Search results

This paper seeks to address scholarly concerns related to the performance of the “new” Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database and provides education researchers and those who teach education research (at the Reference Desk, in a lab or “chatting” with a student at 2.00 am) a means of evaluating and selecting alternative databases based on their relative coverage of major education journals. Alternative research strategies are discussed in light of ERIC's loss of position and importance as a single, comprehensive education resource. Broader implications regarding the role of librarians as educators are presented.

The journal indexing coverage of ERIC (old and new) and alternative databases were checked against two recent Institute of Scientific Information (ISI) Journal Citation Reports (most cited journals in 2004 and 2005) in three categories: Education and Educational Research, Special Education, and Educational Psychology. The results are presented to show the percentage of journals indexed by each database in each of these three categories.

The “new” ERIC database is not indexing and keeping up to date with the same number of major education journals as the “old” ERIC. Other databases are performing better and provide researchers with more comprehensive coverage of scholarly education sources.

Aimed at academic reference librarians and those who teach research methods to education students, this comparative study provides an objective scale to assess the current state of education research indexing and offers advice to meet the information needs of education students and scholars at all levels. It is intended to answer these practical questions: will education researchers need to use other databases to supplement or replace the “new” ERIC? And, if so, what are the better options for varying research needs?

Objectives of a menu include communication of the products available for sale, providing tangible evidence and selling. Managers must consider all these elements when they create a new menu. Focuses on menus as a sales tool in a full‐service restaurant. Describes an experiment to investigate the effectiveness of using menu design techniques to sell a specific menu item. Presents the experiment′s results and four propositions that relate to the effectiveness of the menu as a selling tool.

The purpose of the study is to investigate what values are now important to young American and Chinese managers, since they profile the direction in which their country is headed. It aims to explore if the ethical values of young executives in different countries are converging to a common global business culture. It also aims to argue that the individualism‐collectivism value dimension by itself does not capture the differences between the Chinese and American sample members. The vertical‐horizontal dimension, in contrast, seems to better delineate the value orientations among young executives in the two countries.

In this two‐phase study, both attitudinal and scenario‐based measurements are applied to assess the strength of work value orientations among similar subjects in China and the USA.

In study 1, Chinese respondents score significantly higher on a hierarchical‐vertical dimension than do the Americans, although the two groups do not differ significantly on the collectivism‐individualism dimension. In study 2, which entails resolving an ethical dilemma, the American subjects apply Egalitarianism as their most frequent expressed value, reflecting their horizontal perspective. The Chinese subjects, in contrast, rely strongly on a traditional vertical value system to resolve the ethical dilemma. Although both American and Chinese negotiators show a collectivist as well as an individualist orientation, their focuses are fundamentally different.

The well‐established collectivism/individualism cultural dimension has been heavily used in cross‐cultural studies, sometimes without much discretion. This study was undertaken as a preliminary attempt to outline the cultural patterns observed among young managers in America and China. The paper argues that cross‐cultural differences underlying ethical conflicts should not be reduced to the single value dimension of individualism/collectivism.

We argue that by conducting systematic research with communities rather than on communities, community-based research (CBR) methods can both advance the study of human interaction and strengthen public understanding and appreciation of social sciences. CBR, among other methods, can also address social scientists’ ethical and social commitments. We recap the history of calls by leading sociologists for rigorous, empirical, community-engaged research. We introduce CBR methods as empirically grounded methods for conducting social research with social actors. We define terms and describe the range of methods that we include in the umbrella term, “community-based research.” After providing exemplars of community-based research, we review CBR’s advantages and challenges. We, next, summarize an intervention that we undertook as members of the Publication Committee of the URBAN Research Network’s Sociology section in which the committee developed and disseminated guidelines for peer review of community-based research. We also share initial responses from journal editors. In the conclusion, we revisit the potential of community-based research and note the consequences of neglecting community-based research traditions.