So- had a good chat with HG and XF yesterday - separately.
always a confusing and bewildering experience.
Harold spoke sense in that he established what I do know.
I know roughly what I want to ask people.
and what I want to find out.
I am unsure of my methods thus far, but this will come.
He pointed to my loss of confidence in the model as a key to my 'wobble'
He also expressed concerns that I may have to re-do my R1.
He pointed to the 'sample' as not a sample, but a population. This seemed to make sense, but at the same time, I would still only be looking at 30 people.
should probably try to check this before I speak to HG again.
I spoke to XF and he proposed a novel change of tack - to look at a list of past customers a TO may have and use this as my quants stats.
Then take a couple of tours and use more ethnographic methods to see if my model works.
This provides more academically robust workings and is something that could be rolled out to other TOs.
Tuesday 18 September 2007
Monday 17 September 2007
R1
Had the R1 - confirmation of registration with Glenn, Rhodri, Harold and Xavier
Found the whole thing quite strange.
Some good points came out of it.
1) exploration of what Responsible is.
2) 2 -stage aims - are they equally important?
3) model - is it just off the shelf - too easy?
4) is the whole thing too much?
nothing earth shattering, and 3 of them are pretty much resolved by ditching the quantitative side of the study as I think I now plan to do.
Will speak to Harold Monday and approach the subject of a purely qualititative study.
Need to do serious work on what this means - do I have a model?
Found the whole thing quite strange.
Some good points came out of it.
1) exploration of what Responsible is.
2) 2 -stage aims - are they equally important?
3) model - is it just off the shelf - too easy?
4) is the whole thing too much?
nothing earth shattering, and 3 of them are pretty much resolved by ditching the quantitative side of the study as I think I now plan to do.
Will speak to Harold Monday and approach the subject of a purely qualititative study.
Need to do serious work on what this means - do I have a model?
Wednesday 12 September 2007
Shaw in Glasgow
quite an odd meeting with deirdre.
very nice lady
opened up a lot of interesting avenues.
possibly the most interesting was the contextualising of RT.
what is responsible tourism?
the most responsible thing of course is not to go on holiday.
then not to go abroad.
then maybe to look at modifying your behaviour slightly.
i need to be clear that what I am looking at is a niche group of people who have chosen to 'tweak' their behaviour. mainstreamers or perhaps soft-adventurerers who have 'modified' slightly. not voluntary simplicity - are these people voting with their purchases?
Clare weeden - PhD about to complete - very relevant - looking at values in RTourists
to complete fairly soon.
other main aspect was the TPB itself - apparantly goal-orientation is the new idea. Bagozzi
hasn't been a great deal of work done on it, and apparantly it's not very clear, but needs to be looked at nonetheless.
we came to the conclusion really that I need to speak to more people before I make any crazed direction decisions. I need to go to Morocco and pick people's brains and then think. What am I really trying to discover, what am I really trying to get at and WHY?
Am I looking at the stories people tell? am I looking at motivations? am I looking at dialogues? Am I just trying to tell who these people are? Will there be distinct groups of people within my research? modifiers/adventurers/ randoms?
do i need to be a bit more adventurous?
deirdre mentioned Sheila Ferguson - Otago - looking at adventure.
Also Alternative hedonism??
Need to check on this.
very nice lady
opened up a lot of interesting avenues.
possibly the most interesting was the contextualising of RT.
what is responsible tourism?
the most responsible thing of course is not to go on holiday.
then not to go abroad.
then maybe to look at modifying your behaviour slightly.
i need to be clear that what I am looking at is a niche group of people who have chosen to 'tweak' their behaviour. mainstreamers or perhaps soft-adventurerers who have 'modified' slightly. not voluntary simplicity - are these people voting with their purchases?
Clare weeden - PhD about to complete - very relevant - looking at values in RTourists
to complete fairly soon.
other main aspect was the TPB itself - apparantly goal-orientation is the new idea. Bagozzi
hasn't been a great deal of work done on it, and apparantly it's not very clear, but needs to be looked at nonetheless.
we came to the conclusion really that I need to speak to more people before I make any crazed direction decisions. I need to go to Morocco and pick people's brains and then think. What am I really trying to discover, what am I really trying to get at and WHY?
Am I looking at the stories people tell? am I looking at motivations? am I looking at dialogues? Am I just trying to tell who these people are? Will there be distinct groups of people within my research? modifiers/adventurers/ randoms?
do i need to be a bit more adventurous?
deirdre mentioned Sheila Ferguson - Otago - looking at adventure.
Also Alternative hedonism??
Need to check on this.
Friday 7 September 2007
Shaw Chapter 3
p59 strong focus on attitude
with definition p60
how scaling of responses allowed for better measurement of attitudes.
p60 La piere and the first doubts about the link between attitude and behaviour.
if the link is spurious - what then?
The issue can be broken down into
A) bad measurement of attitude
B) bad measurement of behaviour
C) other variables excluded.
Ajzen and Fishbein look closely at "principle of compatability" - the close rthe specification of generality of specificity between target, action, context and time.
Authors who failed to address this, produced poor relations between attitude and behaviour.
Ajzen and Fishbein look to INTENTION as the intermediary between attitude and behaviour.
p62 looks at the multi-component nature of attitude
COGNITION - knowledge
AFFECT - feeling
BEHAVIOUR - action
much discussion of this multi-component approach, but it developed into single-component, with COGNITION becoming BELIEFS, which contribute to attitude, AFFECT becoming attitude, and Behaviour moves into behavioural intention needed prior to the behaviour itself.
p67-68 go into the formation of attitudes. Central to this is the idea that beliefs lead to the formation of attitudes.
P68 attitude consistency theories, getting onto Festinger.
p69 Attitude towards object vs towards behaviour
(need to be clear) attitude towards an object is 'attitude' - formed from beliefs and evaluation of those beliefs. need to clarify.
attitude towards behaviour is an individuals positive or negative evaluation of performing the behaviour in question.
TRA looks at attitudes towards specific behaviours. see p72
WE LOOK AT ATTITUDES TOWARDS SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS NOT OBJECTS
SN and PBC introduced.
PBC delves into people's perceptions rather than actual control.
Criticisms of TRA/TPB.
- people's ability to process info.
- the direction of the causal relationship between attitude and beliefs.
- criticism of elicitation questionnaire.
- often shows low correlations
SN and beliefs can often become blurred. (i want to make my daughter happy/ i think my daughter would like me to do it)
p82 - goes into how to analyse - SEM/regression analysis
with definition p60
how scaling of responses allowed for better measurement of attitudes.
p60 La piere and the first doubts about the link between attitude and behaviour.
if the link is spurious - what then?
The issue can be broken down into
A) bad measurement of attitude
B) bad measurement of behaviour
C) other variables excluded.
Ajzen and Fishbein look closely at "principle of compatability" - the close rthe specification of generality of specificity between target, action, context and time.
Authors who failed to address this, produced poor relations between attitude and behaviour.
Ajzen and Fishbein look to INTENTION as the intermediary between attitude and behaviour.
p62 looks at the multi-component nature of attitude
COGNITION - knowledge
AFFECT - feeling
BEHAVIOUR - action
much discussion of this multi-component approach, but it developed into single-component, with COGNITION becoming BELIEFS, which contribute to attitude, AFFECT becoming attitude, and Behaviour moves into behavioural intention needed prior to the behaviour itself.
p67-68 go into the formation of attitudes. Central to this is the idea that beliefs lead to the formation of attitudes.
P68 attitude consistency theories, getting onto Festinger.
p69 Attitude towards object vs towards behaviour
(need to be clear) attitude towards an object is 'attitude' - formed from beliefs and evaluation of those beliefs. need to clarify.
attitude towards behaviour is an individuals positive or negative evaluation of performing the behaviour in question.
TRA looks at attitudes towards specific behaviours. see p72
WE LOOK AT ATTITUDES TOWARDS SPECIFIC BEHAVIOURS NOT OBJECTS
SN and PBC introduced.
PBC delves into people's perceptions rather than actual control.
Criticisms of TRA/TPB.
- people's ability to process info.
- the direction of the causal relationship between attitude and beliefs.
- criticism of elicitation questionnaire.
- often shows low correlations
SN and beliefs can often become blurred. (i want to make my daughter happy/ i think my daughter would like me to do it)
p82 - goes into how to analyse - SEM/regression analysis
Shaw chapter 2
p37 good point that intro leads from previous chapter and explains what is coming up...
going to look at overall models of behaviour - comprehensive models
Andreasen Model
Nicosia model
Howard-Sheth Model
Engel-Kollat-Blackwell model
look at each in turn
attention to strengths and weaknesses
Not particularly easy to apply the models
conceptually well -developed, but nature, relationship and impact of the model variables are not clearly outlined.
One key difference when looking at these models is the focus on high/low involvement.
holidays much more involved than ft
p49 focus shifts towards attitudes.
TRA looking at attitude-behaviour relationships.
discusses the model and others that are similar, then moves onto what could be added to the model.
p55 key from Ajzen - open to inclusion of new variables.
Look at criticisms of TRA
constant reference to the rationality of consumers (invisble hand)
we are essentially looking for something more than self interest.
The model does not consider moral norms or ethical themes.
Gentle into to behaviour models ansd then attitude through TRA.
going to look at overall models of behaviour - comprehensive models
Andreasen Model
Nicosia model
Howard-Sheth Model
Engel-Kollat-Blackwell model
look at each in turn
attention to strengths and weaknesses
Not particularly easy to apply the models
conceptually well -developed, but nature, relationship and impact of the model variables are not clearly outlined.
One key difference when looking at these models is the focus on high/low involvement.
holidays much more involved than ft
p49 focus shifts towards attitudes.
TRA looking at attitude-behaviour relationships.
discusses the model and others that are similar, then moves onto what could be added to the model.
p55 key from Ajzen - open to inclusion of new variables.
Look at criticisms of TRA
constant reference to the rationality of consumers (invisble hand)
we are essentially looking for something more than self interest.
The model does not consider moral norms or ethical themes.
Gentle into to behaviour models ansd then attitude through TRA.
Thursday 6 September 2007
Shaw Thesis chapter one
Nothing too earthshattering. Nice gentle introduction.
p22 - nice overview of surveys carried out by different groups, guaging people's opinions on ft
p23 - nice little mention of Mssrs Muncy and Vitell - and their limitations.
p24 - the gap is mentioned
p25 - begins to look at where other work has limitations - mention of the temporal dynamic, how people may look on things differently at different times. goes back to reflexivity - need to consider more.
p26 - beginning to go into the reasons for awareness-raising in the past 20 years.
p28 nice point about the mixes messages to the marketplace - do we support africa through buying products when we have to fly them thousand of miles?
p29 explicit aims listed
p30 basics of quants and qualis
p34 nice table looking a the different methods
p22 - nice overview of surveys carried out by different groups, guaging people's opinions on ft
p23 - nice little mention of Mssrs Muncy and Vitell - and their limitations.
p24 - the gap is mentioned
p25 - begins to look at where other work has limitations - mention of the temporal dynamic, how people may look on things differently at different times. goes back to reflexivity - need to consider more.
p26 - beginning to go into the reasons for awareness-raising in the past 20 years.
p28 nice point about the mixes messages to the marketplace - do we support africa through buying products when we have to fly them thousand of miles?
p29 explicit aims listed
p30 basics of quants and qualis
p34 nice table looking a the different methods
Sunday 2 September 2007
The nature of virtue
Virtue ethics continued.
Case Histories in Business ethics.
The nature of virtue.
>We can acquire virtue - we are adapted by nature to receive virtue, through practice or habit.
'Men become builders by building... so too we become just by doing just acts.'
Practice has a cognitive role.
First a childis told to do something by a person (parent) 'share your sweets'
>purely external knowledge. They do not yet see the point.
> internal knowledge can only be guided through practising just acts. learning by doing.
>example of skiing is used. Why is it good? Because my mate says it is. Only by doing it can we tell if it is good and articulate 'INTERNALLY' why.
> After time we figure out why it is a good thing and choose to do it ourselves.
Desire is key.
Virtuous action requires the right desires.
Initiatially the desire may be to please a parent (in the example of share your sweets) but then the desire changes as the child sees the benefit in itself. The practicing of the just act reinforces the DESIRE.
Conditions of a just act:
1. have knowledge
2. must choose the act
3. must proceed fro a firm and unchangeable character.
The last two are achieved through practice.
>Virtue is a state of character
This is a settled disposition of the mind helped by practice.
> Desire certain things/believe certain things - kindof fixed.
>CHOICE _ agents choose actions for their own sakes. (do not want objects - want things for reasons) learned through practice.
Where does RATIONALITY COME IN???
Rationality comes in once an agent has reached the stage of 'seeing' the point of an activity (giving sweets to friends or skiing)
> At this stage the agent does not simply desire that activity, but desires it for a reason.
> development of this RATIONALITY has two aspects;
1. what is the point of activity? reflecting on why one activity is more worthwhile than another.
2. Agents desires are guided by reason. The strength of desire matches the value of the objective.
> The ethically virtuous agent will be fully rational > therefore ethically virtuous life is part of the eudaimon life, because eudaimon life is fully rational life.
Aristotelian virtue theory and BE
Just treatment of those engaged in business requires attention to the PURPOSE of the business.
> Because specific activities have specific goals, particular virtues may be more prominent in some activity than in others.
> therefore the nature of the business will have a role in determining which virtues are likely to be prominent for those engaged in this activity. eg. goal - selling goods and services. 'friendliness, truthfulness, and justice will be prominent.
Virtue theory and the goal of business.
Aristotle argues that it would not make sense for a carpenter or shoemaker to have a goal, if human life as such had none.
>there are bigger ultimate ENDS.
> so they must contribute to some further end, the goal of human life as a whole.
What is the business contribution to eudaimonia?
Conclusion
2 views
Sternberg - goal is to maximise owner value.
Virtue theory - sell enough goods and services for people to lead a virtuous life. greater goal is eudaimonia . > everything else id subordinate. Business activity must be constrained by the ultimate end.
Limit to business
1. contrary to human flourishing > not to be engaged in.
Business should be engaged in when its internal goal is understood, with th internal goal of producing sufficient owner value for flourishing.
2. Contrast with health > no limit to how much health you can have
Health is worthwhile for is own sake. It is an end in itself, unlike wealth. Wealth has a sufficient level, unlike health.
The danger of following unlimited wealth is that there is a danger in not recognising that wealth is a means to eudaimonia, not an end in itself.
The 'value' of wealth is limited by its contribution to eudaimonia > unlimited wealth is not worth pursuing.
Case Histories in Business ethics.
The nature of virtue.
>We can acquire virtue - we are adapted by nature to receive virtue, through practice or habit.
'Men become builders by building... so too we become just by doing just acts.'
Practice has a cognitive role.
First a childis told to do something by a person (parent) 'share your sweets'
>purely external knowledge. They do not yet see the point.
> internal knowledge can only be guided through practising just acts. learning by doing.
>example of skiing is used. Why is it good? Because my mate says it is. Only by doing it can we tell if it is good and articulate 'INTERNALLY' why.
> After time we figure out why it is a good thing and choose to do it ourselves.
Desire is key.
Virtuous action requires the right desires.
Initiatially the desire may be to please a parent (in the example of share your sweets) but then the desire changes as the child sees the benefit in itself. The practicing of the just act reinforces the DESIRE.
Conditions of a just act:
1. have knowledge
2. must choose the act
3. must proceed fro a firm and unchangeable character.
The last two are achieved through practice.
>Virtue is a state of character
This is a settled disposition of the mind helped by practice.
> Desire certain things/believe certain things - kindof fixed.
>CHOICE _ agents choose actions for their own sakes. (do not want objects - want things for reasons) learned through practice.
Where does RATIONALITY COME IN???
Rationality comes in once an agent has reached the stage of 'seeing' the point of an activity (giving sweets to friends or skiing)
> At this stage the agent does not simply desire that activity, but desires it for a reason.
> development of this RATIONALITY has two aspects;
1. what is the point of activity? reflecting on why one activity is more worthwhile than another.
2. Agents desires are guided by reason. The strength of desire matches the value of the objective.
> The ethically virtuous agent will be fully rational > therefore ethically virtuous life is part of the eudaimon life, because eudaimon life is fully rational life.
Aristotelian virtue theory and BE
Just treatment of those engaged in business requires attention to the PURPOSE of the business.
> Because specific activities have specific goals, particular virtues may be more prominent in some activity than in others.
> therefore the nature of the business will have a role in determining which virtues are likely to be prominent for those engaged in this activity. eg. goal - selling goods and services. 'friendliness, truthfulness, and justice will be prominent.
Virtue theory and the goal of business.
Aristotle argues that it would not make sense for a carpenter or shoemaker to have a goal, if human life as such had none.
>there are bigger ultimate ENDS.
> so they must contribute to some further end, the goal of human life as a whole.
What is the business contribution to eudaimonia?
Conclusion
2 views
Sternberg - goal is to maximise owner value.
Virtue theory - sell enough goods and services for people to lead a virtuous life. greater goal is eudaimonia . > everything else id subordinate. Business activity must be constrained by the ultimate end.
Limit to business
1. contrary to human flourishing > not to be engaged in.
Business should be engaged in when its internal goal is understood, with th internal goal of producing sufficient owner value for flourishing.
2. Contrast with health > no limit to how much health you can have
Health is worthwhile for is own sake. It is an end in itself, unlike wealth. Wealth has a sufficient level, unlike health.
The danger of following unlimited wealth is that there is a danger in not recognising that wealth is a means to eudaimonia, not an end in itself.
The 'value' of wealth is limited by its contribution to eudaimonia > unlimited wealth is not worth pursuing.
Saturday 1 September 2007
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics
Aristotelian Virtue ethics
Case studies in Business Ethics
>Business ethics looked upon as a branch of irtue ethics as a whole.
>key to know the purpose of the activity of business in order to clarify how some of the virtue ethics apply in that area.
>Interestingly it is argued that this account of virtue ethics may itself have a bearing on what the internal goal of business is.
purpose > < virtue ethics
>Also considers how virtue is acquired.
2 KEY questions - What kind of life should I live? or what is the eudaion life, the happy life?
does vitue pay? What is the connection between a life of virtue and eudaimonia or happiness?
> IN order to go deeper Aristotle needed to define eudaimonia and the role of virtue in the eudaimon life.
> so what? the goal of business must be consistent with eudaimonia.
The nature of eudaimonia.
In Nicomachean Ehics (NE) Aristotle looks at eudaimonia.
Aim of all agents is good.
> Ultimate goal is eudaimonia.
however, lots of differing views about it.
> we can say what eudaimonia is not . eg. wealth. pleasure. honour.
> left with life of contemplation and life of virtue ethics.
To go deeper Aristotle suggests looking deeper at the function of human life to help clarify eudaimonia - what is good for a thing depends on the kind of thing it is.
> Aristotle put forward the idea that all humans have purposes/functions.
Good 'humans' will flourish and succeed (multiply).
Bad will not.
Like a good acorn.
Humans are the same - the good ones develop.
p42 getting a bit abstract.
On human nature Aristotle believes that humans develop just as acorns etc.
The good ones actualise or realise their potential.
> Good members of the kind realise potential.
> realising this potential for a fully rational life is human nature.
> So, the eudaimon life is when potential is fully realise to a maximally rational life.
>What is rational life?
Very broad definition.
language, imagination, relationships, drawing conclusions, etc.
>eudaimon life is fully rational. So need for link between eudaimon life and a 'life of ethical virtue'.
Need to show that an ethically virtuous life is fully rational.
link between ethically virtuous life and full rationality.
Case studies in Business Ethics
>Business ethics looked upon as a branch of irtue ethics as a whole.
>key to know the purpose of the activity of business in order to clarify how some of the virtue ethics apply in that area.
>Interestingly it is argued that this account of virtue ethics may itself have a bearing on what the internal goal of business is.
purpose > < virtue ethics
>Also considers how virtue is acquired.
2 KEY questions - What kind of life should I live? or what is the eudaion life, the happy life?
does vitue pay? What is the connection between a life of virtue and eudaimonia or happiness?
> IN order to go deeper Aristotle needed to define eudaimonia and the role of virtue in the eudaimon life.
> so what? the goal of business must be consistent with eudaimonia.
The nature of eudaimonia.
In Nicomachean Ehics (NE) Aristotle looks at eudaimonia.
Aim of all agents is good.
> Ultimate goal is eudaimonia.
however, lots of differing views about it.
> we can say what eudaimonia is not . eg. wealth. pleasure. honour.
> left with life of contemplation and life of virtue ethics.
To go deeper Aristotle suggests looking deeper at the function of human life to help clarify eudaimonia - what is good for a thing depends on the kind of thing it is.
> Aristotle put forward the idea that all humans have purposes/functions.
Good 'humans' will flourish and succeed (multiply).
Bad will not.
Like a good acorn.
Humans are the same - the good ones develop.
p42 getting a bit abstract.
On human nature Aristotle believes that humans develop just as acorns etc.
The good ones actualise or realise their potential.
> Good members of the kind realise potential.
> realising this potential for a fully rational life is human nature.
> So, the eudaimon life is when potential is fully realise to a maximally rational life.
>What is rational life?
Very broad definition.
language, imagination, relationships, drawing conclusions, etc.
>eudaimon life is fully rational. So need for link between eudaimon life and a 'life of ethical virtue'.
Need to show that an ethically virtuous life is fully rational.
link between ethically virtuous life and full rationality.
Sternberg
Case studies in business ethics
Sternberg model - ethical decision model
>decision model - moral judgements
>map - sense of direction
the decision model identifies whch problems businessmen actually need to address in their business capacities, and offer ways to resolve them.
> the model indicates what information is relevant to ethical decision making; it organises that information so that it will be more productive in leading to a decision and it specifies the ethical prnciples to be employed in the deciding what is right.
+ consistency+ clarity+ learning from experience
Sternberg's model has 5 steps
1. Clarify the issue - sometimes seems very complex
need to ask - is it relevant to business? is it relevant to this business? And is it a problem for this business? break it down further - does the issue relate to maximising long-term owner value? (this may clear up a lot of crap)
2. If it is relevant to business - is it an issue for a particular firm?
3. IDENTIFY constraints which may limit solutions. Confined by law and regulation, also contractual, economic, physical and technial.
4. Look at alternative solutions measured against profit max, distributive justice and ordinary decency. The dstributive/decency is usually quite straight forward.
p37-38 good chat about remuneration
5. Identifying the right course of action
easy - whichever path maximises profit and complies with distributive justice /ordinary decency
WHY IS IT ARISTOTELIAN???
It specifies the defintion of business in terms of purpose and then determines the proper conduct of business by reference to that definitive purpose.
That is the key point.
Sternberg model - ethical decision model
>decision model - moral judgements
>map - sense of direction
the decision model identifies whch problems businessmen actually need to address in their business capacities, and offer ways to resolve them.
> the model indicates what information is relevant to ethical decision making; it organises that information so that it will be more productive in leading to a decision and it specifies the ethical prnciples to be employed in the deciding what is right.
+ consistency+ clarity+ learning from experience
Sternberg's model has 5 steps
1. Clarify the issue - sometimes seems very complex
need to ask - is it relevant to business? is it relevant to this business? And is it a problem for this business? break it down further - does the issue relate to maximising long-term owner value? (this may clear up a lot of crap)
2. If it is relevant to business - is it an issue for a particular firm?
3. IDENTIFY constraints which may limit solutions. Confined by law and regulation, also contractual, economic, physical and technial.
4. Look at alternative solutions measured against profit max, distributive justice and ordinary decency. The dstributive/decency is usually quite straight forward.
p37-38 good chat about remuneration
5. Identifying the right course of action
easy - whichever path maximises profit and complies with distributive justice /ordinary decency
WHY IS IT ARISTOTELIAN???
It specifies the defintion of business in terms of purpose and then determines the proper conduct of business by reference to that definitive purpose.
That is the key point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
