Search

The basic hypothesis of this paper is that occupational group ties are stronger in Britain than in the United States. A number of test implications are inferred from this hypothesis and the relevant evidence on each of these, to be found in existing comparative studies, is presented. Occupations in the two countries are first compared as independent collectivities with respect to their autonomy, socialization, colleague relationships, deviance, and occupational identity. They are then considered within their normal organizational environment, and the differences between the two countries in the relationship between these occupational groups and the administration of the organization are compared. Three types of organization are distinguished: where one group forms a large majority, where two groups are approximately equal, and where one or more groups form a small minority. Some proposals are made for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reports on a study of the scientific output of British University chemists. The relationships between three different aspects of scientists' work (quantity, quality and industrial orientation) were examined, and whilst quantity and quality were highly correlated, industrial orientation appeared to represent a different dimension of research performance. Quality of output was the best Predictor of the recognition received by a chemist from the scientific community (in terms of medals, appointment to advisory committees, etc), his industrial involvement much the least good. It appears that a minority of British university chemists are oriented towards the industrial, rather than the basic research community in terms of their contributions and of their rewards. The influence of institutional affiliation upon recognition, for a given level of output, was examined. As in studies of American scientists, but in contrast to earlier work on British ones, institutional affiliation did appear to influence the recognition received. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes and interprets the role of directors in industrial relations specifically. It will not consider the various macro-theoretical conceptions of the directors' place in industrial society. Writing about directors has already suffered from an excess of deduction and a paucity of data.[3] From the perspective of industrial relations, the purpose is to start the presentation of empirical findings about the management side for which so many have been calling in reviews of the field. This article follows what Margerison called the behavioural, as opposed to the institutional, approach to the subject.[4] From the perspective of sociology, what follows is an expanded description, applied to directors, of Lockwood's concept of 'the work situation'.[5]
After a brief discussion of research methods, the first section deals with the nature and extent of relations between directors and workers; the second with the two basic orientations which directors manifest towards workers and which shape the behaviour of lower management; the third considers the sources of directors' knowledge about industrial relations; the fourth some consequences of their relative ignorance; and the concluding section suggests that this isolation and ignorance form part of a strategy for industrial relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article attempts to examine the concept of authority in relation to social casework. The possibility of applying sociological concepts to social casework for the purpose of building up a systematic and acceptable body of theory have not been fully explored. There have been dissidents, particularly within Great Britain, who have exposed the weaknesses inherent in the psychoanalytic approach. Much criticism centers upon the concept of the unconscious, a pivot of Freudian based casework theory, the logical corollary of which is a denial of the possibilities of making rational and responsible choices. An outcome of the development of these ideas is that casework is now frequently regarded as arising entirely out of the relationship between the client and the worker. Other criticisms hinge upon the adoption by caseworkers of an attitude of moral neutrality that is concomitant with a belief that "adjustment" to established social norms, social relationships and economic circumstances is the objective of "treatment." It has been hoped to show that the solution of a client's problem may well depend upon a renunciation of, or a change in, the norms of his own sub-culture, the more skilful management of personal relationships, or the alleviation of other environmental pressures, all of which involves both the making of value judgments and the assumption that the client is capable of rational behavior.