It's academic : American studies in a time of crisis

My archive- the collection of resources I have drawn upon for my comments- includes, among other sources, a panel on international American studies held at the American Studies Association conference in Montreal in November 1999, the Wednesday Higher Education supplement of the Australian newspaper, and another supplement- this is one in the Derridean sense of the word- the Howard government. I hope to draw these threads together to focus on the present crisis facing American studies and, not coincidentally, this Association. To arrive at this point I take a tour through theoretical and disciplinary responses to the prevailing situation.

Exploring multi-dimensional perceptual ranking of marketing journals by North American academics

This paper develops a weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents evaluation of a journals prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Comparisons are made between rankings of individual criteria and composite rankings. Comparisons are also made to recent single dimension perceptual-based rankings and citation-based rankings.

Multi-dimensional examination of marketing journal rankings by North American academics

This paper extends the journal ranking debate by developing weighted multi-dimensional perceptual rankings based on respondents' evaluation of a journals' prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Spearman correlations indicate that journal rankings based on each of the evaluative criteria are statistically significantly correlated for all pairs of criteria, other than teaching and theory. The multi-dimensional evaluation is also statistically significantly correlated to all individual criteria, other than the teaching dimension. A cluster analysis of the journals using the four evaluative criteria identified that there are three groupings of journals: A, B, and C. In most cases, A journals are evaluated as performing better than B journals on each of evaluative criteria other than for the contribution to teaching where there are no difference in perceptions between groups. B journals are viewed to perform better than C journals on prestige, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching, but not based on their prestige of weighted evaluation. This suggests that there are differences in how academics view each group of journals, although these differences do seem to vary based on the grouping being considered (i.e., A, B, or C).

A grouping journals using multi-dimensional perceptual criteria of North American marketing academics

This paper seeks to develop groupings of journals (A, B, C) using multi-dimensional perceptual rankings, based on North American respondents’ evaluation of a journal’s prestige, contribution to theory, contribution to practice and contribution to teaching. Nonparametric comparisons of criterion mean values indicate that there are generally statistically significant correlations between criteria. Cluster analysis identifies A, B, and C 'categorisations' of journals are different in regards to all four evaluative criteria.

The credit spread dynamics of Latin American euro issues in international bond markets

This paper investigates two important relationships using the sovereign issues made by major Latin American economies in the international bond market: the determinants of credit spread changes using variables derived from structural and macroeconomic theory and the impact of a default episode on the underlying equilibrium dynamics. We find four significant determinants of credit spread changes: an asset and interest rate factor—consistent with structural models of credit spread pricing; the exchange rate—consistent with macroeconomic determinants and the slope of the yield curve—consistent with a business cycle effect. Also, an intra-regional analysis of sovereign yields reveals a shift in the long-run equilibrium dynamics around the Argentine default on the 23 December 2001.

A comparison of motivations of American and Japanese volunteers in ladies professional golf association tournaments

This exploratory study examined and compared primary motives influencing American and Japanese volunteers of the Ladies Professional Golf Association (LPGA). Data were collected from 281 volunteers who participated in LPGA tournament events in America and Japan. Japanese volunteers were found to be more involved in volunteer service due to “Social/Leisure” and “Material” reasons, while American volunteers were found to be associated with “Egoistic” and “Purposive” motivations. There was no significant difference in the “External Influences” factor. The study contributes to personnel and administration research and provides insight on the ways in which the LPGA event volunteers are managed in America and Japan...

American conservatism : still not dead

Unlike Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama doesn't have The Eagles on his iPod, however as he confronts the final weeks of the presidential campaign his thoughts might turn to The Eagles' classic Hotel California.

Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in abstracts of the 2005 annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Objective: To determine the quality of abstracts reporting randomized clinical trials (RCT) at the 2005 Annual Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Methods: All 2005 abstracts including late-breaking abstracts were assessed. An abstract was deemed to be reporting an RCT if it indicated that participants were randomized in the title or body of the abstract. RCT were excluded if they included only pharmacokinetic data. The CONSORT checklist was applied and relevant data extracted. We defined manufacturer support as acknowledgment of industry support or industry employee as co-author.

Results: Of 2146 abstracts, 143 (6.7%) reported RCT. Of these, 78.3% were drug trials, and 63.6% indicated manufacturer support. Only 30.8% of abstracts used "randomized" in the title, 44.1% did not explicitly state whether blinding was undertaken, and only 7.0% clearly stated who was blinded. Thirty percent of studies did not give an explicit definition of eligibility criteria of participants. While 84.6% explicitly described the experimental intervention, only 37.1% explicitly described the comparator intervention. Only 21% explicitly stated that an intention to treat analysis was performed. Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics were reported in 48.3%. While most abstracts reported summary results for each treatment group, only 35.7% reported effect size with its precision.

Conclusion: The quality of reporting is suboptimal in many RCT abstracts. Abstracts reporting RCT would benefit from a structured approach that ensures more detailed reporting of eligibility criteria, active and comparator interventions, flow of participants, and adequate summary and precision of results.