Pieter J. D. Drenth

Decisions in Organizations: A Three-Country Comparative Study.

Introduction Theoretical Considerations Design of the Research Methods and Instruments Participation in Operational Decisions Medium- and Long-Term Decision-Making Qualitative Material to Illustrate the Process of Longitudinal Decision-Making Conclusion

A Longitudinal Study in Participative Decision-Making

A framework and method of a three-country comparative study on the process of participative decision-making is described. Research methods, models, and instruments are developed in the context of a longitudinal de-sign. The major hypotheses relate to the situationally determined relation between power decentralization, skill utilization, and effectiveness. The four-year study hopes to provide at least partial answers to some theoretical as well as practical questions in a field of considerable current controversy in Europe.

Responsible conduct in research

Science is not taken for granted any longer. Society, politics and the media pose critical questions tending to censorship or at least control of science. How does science respond? It cannot exist and develop without freedom, but this does not mean freedom to amass knowledge and apply technological applications at any price and without restrictions. Science should be autonomous, but is not value-free. A distintion is made between external and internal social/ethical problems. The former refer to questions of the social/ethical context and consequences of scientific research, and the latter to the rules of ‘good practice’ and scientific integrity. The role of academies of science, and of associations of such academies (e.g. All European Academies (ALLEA)) in developing codes of good scientific practice and fostering a proper sense of scientific values and standards is further discussed.

Cross-Cultural Organizational Psychology: Challenges and Limitations

Socialization is the process by which an individual develops his actual behaviour, influenced by what is customary and acceptable according to the standards of his group (Child, 1954). Within the total set of social stimuli a great number have an accidental and unsystematic nature. A subset however is shared by the reference group, is persistent over generations and is adaptive to changes in the physical world and social environment. One can speak of “behaviour patterns acquired and transmitted by symbols, constituting the distinctive achievements of human groups” (Brislin et al., 1973) or, somewhat more restricted, of “patterns of roles and norms embedded in certain paramount values” (Kroeber & Parsons, 1958). It will be understood that in these specifications we refer to the concept of “culture.” The social environment, therefore, plays a predominant role in the shaping of human behaviour, and important persons and institutions act as social agents in the socialization process, by making use of their reinforcement power.

Science: where do we draw the line?

Science is not taken for granted any longer. Society, politics and the media frequently pose critical questions tending to censorship or at least control of science. How does science react? On the one hand it cannot exist and develop without freedom: on the other hand this does not mean freedom to amass knowledge at any price and without restrictions. Thus, the scientist must balance freedom and ethical and social responsibility. This paper will reflect on the question of the limitations of science; who should control what and on which criteria

Research Integrity; Protecting Science, Society and Individuals

The following is a slightly revised version of a lecture presented at the RIA/IUA/HRB workshop ‘Research Integrity: Promoting and Building Trust’ at the Royal Irish Academy of Sciences, Dublin, on 24 September 2009. Various thoughts and arguments presented in this paper are also discussed in the advisory report of Working Group 2 (Code of Conduct) to the ESF Member Forum on Research Integrity.

Social Sciences: Truthful or Useful?

The theme of the 2006 IAP Conference, held at Alexandria, from 1–3 December 2006, was ‘The Unity of Science’. Let me explain how I interpret this interesting motto. For me, this does not mean that there is one regina scientiarum that rules over the other fields of science and learning; a role that was allotted to theology in olden times, and that nowadays – in a more secular vein – is claimed by physics. In my view, the notion ‘unity of science’ rather refers to ‘communality within diversity’. Disciplines vary in content, issues and methods. But there are also quite some common objectives, interests and concerns, the most important of which may be the common goal of searching for testable truth with objective and independent evidence. The communalities render it possible, or even imperative, to communicate and to cooperate. The diversity implies complementariness and calls for interdisciplinarity in the study of today’s numerous and complex phenomena in science and society.

Psychology as a Science

This paper tries to demonstrate that the truthfulness and usefulness of psychology as a science, although clearly distinguishable, can and often do go together very well. The criteria for the two concepts are relevance and veracity, respectively. Each of these criteria is further analyzed and differentiated. Together they compose a three-dimensional Knowledge-Relevance (K-R) model. This model proves to be useful in addressing various classical epistemological questions, pertaining to both the theoretical and practical dimensions of psychology. It is argued that a proper balance between pure and applied research has to be kept so as to serve the various relevant objectives of psychology as a science.

The role of an academy of sciences and humanities

In this paper the role of present day Academies of Sciences and Humanities is discussed. In spite of substantial differences in structure, task and scope between Academies, two important common objectives have united Academies throughout history: the furthering of top level scientific and scholarly research and the promotion of independence and freedom of science. It is shown how these objectives are pursued by Academies through their functioning as a platform for communication, through the promotion and sponsoring of research, and through their science and science policy advisory role. Further attention is paid to the unique contribution of the European association of national academies, All European Academies (ALLEA), to the promotion of science in Europe.

Ethics and Social Responsibility

In this article it is argued that on the one hand science should be free from external pressures, be it from ideology, religion, political or financial interests. Only facts should speak, only the logical norm should rule. On the other hand scientists, and certainly behavioral scientists, are nowadays confronted with a host of ethical, social and political questions that cannot be pushed aside with the argument that they are normative and not scientific. Ethical and normative questions arise with respect to the choice and justification of research topics, to the nature of experimentation and handling data, and to the technological or socio-political application and use of the research results. Freedom of research therefore finds its boundaries in the ethical and social responsibility of the (behavioral) scientist.