Teaching Decision Science in Educational Administration

1976 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-235
Author(s):  
Walter M. Mathews
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Educational Administration ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Decision Science ◽  
Mail Questionnaire ◽  
Major Topic ◽  
Decision Sciences

The universities in the United States that offer a Doctorate in Educational Administration were surveyed to collect information on courses that they offer which include decision sciences—techniques which aid the decision-making process of administrators and which are usually mathematically or technologically based. With a 71 per cent response rate to a mail questionnaire, it was found that forty-five of the responding seventy-six universities (59 per cent) offered such a course to their administration majors. Data were collected from the instructors concerning frequency offered, average enrollment, year originated, and percentage of administration doctoral majors enrolled. A tally of the major topic areas was also recorded.

Our Columnists on the A-Bomb

1950 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-87
Author(s):  
Janet Besse ◽  
Harold D. Lasswell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
General Theory ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject

Opinion differs about the role of syndicated columnists in the forming of national opinion and in the decision-making process in the United States. Our columnists have been the subject of pioneering studies, but we have a long way to go before the picture can be called historically complete, scientifically precise, or fully satisfactory for policy-making purposes. What the columnists say is an important chapter in the history of the American public, and history is most useful for critical purposes when written close to the event. The general theory of communication and politics can be refined as the details of the opinion process are more fully known.

scholarly journals Comparison of the Influence of the Chinese Lobby and the Israeli Lobby in the United States

2015 ◽  
pp. 84-98
Author(s):  
D. B. Grafov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Political System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
The Political ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
National Interests ◽  
China Lobby

The article is about how pro-Israel and pro-China interest groups try to lobby on the ground of Capitol, White House and executive branch. The study of the lobbying results is based on «General theory of action» T. Parsons. It is concluded that for lobbying interests the main point will be the representation of the interests in the political and public spaces and the creating of advocacy and lobbying infrastructure. The ability of the Israeli lobby to achieve the goal can be explained, firstly, by political inclusion in the decision-making process, and, secondly, by almost axiomatic representation Israel interests through the national interests of the United States. The Israeli lobby can be considered as the religious lobby. It can use the possibilities of Jewish religious organizations in grass root action. Also this gives the opportunity to avoid the requirements of the LDA. From the point of view of the theory of Talcott Parsons, the success of the Israeli lobby is the cause of the action of a large number of actors that may form in large groups. Another advantage of the Israeli lobby is the ability of its members to get relevant information about the current situation in different spheres of political life in the U.S. The objective of the present study was to reveal the ways in which China lobby succeeds. The influence of China lobby on decision-making process in the United States can be explained through strong economic ties between American corporations and the Chinese market. When lobbying China uses numerous Chinese Diaspora in many States, as well as trying to interest of the former high-ranking American officials, granting them special privileges for doing business in China. In comparison to the Israeli lobby, the Chinese lobby has weaknesses. Chinese interest groups are not included in the political system of the USA and this is the disadvantage of the Chinese way of lobbying. Unlike Israel lobby Chinese one is external. The interests of the chinese pressure groups do not coincide with American national interests. Their actors are not rooted in the American political system.

scholarly journals How Can Realism be Utilised in an Understanding of the United States/New Zealand Relationship over Nuclear Policy?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Angela Fitzsimons
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Policy Issue ◽  
National Interest ◽  
The United States ◽  
Normative Theory ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Nuclear Policy ◽  
Security Relationship

<p>This thesis examines the decision making process of the United States and New Zealand on the nuclear policy issue through the lens of realism and analyses the effect of realism on the ANZUS alliance. Broader questions associated with alliances, national interest, changing priorities and limits on the use of power are also treated. A single case study of the United States/New Zealand security relationship as embodied in the ANZUS treaty will be used to evaluate the utility of realism in understanding the decision making process that led to the declaration by the United States that the treaty was in abeyance. Five significant findings emerged: firstly both New Zealand and the United States used realism in the decision making process based on national interest, Secondly; diverging national interests over the nuclear issue made the ANZUS treaty untenable. Thirdly, ethical and cultural aspects of the relationship between the two states limited the application of classical realism to understanding the bond. Fourthly, normative theory accommodates realist theory on the behaviour of states in the international environment. Finally, continued engagement between the United States and New Zealand and evolved circumstances provided the means to revitalise a changed security relationship.</p>

Party Responsibility in Britain and the United States

1967 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 233-256
Author(s):  
Jorgen S. Rasmussen
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Political Parties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Popular Participation ◽  
Institutional Differences ◽  
British Experience ◽  
The Many ◽  
The U.S

Political parties in representative democracies have, as two of their most significant functions, to facilitate popular participation in the decision-making process and to implement, through control of governmental organs, those policies which are popularly favoured. Judged by these criteria, American parties are dysfunctional—so one critical school argues. American parties, they charge, are responsible neither to their members nor voters and are so organized and operated that they fail to govern effectively. When, in the early 1950s, this case against American parties had its greatest acceptance in the discipline, a number of critics contrasted American parties unfavourably with British parties. As an earlier generation of political scientists had urged Americans to adopt British institutions of government, so the critics of American parties favoured reforms which they thought were characteristic of British parties. If American parties became more like British parties, they argued, those parties would be more responsible and effective. Defenders of American parties refuted the critics' diagnosis and prescription by emphasizing the many environmental and institutional differences between Britain and the United States. British experience simply was not applicable in the U.S., they maintained. As study of British parties progressed an even more devastating rejoinder to critics of American parties emerged. Various findings began to suggest that although British parties obviously were much more cohesive in the legislature than were American parties, they were not nearly as responsible as the critics had assumed.

The Practice and Case Law of Israel in Matters Related to International Law

1998 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 355-392
Author(s):  
Rotem M. Giladi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
The Public ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
South Lebanon ◽  
Monitoring Group

For the last two years, a five-party mechanism consisting of delegations of Israel, the United States, France, Syria and Lebanon, charged with implementing an Israeli-Lebanese understanding concerning South Lebanon has been in operation. Away from the public eye, this forum has thus far held around fifty sessions, each of which concluded with the producing of an agreed Report. Despite its limited powers and narrowly defined mandate, the significance of this forum cannot be ignored; its existence and the mode of its operations also gives rise to several important legal questions.This review will start by describing the historical and legal circumstances leading up to the April 1996 Understanding and the establishment of the Israel-Lebanon Monitoring Group. Thereafter, the operation of the Monitoring Group, its composition, functions, procedure and decision-making process will be presented. Then I will discuss the major legal questions arising from the existence and operation of the Monitoring Group. The documents relative to the work of the Monitoring Group are annexed to this review.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: What Lies Ahead?

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allen Weiner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
The United States ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Foreseeable Future ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Economic Costs ◽  
25Th Anniversary ◽  
Political Relations ◽  
Political Expediency

AbstractThe Iran-United States Tribunal has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. Although it has resolved all of the cases brought by private claimants, it is still likely to be many more years before the Tribunal is able to complete the remaining government-to-government cases on its docket. There are multiple reasons why so much time will be required: the pending cases are extremely complex, the governments brief them slowly, and the Tribunal's decision-making process itself is slow. There does not for the foreseeable future appear to be an alternative to continued litigation, because the prospects of a global settlement of the remaining claims before the Tribunal are remote. The parties face challenges in developing reasonable assessments of the legal and economic costs and benefits of settlement. Beyond this, the strained political relations between the United States and Iran would make even a legally and economically rationale settlement extremely difficult to achieve. The challenge facing the Tribunal in the remaining years of its existence, in which the Iran and United States are the only parties before it, is to continue to decide cases in a principled fashion on the basis of the law and the facts, and to resist the temptation to reach compromise decisions in the interests of political expediency.

scholarly journals Waste-to-energy in the United States: Socioeconomic factors and the decision-making process

1993 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.R. Curlee ◽  
S.M. Schexnayder ◽  
D.P. Vogt ◽  
A.K. Wolfe ◽  
M.P. Kelsay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Socioeconomic Factors ◽  
The United States ◽  
Waste To Energy ◽  
Decision Making Process

scholarly journals ¿Somos tan diferentes? El intervencionismo militar en España, en Reino Unido y Estados Unidos

Araucaria ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 431-456
Author(s):  
Roberto Muñoz Bolaños
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Do So

The aim of this research is to carry out a comparative study of military interventionism in Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The thesis on which it is based is that armies intervene when the conditions are created for them to do so. There is no such thing as a dichotomy between interventionist and non-interventionist armies in the political decision-making process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document