Matching Items (7)

Filtering by

Clear all filters

Integrating Purchasing and Contract Law in Supply Chain Management Education

Description

Having studied at Arizona State University and the W.P. Carey School of Business through approximately 7 semesters of undergraduate business coursework, I, along with my classmates, have learned an incredible amount of knowledge critical for success in a career in

Having studied at Arizona State University and the W.P. Carey School of Business through approximately 7 semesters of undergraduate business coursework, I, along with my classmates, have learned an incredible amount of knowledge critical for success in a career in business administration. We have been provided the resources and tools necessary to excel in full time business careers, implement new ideas, and innovate and improve preexisting business networks as driven, motivated business intellectuals. Additionally, having worked in four diverse business internships throughout my undergraduate career, I have come to understand the importance of understanding and studying law and contracts as they relate to business. In all of those internships, I worked extensively with a variety of contracts and agreements, all serving critical purposes within each individual line of business. Within supply chain management studies and jobs, I found contracts to be of utmost importance for students to understand prior to entering a full time job or internship. Students study a wide variety of topics during their education within the Supply Chain Management department at Arizona State University. In procurement and purchasing classes specifically, students cover topics from supplier negotiation strategies to sourcing and sustainability. These topics engage students of all backgrounds and offer exceptional knowledge and insight for those seeking a full time job within supply chain management. What is interestingly so often excluded from such lectures is discussion with regards to the contracts and laws pertinent to purchasing and supply management success. As most procurement and sourcing professionals know, contracts are the basis for all agreements that a company and supplier may engage in. A critical component within the careers of supply managers, contract law provides the foundation for any agreement. Thus, the necessity for a discussion on how to best integrate purchasing and contract law into undergraduate supply chain management education, including depicting the material that should be covered, is permitted. In my Honors Thesis, I have decided to create an informative lecture and outline that can be readily understood by undergraduate students in supply chain management courses, at the benefit of professors and lecturers who wish to utilize and incorporate the material in their classroom. The content consists of information recommended by industry professionals, relevant real-life procurement and contract law examples and scenarios, and universal and common law relevant to contracts and purchasing agreements within the workplace. All of these topics are meant to prepare students for careers and internships within supply chain management, and are topics I have found lack current discussion at the university level. Additionally, as a part of my Honors Thesis, I was given the opportunity to provide a cohesive lecture and present the topics herein in SCM 355 Purchasing classes. This was an opportunity to present to students topics that I feel are currently underrepresented in college courses, and that are beneficial for business students to learn and fully understand. Topics discussed in this interactive lecture and slideshow extracted information from the lecture template.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2017-12

141311-Thumbnail Image.png

Validity, Inter-Rater Reliability, and Measures of Adaptive Behavior: Concerns Regarding the Probative Versus Prejudicial Value

Description

The question as to whether the assessment of adaptive behavior (AB) for evaluations of intellectual disability (ID) in the community meet the level of rigor necessary for admissibility in legal cases is addressed. Adaptive behavior measures have made their way

The question as to whether the assessment of adaptive behavior (AB) for evaluations of intellectual disability (ID) in the community meet the level of rigor necessary for admissibility in legal cases is addressed. Adaptive behavior measures have made their way into the forensic domain where scientific evidence is put under great scrutiny. Assessment of ID in capital murder proceedings has garnished a lot of attention, but assessments of ID in adult populations also occur with some frequency in the context of other criminal proceedings (e.g., competence to stand trial; competence to waive Miranda rights), as well as eligibility for social security disability, social security insurance, Medicaid/Medicare, government housing, and post-secondary transition services. As will be demonstrated, markedly disparate findings between raters can occur on measures of AB even when the assessment is conducted in accordance with standard procedures (i.e., the person was assessed in a community setting, in real time, with multiple appropriate raters, when the person was younger than 18 years of age) and similar disparities can be found in the context of the unorthodox and untested retrospective assessment used in capital proceedings. With full recognition that some level of disparity is to be expected, the level of disparity that can arise when these measures are administered retrospectively calls into question the validity of the results and consequently, their probative value.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2018-02-01

141313-Thumbnail Image.png

Moral Disengagement in Legal Judgments

Description

We investigated the role of moral disengagement in a legally‐relevant judgment in this theoretically‐driven empirical analysis. Moral disengagement is a social‐cognitive phenomenon through which people reason their way toward harming others, presenting a useful framework for investigating legal judgments that

We investigated the role of moral disengagement in a legally‐relevant judgment in this theoretically‐driven empirical analysis. Moral disengagement is a social‐cognitive phenomenon through which people reason their way toward harming others, presenting a useful framework for investigating legal judgments that often result in harming individuals for the good of society. We tested the role of moral disengagement in forensic psychologists’ willingness to conduct the most ethically questionable clinical task in the criminal justice system: competence for execution evaluations. Our hypothesis that moral disengagement would function as mediator of participants’ existing attitudes and their judgments—a theoretical “bridge” between attitudes and judgments—was robustly supported. Moral disengagement was key to understanding how psychologists decide to engage in competence for execution evaluations. We describe in detail the moral disengagement measure we used, including exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses across two separate samples. The four‐factor measure accounted for a total of 52.18 percent of the variance in the sample of forensic psychologists, and the model adequately fit the data in the entirely different sample of jurors in a confirmatory factor analysis. Despite the psychometric strengths of this moral disengagement measure, we describe the pros and cons of existing measures of moral disengagement. We outline future directions for moral disengagement research, especially in legal contexts.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2017-11-07

141315-Thumbnail Image.png

The “Dark Side” of Institutional Trust

Description

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and

The majority of trust research has focused on the benefits trust can have for individual actors, institutions, and organizations. This “optimistic bias” is particularly evident in work focused on institutional trust, where concepts such as procedural justice, shared values, and moral responsibility have gained prominence. But trust in institutions may not be exclusively good. We reveal implications for the “dark side” of institutional trust by reviewing relevant theories and empirical research that can contribute to a more holistic understanding. We frame our discussion by suggesting there may be a “Goldilocks principle” of institutional trust, where trust that is too low (typically the focus) or too high (not usually considered by trust researchers) may be problematic. The chapter focuses on the issue of too-high trust and processes through which such too-high trust might emerge. Specifically, excessive trust might result from external, internal, and intersecting external-internal processes. External processes refer to the actions institutions take that affect public trust, while internal processes refer to intrapersonal factors affecting a trustor’s level of trust. We describe how the beneficial psychological and behavioral outcomes of trust can be mitigated or circumvented through these processes and highlight the implications of a “darkest” side of trust when they intersect. We draw upon research on organizations and legal, governmental, and political systems to demonstrate the dark side of trust in different contexts. The conclusion outlines directions for future research and encourages researchers to consider the ethical nuances of studying how to increase institutional trust.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2016

141336-Thumbnail Image.png

The Propriety of Preemptory Challenges for Perceived Personality Traits

Description

There is substantial controversy over the extent to which social science should be used in jury selection. Underlying the debate are two competing interests in the make-up of a jury: a privilege to strike prospective jurors on subjective grounds, which

There is substantial controversy over the extent to which social science should be used in jury selection. Underlying the debate are two competing interests in the make-up of a jury: a privilege to strike prospective jurors on subjective grounds, which supports scientific jury selection, and a collective interest of citizens to be free from exclusion from jury service, which does not. While the incommensurability of the interests precludes resolution of the controversy in the abstract, specific solutions are possible. Using the example of selection of jurors based upon their respective levels of extraversion, we describe how the competing interests frequently do not apply to concrete cases. In the subsequent analysis, we show that, rhetoric notwithstanding, a normative preference for adhering to tradition and institutional inertia are the primary instrumental considerations for determining whether peremptory challenges based upon personality traits like extraversion ought to be allowed. Consistent with this analysis, we conclude that the practice of striking jurors based upon estimates of such personality traits is appropriate.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2013

156709-Thumbnail Image.png

You Understand, So I Understand: How A "Community of Knowledge" Shapes Trust in Expert Evidence

Description

This experiment uses the Community of Knowledge framework to better understand how jurors interpret new information (Sloman & Rabb, 2016). Participants learned of an ostensibly new scientific finding that was claimed to either be well-understood or not understood by experts.

This experiment uses the Community of Knowledge framework to better understand how jurors interpret new information (Sloman & Rabb, 2016). Participants learned of an ostensibly new scientific finding that was claimed to either be well-understood or not understood by experts. Despite including no additional information, expert understanding led participants to believe that they personally understood the phenomenon, with expert understanding acting as a cue for trustworthiness and believability. This effect was particularly pronounced with low-quality sources. These results are discussed in the context of how information is used by jurors in court, and the implications of the “Community of Knowledge” effect being used by expert witnesses.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2018

158526-Thumbnail Image.png

Experts Screening Experts: Are Courts Effectively Gatekeeping Psychological Assessment Evidence?

Description

The United States Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case established criteria for admitting scientific evidence in federal courts. It holds that scientific evidence must be valid, reliable, and relevant, and judges are required to be “gatekeepers” of

The United States Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case established criteria for admitting scientific evidence in federal courts. It holds that scientific evidence must be valid, reliable, and relevant, and judges are required to be “gatekeepers” of evidence by screening out evidence that has not been empirically tested or vetted through the academic community. Yet, little is known about whether psychological assessment tools are subjected to scrutiny through the standards courts are supposed to apply. In three different studies, from the perspectives of judges, attorneys, and forensic mental health experts, the authors investigate whether psychological assessment evidence is being challenged. Information was collected on participants’ experiences with challenges to psychological assessments. Judges and lawyers completed a series of experimental case vignettes to assess their decision-making about legal admissibility of different qualities of psychological assessments. It was hypothesized they would not distinguish between low- and high-quality psychological assessments in admissibility. Bayesian model selection methods did not support the null hypothesis, however. It was found attorneys differentiate between the conditions. The rates in which legal professionals and forensic mental health evaluators experienced challenges were also higher than was expected. These positive findings show there is some degree of gatekeeping psychological assessment evidence in the courts.

Contributors

Agent

Created

Date Created
2020