排序方式： 共有42条查询结果，搜索用时 234 毫秒
1.
2.
Can Educational Research be Scientific? 总被引：2，自引：0，他引：2
Wilfred Carr 《Journal of Philosophy of Education》1983,17(1):35-43
3.
4.
John White With responses by Wilfred Carr Richard Smith Paul Standish Terence H. McLaughlin 《Journal of Philosophy of Education》2003,37(1):147-184
In this paper John White argues that there has been a decline in interest in and support for liberalism in British philosophy of education. He provides examples of work by leading figures in the field that demonstrates scepticism about the key liberal value of autonomy and offers an analysis of new influences in the field that have contributed to this decline. In particular he notes the increase of work from a religious perspective. Doubts are expressed about the practical relevance to education of some of these avenues of thought, and the suggestion is made that they cause those within the field to be more out of touch with society at large, in which liberal values have continued to be the major source of animation. The paper is followed by short responses from four philosophers of education whose work he criticises. 相似文献
5.
Wilfred M. McClay 《Academic Questions》1993,7(1):20-28
This essay is a slightly adapted version of a talk presented to the History Disciplinary Subsection at the National Association
of Scholars general convention in San Francisco, California, 17 April 1993. 相似文献
6.
7.
The creation of new knowledge is a haphazard process: not every sector in an economy is equally involved. The effect of industry structure on innovativeness has been a focus of attention for a long time by both academics and policymakers. In a much quoted article, using unique data - new-product announcements - Acs and Audretsch [Acs, Z.J., Audretsch, D.B., 1988. Innovation in large and small firms: an empirical analysis. American Economic Review 78(4), 678-690] identified several characteristics of industry structure and their effects on innovativeness. By analyzing a new and more consciously compiled database, we re-examine their original claims. Our results largely support their findings: industry concentration and degree of unionization for instance hamper innovation; skilled labor promotes it. Our findings diverge in one significant respect from theirs: we suggest that the large firms do not contribute more to an industry’s innovativeness than small firms. At the industry level, we find strong support for the Schumpeter Mark I perspective of creative destruction by small firms rather than creative accumulation by large firms. In addition, we show that less dedicated innovators prove more susceptible to firm-external industry factors than more committed innovators. An unfavorable competitive environment decreases the likelihood that less successful innovators will announce new products. 相似文献
8.
9.
10.