Conclusion

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Knight ◽  
James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Institutional Framework ◽  
Political Debate ◽  
Life Plans ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Practical Question

This concluding chapter assesses the ways in which this study's pragmatist account might answer the practical question about the acceptance of democratic politics. Unlike most normative arguments, this study's pragmatist account directly incorporates the inevitability of disagreement and conflict. In doing so, it provides an argument for the central role of ongoing political debate in establishing and maintaining the bases of legitimacy and obligation. And, through an analysis of the effects of democratic decision making on the collective outcomes that it produces, the study makes a case for the superiority of a democratic institutional framework as the forum for undertaking such debates. It argues that when there is persistent conflict and disagreement, making collective decisions democratically is the best means of creating an institutional environmental in which both individual and collective life plans can be effectively pursued.

Cabinet Decision-making in Parliamentary Systems

2020 ◽  
pp. 437-459
Author(s):  
Michelangelo Vercesi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Power Distribution ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Prime Ministers ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Parliamentary Systems ◽  
Research Questions

This chapter deals with the internal decision-making process of political executives in parliamentary systems, that is, how executives take their own collective decisions. The focus is on the cabinet system as a whole, including both cabinet members and other involved party-political and bureaucratic actors. In particular, the chapter reviews literature’s debates about the nature of cabinet government, the role of prime ministers, and variations of decision-making. A special attention is payed to factors explaining intra-cabinet power distribution and the choice of different decision-making arenas. After introducing the topic, an overview of conceptual issues and main research questions is provided. Subsequently, the work discusses the way in which scholars have addressed these issues and the findings they have reached. The final part stresses existing deficits and seeks to set the agenda for future research.

scholarly journals Law Enforcement by the Notary Supervisory Board for Violations Toward Law on Notary Position (in Padang City)

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 698
Author(s):  
Putri Annisa Aulia ◽  
Yuliandri Yuliandri ◽  
Azmi Fendri
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supervisory Board ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Empirical Method ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
The Government ◽  
Examination Process ◽  
High Sense

In living a life, humans realize that they cannot live alone but need other people and try to connect with others; in relation to legal certainty. One of them is carried out by the role of Notary. The role of Notary which is important in helping to create certainty and legal protection for the community is by issuing authentic deeds made before him/ her that serve as perfect evidence. Through the duties and responsibilities of a Notary, it is reasonable that the Notary is also under supervision. The purpose of supervision carried out by the authorities to the Notaries is that in carrying out their duties, the Notaries do not violate their positions. By the existence of Law No. 30 of 2004 concerning Notary Position and its implementing regulations, it clearly stipulates the responsibilities and obligations of the Notary Supervisory Board. Thus, in carrying out their position, Notaries must be guided by existing regulations so that they can carry out their positions properly. The problems in this study are about how the examination process carried out by the Notary Supervisory Board against the Notary who violated the Law on Notary Position and how the decision-making process by the Regional Supervisory Board in conducting an examination to the Notary. This paper applies the juridical empirical method by reviewing primary and secondary data which are analyzed qualitatively. To strengthen the results of the study, interviews with relevant parties in the research setting were held. Based on the results of the study, it is concluded that in conducting an examination of their profession colleagues who are involved in a case, Notary must have a high sense of integrity in which they must first override friendships in conducting the examination. In the examination of the Supervisory Board, parties from Notary elements also sometimes disagree with two other elements; i.e. the Supervisory Board from the Government and Academics. To achieve collective and collegial decisions, the three elements must equalize their perceptions or views so that collective decisions are made since there is no voting in decision making. This is carried out to avoid the defense action for colleagues which is carried out by the Supervisory Board from the Notary element.

scholarly journals The effect of boldness on decision-making in barnacle geese is group-size-dependent

2010 ◽  
Vol 278 (1714) ◽  
pp. 2018-2024 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralf H. J. M. Kurvers ◽  
Vena M. A. P. Adamczyk ◽  
Sipke E. van Wieren ◽  
Herbert H. T. Prins
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Size ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Central Question ◽  
Size Dependent ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Living Species ◽  
Barnacle Geese

In group-living species, decisions made by individuals may result in collective behaviours. A central question in understanding collective behaviours is how individual variation in phenotype affects collective behaviours. However, how the personality of individuals affects collective decisions in groups remains poorly understood. Here, we investigated the role of boldness on the decision-making process in different-sized groups of barnacle geese. Naive barnacle geese, differing in boldness score, were introduced in a labyrinth in groups with either one or three informed demonstrators. The demonstrators possessed information about the route through the labyrinth. In pairs, the probability of choosing a route prior to the informed demonstrator increased with increasing boldness score: bolder individuals decided more often for themselves where to go compared with shyer individuals, whereas shyer individuals waited more often for the demonstrators to decide and followed this information. In groups of four individuals, however, there was no effect of boldness on decision-making, suggesting that individual differences were less important with increasing group size. Our experimental results show that personality is important in collective decisions in pairs of barnacle geese, and suggest that bolder individuals have a greater influence over the outcome of decisions in groups.

Decision making in crisis

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 95-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shelley D. Dionne ◽  
Janaki Gooty ◽  
Francis J. Yammarino ◽  
Hiroki Sayama
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Processes ◽  
Cognitive Schema ◽  
Complex Dynamic ◽  
Naturalistic Decision Making ◽  
Collective Decisions ◽  
Life Threatening ◽  
Face Complex ◽  
Level Of Analysis

Despite recognition that emotions are present and salient during a crisis, traditional views of crisis decision making, such as crisis decision theory and naturalistic decision making, emphasize mainly the role of cognitive processes. Several recent crises illustrate individuals face complex, dynamic, and significant situations requiring decisions with which they are unfamiliar and/or lack experience. Moreover, dangerous and life-threatening situations activate negative emotions such as anger, regret, guilt, fear, disappointment, and shame, which may uniquely affect recursive associations with the immediate cognitive schema elicited after a crisis. Also consider individuals do not experience crises in a vacuum. Rather, they perceive, interpret, and assess information via interactions with others, thus creating collective crisis decision making as a substantive level of analysis. As such, we present a multilevel theoretical model examining the interactive role cognitions and emotions play in crisis decision making, and offer implications regarding individual and collective decisions during crises.

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.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document