The Measure of Meetings: Forums, Deliberation, and Cultural Policy

This research seeks to answer the question: “Do meetings matter for advancing cultural policy?” The question is approached theoretically and comparatively by examining the broader literature on policy making, as well specific case studies of meetings in other fields, in order to draw lessons and implications for arts and culture; discursively and ethnographically, by attending the annual meetings of arts service associations and recording and interpreting how people at these meetings talked about problems and policy; and empirically, by looking at a sample of conference program books over ten years and coding and analyzing what issues were discussed and who was invited to discuss them. We also studied, in detail, what a random sample of 40 participants say they learned at a particular annual convention and what policy-relevant actions they took as a result of having attended the meeting. Overall, we find that meetings are not currently effective tools for advancing policy in the cultural sector, with some notable exceptions. In arts and culture, where resources are modest, where the policy community is fragmented, where problems are poorly defined, where there is no central authority or government agency, and where issues have low salience for the general public, welltimed and carefully orchestrated meetings can perhaps play an even more important role than they do in other fields.

The Effects of the Flow State on Social Orientation Within and Beyond Group Boundaries

Research on flow, a positive emotional experience characterized by full absorption, involvement, and enjoyment during an activity, has primarily focused on the individual benefits of this mental state. In the present study, I investigate the mechanisms by which flow may produce changes in social orientation such that the boundaries between the self and other are diminished. In a 2x2 study, UNC undergraduates (N=106) were randomly assigned to a flow or no flow condition; half of the participants were also randomly assigned to have a mirror in the cubicle during the study to manipulate self-consciousness. I hypothesized that flow would alter social orientation such that people reported increased feelings of closeness with others, mediated by decreases on self-consciousness. Contrary to hypotheses, primary analyses demonstrated no significant effects of condition on average measures of social closeness, although participants in the flow and mirror conditions reported the highest feelings of closeness with others on individual items from two measures of interpersonal closeness. Further, participants in the flow and mirror condition also exhibited higher levels of state mindfulness. This work implies that the flow state should be conceptualized and researched in terms of the potential social benefits of decreasing boundaries between individuals.Bachelor of Art

Creative destruction in science

Drawing on the concept of a gale of creative destruction in a capitalistic economy, we argue that initiatives to assess the robustness of findings in the organizational literature should aim to simultaneously test competing ideas operating in the same theoretical space. In other words, replication efforts should seek not just to support or question the original findings, but also to replace them with revised, stronger theories with greater explanatory power. Achieving this will typically require adding new measures, conditions, and subject populations to research designs, in order to carry out conceptual tests of multiple theories in addition to directly replicating the original findings. To illustrate the value of the creative destruction approach for theory pruning in organizational scholarship, we describe recent replication initiatives re-examining culture and work morality, working parents\u2019 reasoning about day care options, and gender discrimination in hiring decisions. Significance statement It is becoming increasingly clear that many, if not most, published research findings across scientific fields are not readily replicable when the same method is repeated. Although extremely valuable, failed replications risk leaving a theoretical void\u2014 reducing confidence the original theoretical prediction is true, but not replacing it with positive evidence in favor of an alternative theory. We introduce the creative destruction approach to replication, which combines theory pruning methods from the field of management with emerging best practices from the open science movement, with the aim of making replications as generative as possible. In effect, we advocate for a Replication 2.0 movement in which the goal shifts from checking on the reliability of past findings to actively engaging in competitive theory testing and theory building. Scientific transparency statement The materials, code, and data for this article are posted publicly on the Open Science Framework, with links provided in the article

COVID-19 Provides a Rare Opportunity to Create a Stronger, More Equitable Society

COVID-19—and the ensuing economic fallout—exposed society’s vast inequalities. Current stimulus plans and ongoing debates revolve around restoring society to its pre-COVID-19 state, a singular focus driven by a prevalent status quo bias. We propose that policymakers should adopt a more ambitious goal: to take advantage of the change momentum of COVID-19 to reduce social inequalities in order to build society’s resilience for the next time disaster strikes. We suggest that this redesign will require a focus on the multidimensional nature of social and economic inequalities, and a shift toward strengthening communities rather than a sole focus on individual households and businesses. This crisis should be seen as a unique window for restructuring society by creating new norms and ideals rather than returning to the pre-COVID-19 status quo

Inequality in People's Minds

The extent of inequality that people perceive in the world is often a better predictor of individual and societal outcomes than the level of inequality that actually exists. As such, scholars from across the social sciences, including economics, sociology, psychology, and political science, have recently worked to understand individuals’ (mis)perceptions of inequality. Unfortunately, many researchers treat the process underlying such perceptions as a black box, focusing predominantly on lay people’s numeric estimates of inequality, and paying less attention to how people come to form these perceptions or what these perceptions mean to participants. In the current review, we draw on research in perception, cognition, and developmental and social psychology, to introduce a novel comprehensive framework for understanding individuals’ perceptions of inequality. We argue that subjective perceptions of inequality should be viewed as a process that unfolds across five interlinked and iterative stages. To form perceptions of the scope of inequality in society, people need to (1) have access to inequality cues in the world, (2) attend to these cues, (3) comprehend these cues, (4) process these cues (often succumbing to motivational biases), and (5) summarize these cues into a meaningful representation of inequality. Our framework highlights when and why lay people may misperceive the scope of inequality in society and provides a roadmap for research to examine how the processes in people's minds affect the outcomes researchers are ultimately interested in

Inequality in Researchers’ Minds

The extent of inequality that people perceive in the world is often a stronger predictor of individual and societal outcomes than the level of inequality that actually exists. It is therefore imperative for researchers to theoretically conceptualize and empirically operationalize perceived inequality in a coherent and consistent manner. However, the lack of consensus on what constitutes perceived inequality can lead researchers to use the same words to study different phenomena. What seem like minor methodological decisions made in the study of inequality can substantially influence the outcomes and conclusions that researchers dra from their work. In this review, we draw on a wide range of interdisciplinary work, including from social and cognitive psychology, economics, political science, and sociology, to unpack the assumptions researchers often make. We develop the four questions framework which illustrates the important theoretical and empirical decisions researchers are recommended to address when studying perceived inequality: (1) What kind of inequality? (2) What level of analysis? (3) What part of the distribution? and (4) What comparison group? We posit that this framework provides the conceptual clarity necessary for understanding when, how, and why perceptions of inequality affect individuals and societies

Family Experiences with Pediatric Antiretroviral Therapy: Responsibilities, Barriers, and Strategies for Remembering Medications

This study examines the relationship between adherence to pediatric HIV regimens and three family experience factors: (1) regimen responsibility; (2) barriers to adherence; and (3) strategies for remembering to give medications. Caregivers of 127 children ages 2–15 years in the PACTS-HOPE multisite study were interviewed. Seventy-six percent of caregivers reported that their children were adherent (taking ≥ 90% of prescribed doses within the prior 6 months). Most caregivers reported taking primary responsibility for medication-related activities (72%–95% across activities); caregivers with primary responsibility for calling to obtain refills (95%) were more likely to have adherent children. More than half of caregivers reported experiencing one or more adherence barriers (59%). Caregivers who reported more barriers were also more likely to report having non-adherent children. Individual barriers associated with nonadherence included forgetting, changes in routine, being too busy, and child refusal. Most reported using one or more memory strategies (86%). Strategy use was not associated with adherence. Using more strategies was associated with a greater likelihood of reporting that forgetting was a barrier. For some families with adherence-related organizational or motivational difficulties, using numerous memory strategies may be insufficient for mastering adherence. More intensive interventions, such as home-based nurse-administered dosing, may be necessary