Order ID | 53563633773 |
Type | Essay |
Writer Level | Masters |
Style | APA |
Sources/References | 4 |
Perfect Number of Pages to Order | 5-10 Pages |
Racial Differences in Intelligence Assignment
After carefully reading the article you chose in this unit’s second study, prepare a paper about the controversy that began when Arthur Jensen published an article about racial differences in intelligence. Present both sides of the argument, then evaluate which side has the stronger position. Find at least one other scholarly article from the Capella University Library to support your argument. Make sure to reference all articles and other resources you use in APA (6th edition) format.
Arthur Robert Jensen, Professor Emeritus of educational psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, is known for his work on how and why individuals differ, behaviorally, from one another. In the nature-versus-nurture debate, Jensen is a major proponent of the hereditarian position, which concludes genetics play a significant role in behavioral traits and intelligence.
Jensen’s most controversial work was published in 1969 in the Harvard Educational Review. It was titled How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement? Among other things, Jensen (Indiana University, 2007) concluded that “racial differences in average IQ scores are not due to any ‘culture unfairness’ intrinsic to the tests.” The work ignited a firestorm of controversy and became one of the most contentious papers in the history of intelligence research.
Locate at least two articles through the Capella Library databases and other electronic resources about the controversy surrounding intelligence and race. Choose one article that supports the racial difference position and one that opposes it. Each article you reference should have the proper citations. Resources and citations should be formatted according to APA (6th edition) style and formatting. You will use this research to complete the Unit 4 assignment.
Reference
Indiana University. (2007). Human Intelligence: Arthur Jensen. Retrieved from http://www.intelltheory.com/jensen.shtml
They must, therefore, find a way of satisfying objectives of economic competitiveness and of environmental protection at the same time. In the former approach, environmental questions are seen as a restriction, introduced by the legislator, on the firm’s main objective (economic competitiveness), while, in the latter, pressure from society is what forces the firm to accept its responsibility in terms of environmental deterioration. In both cases, the company’s environmental policy is guided both by legal sanctions (fines and civil or penal responsibility) and by social sanctions (protests, loss of reputation and image). The peculiarity of environmental strategy lies in the fact that it combines a social dimension with a technical dimension. The relevance of the social dimension is that the environment is a public good and all the internal and external stakeholders have some form of interest in it, though not necessarily coinciding (Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999). Technical and economic aspects are also highly relevant, since environmental protection challenges the way corporations handle material resources and produce goods and services. It has a direct effect on production processes and product development. The role of environmental decisions in the operations area must be analyzed within the general context of the firm’s environmental strategy (Skinner, 1969; Wheelwright, 1984; Vickery et al., 1993). As noted above, the importance of involving operations management in environmental issues is explained by the fact that it is precisely in this function where the majority of the firm’s environmental impacts arise (Gupta, 1995). The effects of production processes on the environment affect both the production of pollutants and the consumption of natural resources, which is why the business and academic communities point out that the implication of the operations sub-system in any environmental strategy is absolutely necessary (Azzone and Bertele, 1994). Furthermore, the implication of other functional areas to fully exploit a competitive advantage based on environmental issues, such as marketing, is subject to the effective improvement in the environmental impact of operations. For example, the firm must never use environmental arguments in its advertising campaigns until it has reduced the environmental impact of its products and processes; otherwise, the marketing program will be neither credible nor sustainable (Coddington, 1993). This fact has given rise to a growing quantity of studies analysing the questions related to environmental management from the point of view of operations management. In Table I we have included some of the perspectives adopted and various research works that fit into each perspective. As Table I shows, since 1993 environmental issues have burst onto the scene in the main aspects of operations management, such as operations strategy, product selection and design, quality management, technology, or supplies. The perspectives from which environmental issues are studied in operations management have been placed in separate sections in order to illustrate the wide range of ways in which the subject can be approached. This, in turn, reflects the inter-disciplinary nature and variety of approaches of operations management itself, as well as its common denominator, aimed at solving problems in product manufacture and services Jones and Lockwood, 1998). However, the interrelation existing among the main operations decisions also means that they can be considered as a whole. For example, design for the environment calls for the simultaneous consideration of aspects such as environmental technologies, ecological purchasing and supply strategy. In the same way, some of the perspectives highlighted here, such as remanufacturing, represent a new way of conceiving the whole production subsystem, according to which environmental issues influence the major decisions of the operations function: product design, variations in the processes, or in the planning of production, capacity, supply and inventories.
07 May 2014 Page 3 of 17 ProQuest
Almost all the papers included in Table I highlight the fact that the operations function plays a major role in reducing the organisation’s impact on the natural environment. Therefore, environmental impact reduction should be considered, at least partially, as an issue which is the responsibility of operations management. The importance of environmental matters in operations management is synthesised in Angell and Klassen’s (1999) literature review and research agenda. They revise some of the possible connections and suggest over 30 propositions between environmental protection and the main structural and infrastructural decisions of the operations function: facilities, process technology, capacity, vertical integration, suppliers, new products, workforce, quality management, and planning and control systems. Other incipient research lines analyse the connection between the operations area performance and the firm’s environmental performance (Klassen and Whybark, 1999b; Hanna et al, 2000), or study the environmental problem in service operations management (Foster et al., 2000). Operations management can approach environmental sustainability via the definition of a new operations objective: environmental performance (Angell, 1993). Revising and updating operations objectives Operations competitive priorities and operations objectives In a seminal article about manufacturing strategy, Skinner (1969) uses the concept of manufacturing tasks to connect corporate strategy with that of operations. The manufacturing task list includes, among others, the production variables of cost, delivery, lead time, quality and reliability. Initially, these manufacturing tasks were considered as representative of exclusive objectives that could be chosen to support the firm’s general strategy (Skinner, 1969). The need to priorise these options in order to design the operations system justified a change in terminology, so that the manufacturing tasks or competitive dimensions were also known as “competitive priorities”. The operations competitive priorities “indicate areas in which manufacturing must focus if it is to provide a competitive edge to the company” (Garvin, 1993, p. 87). Wheelwright (1984) named four basic competitive priorities which, to a great extent, have influenced the terminology and the content assigned to operations objectives: cost, quality, dependability and flexibility. The degree to which these objectives are achieved would reflect the performance of the organisation’s operations area. The relationships between the various operations objectives, and their content have changed over the years. In the first case, the trade-off model of the competitive priorities has been challenged. There is some evidence that supports those improvements in the operations performance areas may be mutually supportive if they are
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDERCLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernowAlso, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|