Scientific Advance: Friend or Foe? :: Science Technology Essays

Scientific Advance: Friend or Foe? Scientists and non-scientists see the advances of technology in different ways. Scientists, like J. Michael Bishop, look at the possibilities technology offers while non-scientists, like Jeremy Rifkin and Mary Shelley, look at the potential chaos that could be caused by it. J. Michael Bishop is a professor of microbiology at the University of California, San Francisco. He is also winner of the Nobel Prize. He wrote, "Enemies of Promise" because he wanted to dispel the misconceptions that many people have about science, since he feels that these could have serious consequences for all Americans. Jeremy Rifkin is a well-known social activist who organized the 1968 March on the Pentagon and brought public attention to alleged U.S. war crimes in Vietnam. He is president of the nonprofit Foundation on Economic Trends. He is both criticized and admired for his condemnation on Biotechnology. Mary Shelley was the daughter of 2 influential people and became an influential writer herself in the early 1800s. Mary Shelley created a monstrous, powerful myth, which she used to warn ambitious scientists of the potential dangers contained in their creations. Her creation, Frankenstein, will forever be known as the monster that was created by Victor Frankenstein. The monster, a creature without a name of its own, that took the identity of its maker. Bishop argues that "Resistance to science is born out of fear." He blames ignorance of breeding this fear, and he blames ignorance of being, "our deepest malady" (241). Rifkin and Shelley on the other hand, accuse science of having the potential to evolve into something grotesque, monstrous and frightening. Bishop would say that this fear is born of ignorance while Rifkin and Shelley would argue it to stem from the potentiality of catastrophe, from the inability of man to predict the adaptability of nature, from the inability of man to anticipate the benefits that are likely to result from such experiments, and from the danger of acquiring knowledge and becoming greater than "his" (man's) nature will allow (321). J Michael Bishop in "Enemies of Promise" argues that we live in an age of scientific triumph in which science is mistrusted and under attack. He claims that some of the opposition to science comes from familiar sources. Some of these stem from religious fanatics who constantly push for creationism education in the public arena. These groups have a theological foundation to their opposition to the advances of science.

A Night to Remember in Mexico Essay -- Mexico Personal Narratives Viol

A Night to Remember in Mexico When the event was over, it all seemed like a blur. I didn’t know what had just happened but I knew that I didn’t like it. The night was filled with frenzy in the air and liveliness in the streets. The Security guards, and for that matter the people that we had come with, departed. My friend and I, although surrounded by masses of people, stood alone on a street corner. There I was, standing in a place that was foreign to me, in which I had only two companions. The night air slapped me in the face, and I awoke to reality. I was surrounded by drunken Americans laughing and enjoying themselves on the streets. This is a night that would be burned into my memory forever; an event that would change who I am and how I looked at life, but for now it was time to figure out how to get out of Mexico. Earlier that week I had hopped in my car and headed for my friends house in Tucson. He had told me to meet him the night before we were supposed to leave so that we could pack and then get going early the next day. When I arrived at his house, still early in the day, I greeted my friend and then proceeded to throw my bags into the back of his truck. We gathered all of our things and made sure that we had all of our items. We settled in for the night at his house, excited about what was to come. Maybe these expectations would be falsified later on sure but for now all that was in our minds was the salty sea air, and the electrified dance clubs. The next day my friend Danny and I got up early to meet the people that we would be staying with, in the house we had rented in Mexico. When Danny and I arrived at the house where these people lived, I exited the truck and looked around. From first glance there s... ...he face numerous times. This problem between the group left us all defenseless in an area where none of us could let down our guards for fear of what might happen resulting from our presence in a foreign land. The three of us were able to find a cab to take us back to the house we had been staying at. Danny told me that we needed to leave that night before Mike and Matt got back. He then continued to inform me that the two had carried guns across the border and would have no qualms with coming into the house and using them on myself and the other involved in the conflict while we were asleep. We went back to the house, packed our things and headed for the border. As a result of this experience I have started to look more carefully at my first perceptions of people and going with what I believe. I was lucky to escape from this situation, not in jail and not dead.

Research on Primates at the Zoo

[pic] A Zoo for a Primate Observation 11/15/2012 For this paper I decided to visit Zoo Atlanta to observe lowland gorillas. I got to the zoo at around eleven in the morning and found out the feeding times for the gorillas. Once I found them, after watching them for a little while I selected the most active group to go watch during feeding. The point of this trip was to make me feel as if I was doing a field laboratory observation of primate social behavior and it definitely did.As you read my paper I will include what I saw, my feelings towards it, and also any questions or facts I received during my visit from volunteers or signs throughout the exhibit. To put this paper into perspective with this anthropology class I will be using five terms that are from chapter seven to relate the field observation. I hope you enjoy my paper, cause I sure enjoyed writing it. At Zoo Atlanta there are four troops of Lowland Gorillas although only three are located on the yards right now.The three d ifferent groups are Taz's group, Ozzie's group, and the Bachelor males. While observing the different groups Taz's was the most active and therefore I decided to observe them especially during feeding. Feeding was at two fifteen in the afternoon and the feeder stood on top of the building that had a huge glass window to watch out. A volunteer gave the following information to me or I observed it for myself during my visit. Every group eats about six times a day including snacks.The most important meal being breakfast just like anatomically modern humans is served right before or right as the park opens. This meal is cute up in small pieces and scattered throughout the park so that they must forage for the food since this is what they would have to do in the wild. Before this meal they are served pre-breakfast which is considered a primate chow very similar to what dogs eat made my pedigree. They also get snacks throughout the day, mainly fruits. One thing that really shocked me is t hat they are ALL vegetarian.They are all so big and by first glance you would never imagine that. The thing that shocked me the most was during the feeding when every single gorilla got into a certain spot and that’s where he or she was fed this is mainly because they are not good at sharing, especially mothers. This process of them learning that they must get into their own spot is a great example of enculturation. Enculturation is the process of learning culture and transmitting it throughout generations. The last thing with feeding is that they do a process called RNR if they are still hungry.This act is known as regurgitation and re-eating. As nasty as that sounds they do it over and over until they are finally full. One crazy interesting fact is that on an average day a male gorilla consumes sixty-six pounds of vegetation a day. Other than food, other interesting things I found were the similarities of the lowland gorillas compared to humans. Can you believe they take th e same medications as us? Well they do! They take heart medications due to genetic heart problems and see cardiologist just like us.Another similarity is when females are pregnant, there pregnancy last just about the same length of time, eight to nine months and they have only one at a time. One of their females actually had twins within the last couple years and the lady I spoke with kept repeating herself at how rare twins are between gorillas. She made a joke and I thought it was kind of funny, she said â€Å"she gave birth on Halloween so I think that was her way of saying â€Å"trick or treat†. The Atlanta Zoo is actually the only zoo with mother-reared twins, isn’t that awesome?Another thing is when the little gorillas were playing they were pretty rough just like little kids are when they are playing around. This is more of a comparison than a similarity but a sign in the zoo in the area that the gorillas were in, said â€Å"Gorilla’s have distinct nose prints like humans have distinct fingerprints. † Just like when the police are trying to identify someone they use fingerprints, well when people are trying to identify the gorilla they can use the different nose prints. I am now going to tell you what I learned while at the zoo and I will start that with the gorilla’s social behaviors.First off the gorillas were in the back of the park in the Ford African Rain Forest. Ford Company sponsors this area and they actually named one of the gorillas, Henry Ford. The first group I observed was the Bachelor’s and only two were out that you could see but three is apart of the yard. Their names are Stadi, Kekla, and Charlie. The two that were showing any social interest was Kekla and Charlie according to the volunteer but all they did was either sit down or move from branch to branch and sit again. I decided to move on after about ten minutes and that is when I saw Taz’s group.This group was constantly moving aroun d, playing, â€Å"being rough†, climbing on rock figures set up for them in the exhibit, eating leaves, or relaxing in the sunshine. Henry Ford is also apart of Taz’s group. Gorillas live in families of two to twenty members, with usually one being male and the rest female and offspring. This is exactly the case with Taz’s group. There is nine altogether and I will list them from oldest to youngest: Kuchi, Taz, Kudzoo, Sukari, Lulu, Kazi, Macy B, Henry, and Merry Leigh (Willie B’s granddaughter).Within that group Taz is the only male other than Henry who is his offspring. Since these gorillas were actively on the move I did get the chance to hear and see a couple noises they make. The first was when Henry started running it sounded almost like drums, but vocally I did not hear anything and I asked the attendant and she said that all you really ever hear is them running around. The other thing that caught my attention that I thought was so cute was when Me rry Leigh came up to the glass and thumped her chest.I thought that only happened it movies but it was the cutest thing. The volunteer said that this is her way of showing that she is the cutest one out there but can also be a sign to intimidate. Before Taz’s group was fed I observed their behavior for a couple hours. They were active especially compared to the Bachelor’s. The first thing I noticed was that Taz was sitting to the left of everyone at the back close to the fence/window. This brought me to question why and I was assured it was due to him being the â€Å"silverback† of the group.That means he is the protector, which is the father’s place. He sits there just about all day watching to make sure everything is going smoothly and that no one is acting up or is unsafe. He makes sure everyone is cooperating or using cooperative behavior. Just like in human families how the dad’s are the protectors it is the same scenario here. The children or â€Å"baby† gorillas played with each other throwing their arms around on each other while the mothers sat and watched. When they were done playing they would go climb on things or just be active.During my visit there was no conflict but at any point it could arise but the father, in this case Taz would take care of it. Some really interesting facts I found are that they do not have to drink water because they receive enough in their diet, although they are the largest primates. The average male gorilla weighs about three to four hundred pounds and can end up being six foot tall. Gorilla’s love sleep and an important thing to them is making a new nest to sleep in every night. As long as they stay healthy, especially ones in captivity can live to their late forties to early fifties.Overall, these little, well should I say big fellows are becoming endangered and unfortunately there is only about one hundred thousand left running around in the wild. One thing that really stuck out to me was that they have opposing thumbs, which is used for grasping and climbing. The full definition for opposing thumb is a thumb that can touch all the other fingers. Also, they see in color and in three-dimensional. Not only are they unique but also smart. At this point, they are undergoing cultural transmission along with the orangutans, which is a transmission through learning, basic to language.Overall, I must say they are very interesting mammals. In this paper I went over the socialization of lowland gorillas, along with their eating habits, similarities to humans, and also included some random facts in that I thought were very interesting. This trip to the zoo was enjoyed to the fullest and I hope this paper reflects that. Lowland Gorilla’s are actually very interesting and there is a lot more to them than I ever expected. Learning all this stuff about the gorillas makes me wonder what all I am really missing out there and what else there is to know abou t everything.Gorillas, lowland in particular live in troops usually with one head male and the rest females with offspring. They usually reach three hundred to four hundred pounds and have only one baby at a time. Their pregnancies last for nine months or just about, just like humans. They eat their vegetarian meals about six times a day, and do not have to drink water to survive because they receive enough in their meal. Some seem very active, especially younger ones while the bachelor troop seemed very laid back but that may be because they are older.On average, gorillas range from two to twenty per troop but the biggest I saw on my trip was nine. They can take prescription medications just like you and me! Even have some of the same problems such as cardiovascular problems and arthritis. Overall, we are very much alike although the chimpanzees are the closest versions of mammal to us. They have their own forms of communication, birth is very similar, we eat some of the same thing s, take some of the same medication, can reach the same heights, and we all have bodies with hair.This has definitely opened my eyes to things I have never seen or thought of before but learning new things is great so I believe this experience was well worth the price. My impressions of the zoo was that it was very well maintained and clean, yet kind of pricy but I understand that they need to make money to feed those beautiful animals. I enjoyed this assignment a lot, and I am glad I had the opportunity to do this. ———————– One of my favorite pictures I took at Zoo Atlanta while observing Taz’s group.

History of Personal Computers

History of the Personal Computer Introduction: The history of the personal computer is vast and complex. As computers continue to develop, each development brings greater opportunities and challenges to the world of computing. ————————————————- Learn how it all started and where it has led to in today’s world. Quiz 1. The first accurate mechanical calculator was invented in 1642 by __________. a. Charles Babbage b. Blaise Pascal c. Joseph Marie Jacquard d. Herman Hollerith 2. In 1993, the invention of which browser allowed Internet users to view multimedia files? e. Netscape Navigator . Internet Explorer g. Opera h. Mosaic 3. In 1975, Popular Electronics magazine advertised the __________ as the first computer available for personal use. i. Altair j. Apple Lisa k. IBM l. ENIAC 4. The principal features of the graphical user interface were developed by __________. m. Apple n. Microsoft o. Lotus p. Xerox 5. The __________, which can alter its electric state between on and off, is the basic building block for computer circuitry. q. Processor r. Circuit s. Transistor t. Microprocessor 6. Released in 1979, the first word processing application for personal computers was __________. . Word v. WordAssistant w. WordPerfect x. WordStar 7. Built in 1939, the __________ computer was the first to use vacuum tubes instead of mechanical switches to store binary data. y. ENIAC z. Altair {. Atanasoff-Berry |. IBM 8. Which computer was the first to use magnetic storage tape instead of punched cards? }. UNIVAC ~. ENIAC . Altair . ADA 9. The __________ is considered to be the first successful high-speed electronic digital computer. . Hollerith tabulating machine . Jacquard loom . ENIAC . Pascaline calculator 10. Who is considered the first computer programmer? Charles Babbage . Herman Hollerith . Grace Hopper . Ada Lovelace Projects Interviews Task: Interview pe ople of varying ages to find out how computers were used when they were in their childhood. Assignment: Interview four people of varying age ranges to find out how computers were used when they were in their childhood. Write a summary of how computers were used during their childhood. History of the Computer Task: View the history of the computer. Assignment: Visit www. pbs. org/nerds/timeline and view the history of the computer.Write a short description of the events during each of the following phases. 1. Prehistory 2. Electronics 3. Mini 4. Micro 5. Network The 1952 Presidential Election Task: We trust our lives to computers. They control planes in flight, calculate our payrolls, and monitor vital hospital equipment. It was not always this way, though. Let’s look at a computer’s role in predicting the 1952 presidential election. Assignment: Visit www. wired. com/science/discoveries/news/2008/11/dayintech_1104 to see what trust was placed in an early computer. 1. Wh at computer was used to predict the 1952 election? 2.Which network used the computer during a live broadcast of the election results? 3. Although the broadcast was from New York City, where was the computer located? 4. Who was predicted by preelection polls to be the winner? 5. Who did the computer predict the winner to be? 6. What were the numbers of electoral votes predicted to be? 7. What were the odds that this candidate would have even the minimum 266 electoral votes to win? 8. How did the news department respond to this information? 9. What were the final electoral vote counts, and what was the percentage of error from the initial prediction?

Planned Approach to Change Essay

The work of Kurt Lewin dominated the theory and practice of change management for over 40 years. However, in the past 20 years, Lewin’s approach to change, particularly the 3-Step model, has attracted major criticisms. The key ones are that his work: assumed organizations operate in a stable state; was only suitable for small-scale change projects; ignored organizational power and politics; and was top-down and management-driven. This article seeks to re-appraise Lewin’s work and challenge the validity of these views. It begins by describing Lewin’s background and beliefs, especially his commitment to resolving social conï ¬â€šict. The article then moves on to examine the main elements of his Planned approach to change: Field Theory; Group Dynamics; Action Research; and the 3-Step model. This is followed by a brief summary of the major developments in the ï ¬ eld of organizational change since Lewin’s death which, in turn, leads to an examination of the main criticisms levelled at Lewin’s work. The article concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated or redundant, Lewin’s approach is still relevant to the modern world. INTRODUCTION Freud the clinician and Lewin the experimentalist – these are the two men whose names will stand out before all others in the history of our psychological era.  The above quotation is taken from Edward C Tolman’s memorial address for Kurt Lewin delivered at the 1947 Convention of the American Psychological Association (quoted in Marrow, 1969, p. ix). To many people today it will seem strange that Lewin should have been given equal status with Freud. Some 50 years after his death, Lewin is now mainly remembered as the originator of the 3-Step model of change USA. Address for reprints: Bernard Burnes, Manchester School of Management, UMIST, Manchester M60 1QD, UK (Bernard.Burnes@umist.ac.uk).dismissed as outdated (Burnes, 2000; Dawson, 1994; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Hatch, 1997; Kanter et al., 1992; Marshak, 1993). Yet, as this article will argue, his contribution to our understanding of individual and group behaviour and the role these play in organizations and society was enormous and is still relevant. In today’s turbulent and changing world, one might expect Lewin’s pioneering work on change to be seized upon with gratitude, especially given the high failure rate of many change programmes (Huczynski and Buchanan, 2001; Kearney, 1989; Kotter, 1996; Stickland, 1998; Waclawski, 2002; Wastell et al., 1994; Watcher, 1993; Whyte and Watcher, 1992; Zairi et al., 1994). Unfortunately, his commitment to extending democratic values in society and his work on Field Theory, Group Dynamics and Action Research which, together with his 3-Step model, formed an inter-linked, elaborate and robust approach to Planned change, have received less and less attention (Ash, 1992; Bargal et al., 1992; Cooke, 1999). Indeed, from the 1980s, even Lewin’s work on change was increasingly criticized as relevant only to small-scale changes in stable conditions, and for ignoring issues such as organizational politics and conï ¬â€šict. In its place, writers sought to promote a view of change as being constant, and as a political process within organizations (Dawson, 1994; Pettigrew et al., 1992; Wilson, 1992). The purpose of this article is to re-appraise Lewin and his work.. The article begins by describing Lewin’s background, especially the origins of his commitment to resolving social conï ¬â€šict. It then moves on to examine the main elements of his Planned approach to change. This is followed by a description of developments in the ï ¬ eld of organizational change since Lewin’s death, and an evaluation of the criticisms levelled against his work. The article concludes by arguing that rather than being outdated, Lewin’s Planned approach is still very relevant to the needs of the modern world. LEWIN’S BACKGROUND Few social scientists can have received the level of praise and admiration  that has been heaped upon Kurt Lewin (Ash, 1992; Bargal et al., 1992; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; Dickens and Watkins, 1999; Tobach, 1994). As Edgar Schein (1988, p. 239) enthusiastically commented: There is little question that the intellectual father of contemporary theories of applied behavioural science, action research and planned change is Kurt Lewin. His seminal work on leadership style and the experiments on planned change which took place in World War II in an effort to change consumer behaviour launched a whole generation of research in group dynamics and the implementation of change programs. 978 B. Burnes  © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004For most of his life, Lewin’s main preoccupation was the resolution of social con- ï ¬â€šict and, in particular, the problems of minority or disadvantaged groups. Underpinning this preoccupation was a strong belief that only the permeation of democratic values into all facets of society could prevent the worst extremes of social conï ¬â€šict. As his wife wrote in the Preface to a volume of his collected work published after his death: Kurt Lewin was so constantly and predominantly preoccupied with the task of advancing the conceptual representation of the social-psychological world, and at the same time he was so ï ¬ lled with the urgent desire to use his theoretical insight for the building of a better world, that it is difï ¬ cult to decide which of these two sources of motivation ï ¬â€šowed with greater energy or vigour. (Lewin, 1948b) To a large extent, his interests and beliefs stemmed from his background as a German Jew. Lewin was born in 1890 and, for a Jew growing up in Germany, at this time, ofï ¬ cially-approved anti-Semitism was a fact of life. Few Jews could expect to achieve a responsible post in the civil service or universities. Despite this, Lewin was awarded a doctorate at the University of Berlin in 1916 and went on to teach there. Though he was never awarded tenured status, Lewin achieved a growing international reputation in the 1920s as a leader in his ï ¬ eld (Lewin, 1992). However, with the rise of the Nazi Party, Lewin recognized that the position of Jews in Germany was  increasingly threatened. The election of Hitler as Chancellor in 1933 was the ï ¬ nal straw for him; he resigned from the University and moved to America (Marrow, 1969). In America, Lewin found a job ï ¬ rst as a ‘refugee scholar’ at Cornell University and then, from 1935 to 1945, at the University of Iowa. Here he was to embark on an ambitious programme of research which covered topics such as child-parent relations, conï ¬â€šict in marriage, styles of leadership, worker motivation and performance, conï ¬â€šict in industry, group problem-solving, communication and attitude change, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-racism, discrimination and prejudice, integration-segregation, peace, war and poverty (Bargal et al., 1992; Cartwright, 1952; Lewin, 1948a). As Cooke (1999) notes, given the prevalence of racism and antiSemitism in America at the time, much of this work, especially his increasingly public advocacy in support of disadvantaged groups, put Lewin on the political left. During the years of the Second World War, Lewin did much work for the American war effort. This included studies of the morale of front-line troops and psychological warfare, and his famous study aimed at persuading American housewives to buy cheaper cuts of meat (Lewin, 1943a; Marrow, 1969). He was also much in demand as a speaker on minority and inter-group relations Kurt Lewin 979  © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004(Smith, 2001). These activities chimed with one of his central preoccupations, which was how Germany’s authoritarian and racist culture could be replaced with one imbued with democratic values. He saw democracy, and the spread of democratic values throughout society, as the central bastion against authoritarianism and despotism. That he viewed the establishment of democracy as a major task, and avoided simplistic and structural recipes, can be gleaned from the following extracts from his article on ‘The special case of Germany’ (Lewin, 1943b): Nazi culture . . . is deeply rooted, particularly in the youth on whom the . . . future depends. It is a culture which is centred around power as the supreme value and which denounces justice and equality . . . (p. 43) To be  stable, a cultural change has to penetrate all aspects of a nation’s life. The change must, in short, be a change in the ‘cultural atmosphere,’ not merely a change of a single item. (p. 46) Change in culture requires the change of leadership forms in every walk of life. At the start, particularly important is leadership in those social areas which are fundamental from the point of view of power. (p. 55) With the end of the War, Lewin established the Research Center for Group Dynamics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The aim of the Center was to investigate all aspects of group behaviour, especially how it could be changed. At the same time, he was also chief architect of the Commission on Community Interrelations (CCI). Founded and funded by the American Jewish Congress, its aim was the eradication of discrimination against all minority groups. As Lewin wrote at the time, ‘We Jews will have to ï ¬ ght for ourselves and we will do so strongly and with good conscience. We also know that the ï ¬ ght of the Jews is part of the ï ¬ ght of all minorities for democratic equality of rights and opportunities . . .’ (quoted in Marrow, 1969, p. 175). In pursuing this objective, Lewin believed that his work on Group Dynamics and Action Research would provide the key tools for the CCI. Lewin was also inï ¬â€šuential in establishing the Tavistock Institute in the UK and its Journal, Human Relations ( Jaques, 1998; Marrow, 1969). In addition, in 1946, the Connecticut State Inter-Racial Commission asked Lewin to help train leaders and conduct research on the most effective means of combating racial and religious prejudice in communities. This led to the development of sensitivity training and the creation, in 1947, of the now famous National Training Laboratories. However, his huge workload took its toll on his health, and on 11 February 1947 he died of a heart attack (Lewin, 1992). 980 B. Burnes  © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004LEWIN’S WORK Lewin was a humanitarian who believed that only by resolving social conï ¬â€šict, whether it be religious, racial, marital or industrial, could the human condition be improved. Lewin believed that the key to resolving social  conï ¬â€šict was to facilitate learning and so enable individuals to understand and restructure their perceptions of the world around them. In this he was much inï ¬â€šuenced by the Gestalt psychologists he had worked with in Berlin (Smith, 2001). A unifying theme of much of his work is the view that ‘. . . the group to which an individual belongs is the ground for his perceptions, his feelings and his actions’ (Allport, 1948, p. vii). Though Field Theory, Group Dynamics, Action Research and the 3-Step model of change are often treated as separate themes of his work, Lewin saw them as a uniï ¬ ed whole with each element supporting and reinforcing the others and all of them necessary to understand and bring about Planned change, whether it be at the level of the individual, group, organization or even society (Bargal and Bar, 1992; Kippenberger, 1998a, 1998b; Smith, 2001). As Allport (1948, p. ix) states: ‘All of his concepts, whatever root-metaphor they employ, comprise a single wellintegrated system’. This can be seen from examining these four aspects of his work in turn. Field Theory This is an approach to understanding group behaviour by trying to map out the totality and complexity of the ï ¬ eld in which the behaviour takes place (Back, 1992). Lewin maintained that to understand any situation it was necessary that: ‘One should view the present situation – the status quo – as being maintained by certain conditions or forces’ (Lewin, 1943a, p. 172). Lewin (1947b) postulated that group behaviour is an intricate set of symbolic interactions and forces that not only affect group structures, but also modify individual behaviour. Therefore, individual behaviour is a function of the group environment or ‘ï ¬ eld’, as he termed it. Consequently, any changes in behaviour stem from changes, be they small or large, in the forces within the ï ¬ eld (Lewin, 1947a). Lewin deï ¬ ned a ï ¬ eld as ‘a totality of coexisting facts which are conceived of as mutually interdependent . . .’ (Lewin, 1946, p. 240). Lewin believed that a ï ¬ eld was in a continuous state of adaptation and that ‘Change and constancy are relative concepts; group life is never without change, merely differences in the amount and type of change exist’ (Lewin, 1947a, p. 199). This is why Lewin used the term ‘quasi-stationary equilibrium’ to indicate that whilst there might be a rhythm and pattern to the behaviour and processes of a group, these tended  to ï ¬â€šuctuate constantly owing to changes in the forces or circumstances that impinge on the group. Lewin’s view was that if one could identify, plot and establish the potency of these forces, then it would be possible not only to understand why individuals, Kurt Lewin 981  Ã‚ © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004groups and organizations act as they do, but also what forces would need to be diminished or strengthened in order to bring about change. In the main, Lewin saw behavioural change as a slow process; however, he did recognize that under certain circumstances, such as a personal, organizational or societal crisis, the various forces in the ï ¬ eld can shift quickly and radically. In such situations, established routines and behaviours break down and the status quo is no longer viable; new patterns of activity can rapidly emerge and a new equilibrium (or quasistationary equilibrium) is formed (Kippenberger, 1998a; Lewin, 1947a). Despite its obvious value as a vehicle for understanding and changing group behaviour, with Lewin’s death, the general interest in Field Theory waned (Back, 1992; Gold, 1992; Hendry, 1996). However, in recent years, with the work of Argyris (1990) and Hirschhorn (1988) on understanding and overcoming resistance to change, Lewin’s work on Field Theory has once again begun to attract interest. According to Hendry (1996), even critics of Lewin’s work have drawn on Field Theory to develop their own models of change (see Pettigrew et al., 1989, 1992). Indeed, parallels have even been drawn between Lewin’s work and the work of complexity theorists (Kippenberger, 1998a). Back (1992), for example, argued that the formulation and behaviour of complex systems as described by Chaos and Catastrophe theorists bear striking similarities to Lewin’s conceptualization of Field Theory. Nevertheless, Field Theory is now probably the least understood element of Lewin’s work, yet, because of its potential to map the forces impinging on an individual, group or organization, it underpinned the other elements of his work. Group Dynamics the word ‘dynamics’ . . . comes from a Greek word meaning force . . . ‘group . . . dynamics’ refers to the forces operating in groups . . . it is a  study of these forces: what gives rise to them, what conditions modify them, what consequences they have, etc. (Cartwright, 1951, p. 382) Lewin was the ï ¬ rst psychologist to write about ‘group dynamics’ and the importance of the group in shaping the behaviour of its members (Allport, 1948; Bargal et al., 1992). Indeed, Lewin’s (1939, p. 165) deï ¬ nition of a ‘group’ is still generally accepted: ‘. . . it is not the similarity or dissimilarity of individuals that constitutes a group, but interdependence of fate’. As Kippenberger (1998a) notes, Lewin was addressing two questions: What is it about the nature and characteristics of a particular group which causes it to respond (behave) as it does to the forces which impinge on it, and how can these forces be changed in order to elicit a more desirable form of behaviour? It was to address these questions that Lewin began to develop the concept of Group Dynamics. Group Dynamics stresses that group behaviour, rather than that of individuals, should be the main focus of change (Bernstein, 1968; Dent and Goldberg, 1999). Lewin (1947b) maintained that it is fruitless to concentrate on changing the behaviour of individuals because the individual in isolation is constrained by group pressures to conform. Consequently, the focus of change must be at the group level and should concentrate on factors such as group norms, roles, interactions and socialization processes to create ‘disequilibrium’ and change (Schein, 1988). Lewin’s pioneering work on Group Dynamics not only laid the foundations for our understanding of groups (Cooke, 1999; Dent and Goldberg, 1999; French and Bell, 1984; Marrow, 1969; Schein, 1988) but has also been linked to complexity theories by researchers examining self-organizing theory and non-linear systems (Tschacher and Brunner, 1995). However, understanding the internal dynamics of a group is not sufï ¬ cient by itself to bring about change. Lewin also recognized the need to provide a process whereby the members could be engaged in and committed to changing their behaviour. This led Lewin to develop Action Research and the 3-Step model of change. Action Research This term was coined by Lewin (1946) in an article entitled ‘Action research and minority problems’. Lewin stated in the article: In the last year and a half I have had occasion to have contact with a great variety of organizations, institutions, and individuals who came for help in the ï ¬ eld of group relations. (Lewin, 1946, p. 201) However, though these people exhibited . . .  a great amount of good-will, of readiness to face the problem squarely and . . . really do something about it . . . These eager people feel themselves to be in a fog. They feel in a fog on three counts: 1. What is the present situation? 2. What are the dangers? 3. And most importantly of all, what shall we do? (Lewin, 1946, p. 201) Lewin conceived of Action Research as a two-pronged process which would allow groups to address these three questions. Firstly, it emphasizes that change requires action, and is directed at achieving this. Secondly, it recognizes that successful action is based on analysing the situation correctly, identifying all the possible alternative solutions and choosing the one most appropriate to the situation at hand (Bennett, 1983). To be successful, though, there has also to be a ‘felt-need’. FeltKurt Lewin 983  © Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2004need is an individual’s inner realization that change is necessary. If felt-need is low in the group or organization, introducing change becomes problematic. The theoretical foundations of Action Research lie in Gestalt psychology, which stresses that change can only successfully be achieved by helping individuals to reï ¬â€šect on and gain new insights into the totality of their situation. Lewin (1946, p. 206) stated that Action Research ‘. . . proceeds in a spiral of steps each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action, and fact-ï ¬ nding about the results of the action.’ It is an iterative process whereby research leads to action and action leads to evaluation and further research. As Schein (1996, p. 64) comments, it was Lewin’s view that ‘. . . one cannot understand an organization without trying to change it . . .’ Indeed, Lewin’s view was very much that the understanding and learning which this process produces for the individuals and groups concerned, which then feeds into changed  behaviour, is more important than any resulting change as such (Lewin, 1946). To this end, Action Research draws on Lewin’s work on Field Theory to identify the forces that focus on the group to which the individual belongs. It also draws on Group Dynamics to understand why group members behave in the way they do when subjected to these forces. Lewin stressed that the routines and patterns of behaviour in a group are more than just the outcome of opposing forces in a forceï ¬ eld. They have a value in themselves and have a positive role to play in enforcing group norms (Lewin, 1947a). Action Research stresses that for change to be effective, it must take place at the group level, and must be a participative and collaborative process which involves all of those concerned (Allport, 1948; Bargal et al., 1992; French and Bell, 1984; Lewin, 1947b).

The Scottish Enlightenment Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

The Scottish Enlightenment - Essay Example This paper is therefore divided into two parts. The first part of this paper analyses and explains the philosophical explanations of human nature and the development of the mental process and how those ideas reflected concepts and ideas during the Scottish Enlightenment. The second part of this paper analyses how the decision in Knight v Wedderburn reflects an expression of these philosophical underpinnings. I. The Scottish Enlightenment Moral philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment were strong advocates of natural law and morality. Lord Kames in particular expressed the view that man was governed not only by the laws of the land but also by the â€Å"laws of nature† both morally and physically.6 Essentially it was predicted that the natural progression of man was based on an empirical analysis of the mental processes which was developed over time. This natural progression was predicated on the belief that man was by nature a rational being with the ability to pursue what h e or she desired in a moral way.7 By taking this approach to nature and morality, moral philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment

Compare newsreels to television news today. What do they have in Essay

Compare newsreels to television news today. What do they have in common and how do they differ - Essay Example But newsreels were not access centered. It was about bringing news even if not everyone was able to see it as newsreels were only available in movie theatres - and not in all movie theatres. This fact is also important for another characteristic. Television news today brings us the latest news. We are connected to the entire globe and we are told events that may have occurred a couple of minutes earlier. It was not the case for newsreels which brought images of events which were sometimes one or two weeks old. It was therefore impossible to receive instantaneous news as it is today, and live news could only be a dream for the decades to come. This dream come true thanks to the development of other Medias that help the broadcasting and the making of television news. Comparing newsreels and television news is not only a matter of accessibility. We also have to consider the format. The newsreels were often short, no longer than fifteen minutes. Today, television news can be an hour long and can present - with more details - several events that happened during the day. Newsreels were often commented by an off voice who only described the playing images. In television news there is one - or sometimes two TV hosts - who introduce the subject.