Literature report : a review of policy learning in five strands of political science research

This paper reviews the policy learning literature in political science. In recent years, the number of publications on learning in the political realm increased dramatically. Researchers have focused on how policymakers and administrators adapt policies based on learning processes or experiences. Thereby, learning has been discussed in very different ways. Authors have referred to learning in the context of ideas, understood as deeply held beliefs, and, as change and adaptation of policy instruments. Two other strands of literature have taken into consideration learning, namely the diffusion literature and research on transfer, which put forward learning to understand who learns from whom and what. Opposed to these views, political learning emphasizes the adaptation of new strategies by policymakers over the transfer of knowledge or broad ideas. In this approach, learning occurs due to the failure of existing policies, increasing problem pressure, scientific innovations, or a combination of these elements.

The physical environment and organizational behavior

Research into organizational behaviour has indicated that there is an inevitable conflict between the needs of the individual and organizational demands. Psychologists have given insights into basic individual needs and contend that satisfaction of these needs constitutes a motivating force which enhances desired behavioural patterns. Behaviouralists have suggested that a basic and pervasive individual need is the culturally determined need for privacy. Anthropologists and environmental psychologists have shown that man's spatial behaviour is observable and predictable and that changes in the physical environment or the way it is perceived are accompanied by concommitant changes in behaviour. Research findings from each of the disciplines have been reviewed in an attempt to show that the physical environment is a significant factor in satisfying the needs of the individual organizational member, hence, a significant influence on organizational behaviour. A model has been generated to show the relationship between the physical setting and behaviour and to underscore the importance of making provisions within the physical setting for the attainment of a culturally determined optimal level of privacy. The physical setting, by providing for this need, becomes a significant factor in reducing the conflict between the individual and the organization and makes for acceptable role behaviour and the fulfilment of organizational goals.

Experimentation and political science : six applications

Thèse numérisée par la Division de la gestion de documents et des archives de l'Université de Montréal

Studying Your Own Country. Social Scientific Knowledge For Our Times and Places; Presidential Address to the Canadian Political Science Association, St Catharines, May 28, 2014

Political science is both a generalizing and an anchored, nationally defined, discipline. Too often, the first perspective tends to crowd out the latter, because it appears more prestigious, objective, or scientific. Behind the international/national dichotomy, there are indeed rival conceptions of social science, and important ontological, epistemological and methodological assumptions. This article discusses these assumptions and stresses the critical contribution of idiographic, single-outcome studies, the importance of producing relevant, usable knowledge, and the distinctive implications of studying one’s own country, where a scholar is also a citizen, involved in more encompassing national conversations. The aim is not to reject the generalizing, international perspective, or even the comparative approach, but rather to reaffirm the importance of maintaining as well, and in fact celebrating, the production of social scientific knowledge directly relevant for our own times and places.

La London School of Economics and Political Science.

Historia de la evolución de la famosa escuela de ciencias políticas y económicas, London School of Economics and Political Sciencie, centrándonos en las actividades puramente académicas desde su nacimiento, y en las labores llevadas a cabo por los sucesivos directores: W. A. Hewins, Halford J. Mackinder, W. Pember Reeves, Sir William Beveridge y A. M. Carr-Saunders.

Multilevel research in the field of organizational behavior: an empirical look at 10 years of theory and research

During the last 30 years, significant debate has taken place regarding multilevel research. However, the extent to which multilevel research is overtly practiced remains to be examined. This article analyzes 10 years of organizational research within a multilevel framework (from 2001 to 2011). The goals of this article are (a) to understand what has been done, during this decade, in the field of organizational multilevel research and (b) to suggest new arenas of research for the next decade. A total of 132 articles were selected for analysis through ISI Web of Knowledge. Through a broad-based literature review, results suggest that there is equilibrium between the amount of empirical and conceptual papers regarding multilevel research, with most studies addressing the cross-level dynamics between teams and individuals. In addition, this study also found that the time still has little presence in organizational multilevel research. Implications, limitations, and future directions are addressed in the end. Organizations are made of interacting layers. That is, between layers (such as divisions, departments, teams, and individuals) there is often some degree of interdependence that leads to bottom-up and top-down influence mechanisms. Teams and organizations are contexts for the development of individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors (top-down effects; Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Conversely, individual cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors can also influence the functioning and outcomes of teams and organizations (bottom-up effects; Arrow, McGrath, & Berdahl, 2000). One example is when the rewards system of one organization may influence employees’ intention to quit and the existence or absence of extra role behaviors. At the same time, many studies have showed the importance of bottom-up emergent processes that yield higher level phenomena (Bashshur, Hernández, & González-Romá, 2011; Katz-Navon & Erez, 2005; Marques-Quinteiro, Curral, Passos, & Lewis, in press). For example, the affectivity of individual employees may influence their team’s interactions and outcomes (Costa, Passos, & Bakker, 2012). Several authors agree that organizations must be understood as multilevel systems, meaning that adopting a multilevel perspective is fundamental to understand real-world phenomena (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). However, whether this agreement is reflected in practicing multilevel research seems to be less clear. In fact, how much is known about the quantity and quality of multilevel research done in the last decade? The aim of this study is to compare what has been proposed theoretically, concerning the importance of multilevel research, with what has really been empirically studied and published. First, this article outlines a review of the multilevel theory, followed by what has been theoretically “put forward” by researchers. Second, this article presents what has really been “practiced” based on the results of a review of multilevel studies published from 2001 to 2011 in business and management journals. Finally, some barriers and challenges to true multilevel research are suggested. This study contributes to multilevel research as it describes the last 10 years of research. It quantitatively depicts the type of articles being written, and where we can find the majority of the publications on empirical and conceptual work related to multilevel thinking.