute power was rather convention than reality, a fact that is well reflected in present-day scientific literature. However, this is not the case for ‘rule by consensus’. Was consensus and consensus-based decision-making an issue in 16th-century Iran? If we look at the reports of the chronicles from the Safavids courtly sphere on their first ruler, Ismaʿil, we find passages that might well be read that way. Although it is somewhat difficult to imagine Ismaʿil thinking in terms of consensus or even mutual benefit, maybe he did just that. Obviously, ‘rule by consensus’ is a topic from Medieval Studies and is strongly based on the realms of medieval Europe, with no equivalents to many of the specific phenomena, procedures and theories elsewhere. While a ‘rule by consensus’ did not exist in early Safavid Iran, consensus-based decision-making did.

Effects of Departments' Interdependence on Organizational Decision Making

1983 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 851-857 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Tjosvold
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Business Administration ◽  
The Other ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Organizational Decision Making ◽  
Goal Interdependence

The goal interdependence of departments was expected to affect how their representatives discussed an organizational decision. 54 undergraduates in business administration were assigned to be representatives of two different departments and were led to believe that their departments were to cooperate for mutual benefit, compete to outdo each other, or to seek their own individualistic interests. Compared with the competitively linked representatives, the cooperative and individualistc representatves integrated both departments' views into their recommendation for the decision. Perhaps because they more openly confronted opposing views, individualistic subjects, although they reported that they understood the other's position less, tended to demonstrate more knowledge of the other's preferences than did those in the other two conditions. Department representatives were not necessarily unresponsive to each other's views. Individualistic and cooperative but not competitive goal interdependence seemed to contribute to organizational decision making.

scholarly journals Research as usual in humanitarian settings? Equalising power in academic-NGO research partnerships through co-production

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Lokot ◽  
Caitlin Wake
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Power Dynamics ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Research Partnerships ◽  
Humanitarian Settings ◽  
Comprehensive Literature Review ◽  
Complex Power ◽  
Research Decision ◽  
Forms Of Knowledge

Abstract Background Research partnerships in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings can reveal complex power hierarchies between academics and NGOs. During the process of research, decision-making may skew in favour of more powerful actors, who often direct the scope of the research, hold the budget and lead the analysis. Co-production is increasingly emerging as a helpful approach that attempts to equalise power dynamics during research. The aim of this paper is to draw attention to the main challenges associated with a “research as usual” approach to research partnerships in humanitarian settings, as power hierarchies may be particularly magnified in these settings. Methods This paper is based on a comprehensive literature review and 32 semi-structured interviews with academics and practitioners from non-government organisations. Participants were selected purposively based on their experience in co-producing research or working within research partnerships. Some participants had worked in humanitarian settings while others had experience co-producing research in non-humanitarian contexts. We used Nvivo to thematically code data. Results This paper documents the problems with “research as usual” partnerships in humanitarian settings, specifically: the burden on communities as merely sources of data, certain forms of knowledge being valued over others, lack of reflection on the power hierarchies structuring research partnerships, top-down decision-making and lack of transparency, one-way “capacity-building”, lack of mutual benefit, and rigid research processes and timeframes. Conclusion This paper highlights key challenges with standard research practices in humanitarian settings and identifies seven key principles of co-production that can be helpful in attempting to equalise power dynamics within research partnerships, specifically in conflict-affected and humanitarian settings.

scholarly journals Science|Environment|Health – the emergence of a new pedagogy of complex living systems

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albert Zeyer ◽  
Justin Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Responsibility ◽  
Living Systems ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Science Pedagogy ◽  
Trade Off ◽  
Education And Health ◽  
Work First ◽  
Medicine Education

AbstractScience|Environment|Health (S|E|H) is an emerging science pedagogy for complex living systems. The name highlights a situation of mutual benefit between science education, environmental education and health education. The paper discusses a range of topics from the curriculum-focused origin of the S|E|H movement to the issues that concern S|E|H researchers today. These include, among others, the role of scientific knowledge in S|E|H decision making, medicine education as a paradigmatic example of S|E|H, complexity in S|E|H issues, the role of empathy in S|E|H, and the tension between societal and individual responsibility. In conclusion, it is argued that two insights are essential for current S|E|H work. First, living systems can be understood both in causal and empathetic terms, which makes S|E|H a powerful ‘science for all’ approach. Second, in living systems, there is always a trade-off between predictability and homeostasis. This brings S|E|H in a natural antagonism – but not in opposition – to STEM approaches.

32. Rawls

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rex Martin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Liberalism ◽  
Economic Justice ◽  
Equality Of Opportunity ◽  
Original Position ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Overlapping Consensus ◽  
Law Of Peoples ◽  
Basic Rights ◽  
Main Ideas

This chapter examines the main arguments for John Rawls's ideas about justice. Rawls identified two principles as central to political liberalism: the principle of equal basic rights and liberties, and a principle of economic justice, which stresses equality of opportunity, mutual benefit, and egalitarianism. In Rawls's interpretation, these two principles take place ultimately in an ideal arena for decision-making, which he calls the ‘original position’. In time, Rawls became dissatisfied with this approach and began to reconfigure his theory, moving the focus towards a ‘family’ of liberal principles. The chapter begins by discussing Rawls's first and second principles before considering his concept of ‘original position’ as well as his views on overlapping consensus. It concludes with an analysis of the main ideas contained in Rawls's 1999 book, The Law of Peoples.

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

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.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

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.

Elaborating the role of reflection and individual differences in the study of folk-economic beliefs

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Arceneaux
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Individual Differences ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Evolutionary History ◽  
Behavioral Responses ◽  
History Of ◽  
Economic Beliefs

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document