Convergence Of Viewpoints Research Articles

Recent Communication Between the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Iran, and Saudi Arabia: A Commentary

Recent diplomatic dialogues between the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs and counterparts in Iran and Saudi Arabia underscore mutual consensus and China's emerging role in the Middle East. China vehemently condemned the attack on Iran's embassy in Syria, extending support to Iran. Saudi Arabia, in alignment with China, emphasized trust in China's capacity to positively influence Middle Eastern affairs. The Middle East's convergence of viewpoints, particularly with Saudi Arabia, places substantial pressure on Israel. Israel is urged to halt air defense and foster coexistence with Iran to avoid further instability. China's peace overtures await substantive action from the United States, with potential repercussions for Israel's stability. Ultimately, Israel's acceptance of China's peace initiative is crucial for regional stability.

The French conception of information science: “Une exception française”?

The French conception of information science is often contrasted with the Anglophone one, which is perceived as different and rooted mainly in Shannon's mathematical theory of communication. While there is such a thing as a French conception of information science, this conception is not totally divorced from the Anglophone one. Unbeknownst to researchers from the two geographical and cultural regions, they share similar conceptions of the field and invoke similar theoretical foundations, in particular the socio‐constructivist theory. There is also a convergence of viewpoints on the dual nature of information science, i.e., the fact that it is torn between two competing paradigms—objectivist and subjectivist. Technology is another area where a convergence of viewpoints is noticeable: Scholars from both geographic and cultural zones display the same suspicion toward the role of technology and of computer science. It would therefore be misleading to uphold the view that Anglophone information science is essentially objectivist and technicist while the French conception is essentially social and rooted in the humanities. This paper highlights converging analyses from authors based in both linguistic and geographical regions with the aim to foster a better understanding of the challenges that information science is facing worldwide and to help trace a path to how the global information science community can try to meet them.

Group decision-making: An economic analysis of social influence and individual difference in experimental juries

In jury decision-making, individual viewpoints must converge to reach a group consensus. Convergence of viewpoints may reflect reasonable compromises, for example if jury deliberations reflect informational influences and social learning which allow individual jurors to correct biases, misunderstandings and/or imperfect recall of evidence. Conversely, some individuals may converge towards others’ viewpoints because of normative influences including peer pressure and preferences for conformity and these can generate biases in the final jury judgements. This paper presents experimental data showing that groups do have a significant tendency to compromise in jury-like settings. Econometric evidence shows that group characteristics, including the presence of acquaintances and strangers within the jury group, affect the extent of compromise. The implications are that jury deliberations may be biased by factors not relevant to a specific case, limiting the objectivity of jury decisions.

The Triad approach: A catalyst for maturing remediation practice

AbstractMany individual scientific and technical disciplines contribute to the multidisciplinary field of remediation science and practice. Because of the relative youth of this enterprise, disciplinary interests sometimes compete and conflict with the primary goal of achieving protective, cost‐effective, efficient projects. Convergence of viewpoints toward a more mature, common vision is needed. In addition, cleanup programs are changing under the influence of Brownfields initiatives and the needs of environmental insurance underwriters. Investigations and cleanups increasingly need to be affordable, yet transparent and defensible. Disciplinary goals and terminology need to better reflect real‐world site conditions while being more supportive of project needs. Yet, technical considerations alone will not ensure project success; better integration of human factors into project management is also required. The Triad approach is well placed to catalyze maturation of the remediation field because it emphasizes (1) a central theme of managing decision uncertainty; (2) unambiguous technical communications; (3) shortened project life‐cycles and multidisciplinary interactions that rapidly build professional expertise and provide feedback to test and perfect programmatic and field practices; and (4) concepts from “softer” sciences (such as economics, cognitive psychology, and decision theory) to capture important human factors. Triad pushes the cleanup industry toward an integrated, practical, second‐generation paradigm that can successfully manage the complexities of today's cleanup projects. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Methodology, Ideology, and the Economics of Poticy: Why Resource Economists Disagree

It is evident that there is persistent disagreement among competent and articulate resource economists, disagreement not only about the appropriate analytical and prescriptive response to particular constellations of policy issues but also about the uses and limitations of economics as a thought system in the policy arena.' This must be disquieting and disappointing to many among us who would regard the emergence of an integrated and cohesive (as opposed to diverse and fractious) resource economics as evidence of its maturation. It is my purpose here to argue that the disagreements among us go deeper than mere disputes about priorities and tactics for doing resource economics, where all participants share a common vision of what resource economics is and should be. Rather, these disagreements extend beyond alternative conceptions of resource economics to fundamentally opposing methodologies, i.e., conceptions of knowledge and how to get it. While the proximate foci of disagreement will shift over time, there is literally no good reason to expect an ultimate resolution of intradisciplinary conflict and convergence of viewpoints. Finally, I argue that persistent disagreement is not only a fact of life, it has its virtues!

Methodology, Ideology, and the Economics of Policy: Why Resource Economists Disagree

It is evident that there is persistent disagreement among competent and articulate resource economists, disagreement not only about the appropriate analytical and prescriptive response to particular constellations of policy issues but also about the uses and limitations of economics as a thought system in the policy arena.' This must be disquieting and disappointing to many among us who would regard the emergence of an integrated and cohesive (as opposed to diverse and fractious) resource economics as evidence of its maturation. It is my purpose here to argue that the disagreements among us go deeper than mere disputes about priorities and tactics for doing resource economics, where all participants share a common vision of what resource economics is and should be. Rather, these disagreements extend beyond alternative conceptions of resource economics to fundamentally opposing methodologies, i.e., conceptions of knowledge and how to get it. While the proximate foci of disagreement will shift over time, there is literally no good reason to expect an ultimate resolution of intradisciplinary conflict and convergence of viewpoints. Finally, I argue that persistent disagreement is not only a fact of life, it has its virtues!