Suchergebnisse

In der geschichtswissenschaftlichen Analyse begann die erste Welle der Formalisierung in den 1950er Jahren und fing in den 1970er Jahren an, ihre Kraft zu verlieren. Dieser ersten Welle ist der Artikel gewidmet. Unter Formalisierung versteht der Autor die Vielfalt der Verfahren zur Beschreibung von Ereignissen, Strukturen und Prozesse mit Hilfe von expliziten Modellen dieser Ereignisse, Strukturen und Prozesse. Sie ist nicht unbedingt mit Quantifizierung oder Verwendung von Computern verbunden und beinhaltet vier Elemente: Konzeptualisierung, Messung, Modellerstellung und Bewertung. Diese Verfahren werden zusammen mit den Voraussetzungen ihrer Anwendung und den Bedingungen eines Wandels in der Disziplin in Richtung einer Weiterentwicklung solcher Forschungsaktivitäten erläutert. (ICG)

Due to developments recently termed as 'audit,' 'evaluation,' or 'metric society,' universities have become subject to ratings and rankings and researchers are evaluated according to standardized quantitative indicators such as their publication output and their personal citation scores. Yet, this development is not only based on the rise of new public management and ideas on 'the return on public or private investment.' It has also profited from ongoing technological developments. Due to a massive increase in digital publishing corresponding with the growing availability of related data bibliometric infrastructures for evaluating science are continuously becoming more differentiated and elaborate. They allow for new ways of using bibliometric data through various easily applicable tools. Furthermore, they also produce new quantities of data due to new possibilities in following the digital traces of scientific publications. In this article, I discuss this development as quantification 2.0. The rise of digital infrastructures for publishing, indexing, and managing scientific publications has not only made bibliometric data become a valuable source for performance assessment. It has triggered an unprecedented growth in bibliometric data production turning freely accessible data about scientific work into edited databases and producing competition for its users. The production of bibliometric data has thus become decoupled from their application. Bibliometric data have turned into a self-serving end while their providers are constantly seeking for new tools to make use of them.

Is accounting a science of quantification, as many believe? We accountants provide the "bottom line", "performance evaluation numbers", "investment ratios", etc. These numbers have an impact on both society and our everyday lives. The corporate scandals of the late 1990's and early 2000's clearly demonstrate this impact. Ordinary citizens now realize that accounting is important and may affect their everyday lives. Porter (1992, 1995) argues that quantification as used (portrayed) in accounting obtains an aura of objectivity, which makes irrelevant any political and strategic overtones. We believe that most people view accounting as a merely technical discipline that reports economic "truths" about individuals, entities, and a host of managerial decisions. Our general research question is: how do people perceive characteristics of quantitative bits of evidence (including direct accounting information and other quantitative information) versus qualitative bits of evidence (including accounting information stated in a qualitative form and other qualitative information)? We believe there is a perception of objectivity related to all quantitative elements (especially accounting oriented data) as compared to comparable qualitative elements and this may bias decision makers toward accepting quantitative information as "factual" and non-contestable. That is, the information is not merely an input to a decision but leads to the representation of the decision output. We address the primary research question in an experiment utilizing a capital investment scenario and a performance evaluation scenario. The scenarios facilitate using multiple cues in the tasks. The Balanced Scorecard framework, as developed by Kaplan and Norton (1992), provides the concepts used to identify relevant cues. This allowed us to address a secondary research question concerning whether financial cues are weighted heavier than non-financial cues in these two scenarios. ; İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi

Margin Squeeze Damages

AbstractAccording to the interpretational theory of logical validity (IR), logical validity is preservation of truth in all interpretations compatible with the intended meaning of logical expressions. IR suffers from a seemingly defeating objection, the so-called cardinality problem: any instance of the statement 'There arenthings' is true under all interpretations, since it can be written down using only logical expressions that are not to be reinterpreted; yet 'There arenthings' is not logically true. I argue that the cardinality problem is indeed a serious problem for IR, when understood in terms of 'asymmetry of information'. I then argue that IR can be rehabilitated by making quantifiers context-sensitive: what we do not reinterpret is the Kaplanian character of a quantifier, rather than its content. 'There arenthings' is false in a context where fewer thannthings are relevant, so it is not logically true in IR. I finally discuss some objections and ramifications of my account: I discuss how to make space for the possibility of an explicitly absolutely general quantifier in my framework, how terms can be logical even though context-sensitive, and how to recapture classical logic within my framework.

Focusing on "new regimes of calculation" and the limits and possibilities of mobilizing critical theory to make sense of such shifts, the author uses Roderick Ferguson's Foucauldian call for a reordering of things to rethink of quantitative inquiry. The author is especially interested in race and the twists and turns of how the institutionalizing of the interdisciplines of area studies in higher education functioned to manage difference. The author pays particular attention to parallels between the institutionalization of the interdisciplines of area studies with the emerging interdisciplines– those forming between the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences and the mathematical sciences, computer sciences, digital studies, and the natural sciences. By elaborating both sociological and media studies disciplinary perspectives, something "beyond biopolitics and neoliberalism" becomes thinkable.