scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

T. A. A. Broadbent

Bio: T. A. A. Broadbent is an academic researcher. The author has contributed to research in topics: Criticism. The author has an hindex of 1, co-authored 1 publications receiving 2809 citations.
Topics: Criticism

Papers
More filters

Cited by
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors discuss the doctrinal content of the group of ideas known as "New Public Management" (NPM), the intellectual provenance of those ideas, explanations for their apparent persuasiveness in the 1980 s; and criticisms which have been made of the new doctrines.
Abstract: This article discusses: the doctrinal content of the group of ideas known as ‘new public management’(NPM); the intellectual provenance of those ideas; explanations for their apparent persuasiveness in the 1980 s; and criticisms which have been made of the new doctrines. Particular attention is paid to the claim that NPM offers an all-purpose key to better provision of public services. This article argues that NFM has been most commonly criticized in terms of a claimed contradiction between ‘equity’ and ‘efficiency’ values, but that any critique which is to survive NPM's claim to ‘infinite reprogrammability’ must be couched in terms of possible conflicts between administrative values. The conclusion is that the ESRC'S Management in Government’ research initiative has been more valuable in helping to identify rather than to definitively answer, the key conceptual questions raised by NPM.

7,919 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, a variety of analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of international cooperation, but the approaches have yielded only fragmentary insights, focusing on the technical aspects of a specific problem, how do they define state interests and develop viable solutions? What factors shape their behavior? Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the origins of international institutions? And how can we best study the processes through which international policy coordination and order emerge?
Abstract: The growing technical uncertainties and complexities of problems of global concern have made international policy coordination not only increasingly necessary but also increasingly difficult. If decision makers are unfamiliar with the technical aspects of a specific problem, how do they define state interests and develop viable solutions? What factors shape their behavior? Under conditions of uncertainty, what are the origins of international institutions? And how can we best study the processes through which international policy coordination and order emerge? While a variety of analytic approaches have been used to address the problems of international cooperation, the approaches have yielded only fragmentary insights. At its core, the study of policy coordination among states involves arguments about determinism versus free will and about the ways in which the international system is maintained and transformed. Among the overlapping topics of debate are whether national behavior is determined or broadly conditioned by system-level factors, unit-level factors, or some complex interplay between the two; whether state policymakers can identify national interests and behave independently of pressures from the social groups they nominally represent; and whether states respond consistently to opportunities to create, defend, or expand their own wealth and power, to enhance collective material benefits, or to promote nonmaterial values.' A related question of

5,854 citations

01 Jan 2011
TL;DR: To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology the authors require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind.
Abstract: Evolutionary psychology is one of many biologically informed approaches to the study of human behavior. Along with cognitive psychologists, evolutionary psychologists propose that much, if not all, of our behavior can be explained by appeal to internal psychological mechanisms. What distinguishes evolutionary psychologists from many cognitive psychologists is the proposal that the relevant internal mechanisms are adaptations—products of natural selection—that helped our ancestors get around the world, survive and reproduce. To understand the central claims of evolutionary psychology we require an understanding of some key concepts in evolutionary biology, cognitive psychology, philosophy of science and philosophy of mind. Philosophers are interested in evolutionary psychology for a number of reasons. For philosophers of science —mostly philosophers of biology—evolutionary psychology provides a critical target. There is a broad consensus among philosophers of science that evolutionary psychology is a deeply flawed enterprise. For philosophers of mind and cognitive science evolutionary psychology has been a source of empirical hypotheses about cognitive architecture and specific components of that architecture. Philosophers of mind are also critical of evolutionary psychology but their criticisms are not as all-encompassing as those presented by philosophers of biology. Evolutionary psychology is also invoked by philosophers interested in moral psychology both as a source of empirical hypotheses and as a critical target.

4,670 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The framework indicates ways in which researchers in information systems and other fields may properly lay claim to generalizability, and thereby broader relevance, even when their inquiry falls outside the bounds of sampling-based research.
Abstract: Generalizability is a major concern to those who do, and use, research. Statistical, sampling-based generalizability is well known, but methodologists have long been aware of conceptions of generalizability beyond the statistical. The purpose of this essay is to clarify the concept of generalizability by critically examining its nature, illustrating its use and misuse, and presenting a framework for classifying its different forms. The framework organizes the different forms into four types, which are defined by the distinction between empirical and theoretical kinds of statements. On the one hand, the framework affirms the bounds within which statistical, sampling-based generalizability is legitimate. On the other hand, the framework indicates ways in which researchers in information systems and other fields may properly lay claim to generalizability, and thereby broader relevance, even when their inquiry falls outside the bounds of sampling-based research.

1,570 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
01 Jan 2004

1,412 citations