Critical Articles Research Articles

Introducing the new multidisciplinary journal Aquaculture Environment Interactions

AEI Aquaculture Environment Interactions Contact the journal Facebook Twitter RSS Mailing List Subscribe to our mailing list via Mailchimp HomeLatest VolumeAbout the JournalEditorsTheme Sections AEI 1:i (2009) - DOI: https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00001 EDITORIALIntroducing the new multidisciplinary journal Aquaculture Environment Interactions Tim Dempster1,*, Marianne Holmer2 1 SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture, 7465 Trondheim, Norway 2 Institute of Biology, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark *Email: tim.dempster@sintef.no Aquaculture production is expected to overtake wild fisheries as the major source of fish protein for humans in the course of this century. This enormous expansion of aquaculture will multiply its interactions with the environment. The journal Aquaculture Environment Interactions (AEI; www.int-res.com/journals/aei/) will provide an international and interdisciplinary forum for primary research on the ecology of aquaculture. AEI will publish scientific results obtained in this increasingly vital field, foster the sharing of information among scientists, the aquaculture industry and environmental managers, and contribute to improving the long-term sustainability of aquaculture activities. Concept and scope of AEI were defined by an independent group of interested researchers: Tim Dempster, Marianne Holmer, Ioannis Karakassis, Ian Fleming, Pablo Sánchez-Jérez, Bengt Finstad and Kenneth Black, in collaboration with Inter-Research (IR). AEI will publish Research Articles, Notes, Reviews, As I See It articles (opinion pieces), and Comments and Reply Comments (critiques of articles published in the journal), Theme Sections (collections of articles that provide a synthesis of research on key areas; proposals for a Theme Section should be submitted to the Editors-in-Chief). Peer review for manuscripts submitted to AEI is managed using an online system, and 3 to 4 reviews will be solicited for each manuscript. We strive to limit the duration of initial review to 2 months. AEI volumes are ‘built’ online: articles will appear as soon as their content has been approved by the author(s), usually within 1 month after acceptance. Articles that the Contributing Editors and reviewers identify as groundbreaking will be published as Feature Articles. Initially, all AEI issues are published with Open Access. We are confident that AEI will quickly become a global leader for the publication of primary research on the interactions between aquaculture and the environment. Full text in pdf format NextCite this article as: Dempster T, Holmer M (2009) Introducing the new multidisciplinary journal Aquaculture Environment Interactions. Aquacult Environ Interact 1:i. https://doi.org/10.3354/aei00001Export citation RSS - Facebook - Tweet - linkedIn Cited by Published in AEI Vol. 1, No. 1. Online publication date: September 15, 2009 Print ISSN: 1869-215X; Online ISSN: 1869-7534 Copyright © 2009 Inter-Research.

Welche Qualität braucht die Kirche?

Which Quality does the Church Need? In a critique of Thies Gundlach's article in this journal in the year 2008, this article argues that implicitly following the logics of quality management systems like the ISO norm and total quality management is inadequate. Rather the quality of individual and shared competences and of interaction within the organisation needs to be emphasised in church management.

Being Bad in Good Places: The Battle against Science and Psychiatry

This editorial is a critique of Lewis Menand's article which appeared in the march issue of the new Yorker of 2010. Unfortunately, his article misleads the public into believing that psychiatry and psychology are ill equipped to go into the human mind and heart. It also takes the position that psychology and psychiatry are not qualified to be considered a science, but it does this in such a way so as to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth.

Integrating Research Training Into Residency: Tools of Human Investigation

Although the need for new physician-clinical scientists has never been greater, significant obstacles deter young physicians from careers in clinical research. Local and federal programs have sought to stimulate interest in clinical research among young physicians, medical students, and even undergraduates, but few formal programs have specifically focused on stimulating interest among residents in training. The recent implementation of strict duty hours regulations has provided residents with additional time to focus on career choices, and this has created an opportunity for training programs to offer new educational initiatives during residency. The authors present Tools of Human Investigation (THI), a two-week rotation offered during the second year of residency. The goals of THI are to provide seminar-based exposure to research methodologies, to impart the tools required to critically appraise the scientific literature, and to provide a small-group forum for career discussions. These three goals are achieved by drawing on a group of research faculty to lead sessions that combine didactics with career development guidance. A course like THI is one innovative way to stimulate interest in human research during residency that could help bridge the discontinuity between the research explorations promoted during medical school and the rigorous expectations of fellowship.

Methods, Theories and Evidence: A Reply to Arzheimer

Kai Arzheimer's careful and thorough comment upon my earlier BJPIR article raises a number of important issues. While engaging in a thorough critique of the original article's methods, he also points to the (perhaps) inherent problems any quantitative approach may encounter in this area. The consequences of this are that if we wish to assess whether there are social determinants to participation, quantitative methods are limited. In the light of this, after addressing some mis-characterisations in his comment, this reply seeks to provide qualitative evidence that there may well be a link between welfare state institutions and outputs and participation.

A Response to Paul Gronke's blog, "Measuring Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail in California"

THE CALIFORNIA Journal of Politics & Policy Commentary A Response to Paul Gronke’s blog, “Measuring Turnout Effects of Vote by Mail in California” Mark DiCamillo* The Field Poll I read Professor Paul Gronke’s critique of a recent article of mine, “The Continuing Growth of Mail Ballot Voting in California in 2008,” published in the California Journal for Politics & Policy (Volume 1, Issue 1) and feel compelled to respond. Gronke’s critique was posted on the Election Updates blog, of which he is a collaborator . In his critique Gronke asserts there are two problems with the analysis presented in my article. The first relates www.bepress.com/cjpp Volume 1, Issue 1, 2009 to the relationship between the recent acceleration in the rate of mail ballot voting in California and the recent rebound in voter turnout in California between the 2000 and 2008 presidential elections. The second has to do with the significance of the higher turnout rate of voters who were sent mail ballots in the 2008 presidential election compared to those who were not. It is curious that Gronke’s critique fails to discuss the central thesis of the paper; i.e., that the introduction of permanent mail ballot registration in 2001 and its rapid growth has been a primary driver of the accelerated use of mail ballot voting in California over the past eight years. Let me respond to Gronke by first taking issue with his assertion that there is no significance to the fact that California registered voters who were sent a mail ballot in the 2008 presidential election voted at a significantly higher rate than other registrants not receiving a mail ballot. In that election about 5.7 million of the approximately 6.7 * Mark DiCamillo is director of The Field Poll.

Past, present and possible future developments in human capital accounting

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to pay tribute to several of the ideas of Jan‐Erik Gröjer by reviewing and critiquing the field of Human Competence Accounting (HCA) since his Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal review article in 1998.Three research questions he posed in that article are now addressed in the current paper: What could be done, as envisaged in the commentary of Gröjer and Johanson; What has been published in HCA research in the ten year period (1999‐2008); What more could/should be done in HCA as a research agenda.Design/methodology/approachA literature based analysis and critique of HCA accounting articles published in the selected journals from 1999 to 2008 is employed. A purpose built coding and classification scheme is built around several categories for the purpose of analysing the HCA literature.FindingsThe paper seeks to demonstrate the importance of Gröjer and Johanson's review and indicates that questions they raised and possible research directions have been acted upon by a number of authors. The findings of the analysis indicate that, a decade on from the original review, HCA is a legitimate area for accounting research and is multi‐disciplinary and multi‐focused in nature.Research limitations/implicationsThe paper only considers selected HCA articles within the ten journals used over the period 1999‐2008.American mainstream positivist research has not been reviewed. Also the categories chosen to represent HCA have several limitations which are addressed in the paper.Originality/valueHCA research has a strong tradition and the Gröjer and Johanson review is an important beacon that provided insights to accounting researchers. The current analysis extends Jan‐Erik's work by providing several insights into what has happened and also provides several ideas for future research and policy work in accounting for HCA.

In Pursuit of a Mythical State of Tamil Eelam: A Rejoinder to Kristian Stokke - A Long Distance Propagandist

This is a rejoinder to an article written by Kristian Stokke and published in the TamilNet in February 2006 and subsequently in the Third World Quarterly (TWQ) in September 2006 which is euphorically titled Building the Tamil Eelam State: Emerging State Institutions and Forms of Governance in LTTE-controlled Areas in Sri Lanka. This author's critique of Kristian Stokke's article is two fold: one is on the process of undertaking research for his article and the second is on glaring factual inaccuracies on which his article is tenuously based. This paper presents statistical, factual and anecdotal evidence to refute the claims made by Kristian Stokke that the LTTE is a liberation movement with mass support, performing state functions in areas under its control. There is also a postscript replying to Kristian Stokke's response to my rejoinder published in the TWQ in September 2007, and detailing the ordeal underwent by this author in getting the rejoinder published in the TWQ.

Ethical Expertise Revisited: Reply to Giles Scofield

This reply to Giles Scofield's critique of the authors' article in the June 2008 issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal highlights two main topics. First, contrary to what Scofield suggests, using the terms "ethics" and "morality" interchangeably constitutes an oversimplification that blurs important distinctions. Second, in a representative democracy, ethical expertise and consultation need not generate a "tragic choice" of the kind Scofield has in mind.

A Reply to Yvonne M. Johnson

I appreciate the opportunity to respond to Yvonne M. Johnson’s critique of my Social Service Review article, “Reinterpreting Abraham Flexner’s Speech, ‘Is Social Work a Profession?’: Its Meaning and Influence on the Field’s Early Professional Development” (Morris 2008). My article presents findings from a Gadamerian hermeneutic inquiry that explores various topics: the meaning of Flexner’s criteria of a profession, his assessment of social work’s professional standing, the field’s multiple interpretations of his criteria and assessment throughout the 90 years since his speech, and the speech’s influence on the field’s early professional development. Contrary to Johnson’s critique, my interpretation of Flexner’s text (1915) is based on a sound methodology derived from a philosophical perspective. It is unclear what methodology, if any, Johnson uses in deriving either her understanding of the text or her critique of my interpretation. Instead, Johnson falls into the very trap that my article identifies; she seems to interpret his meaning through a contemporary lens. For example, she uses recent editions of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary. Since ancient times, scholars have used hermeneutics to interpret religious, legal, historical, and literary texts. Interpretations sometimes differ because they are often guided by varying philosophical and methodological principles. My inquiry is guided by Hans-Georg Gadamer’s seminal work, Truth and Method (1989). Five principles guide the inquiry:

Dialogue on Point and Level System: Reply to Tompkins-Rosenblatt and VanderVen

ABSTRACT Mr. Tompkins-Rosenblatt's (TR) and Dr. VanderVen's (VV) article: “Perspective on Point and Level System in Residential Care: A Responsive Dialogue,” in Residential Treatment for Children and Youth (2005, 22 [3], 1–18), which consisted of an exchange of letters, is a critique of my article: “The Application of a Reinforcement/Level System in the Residential Treatment of Adolescents.” (2003, 21 [1], 17–32). Included in their diatribe are exaggerations and the taking of my ideas out-of-context, thereby distorting the debate. Their argument that all reinforcement and level systems are destructive to any young person-in-care is problematic, because they do not provide empirical evidence, nor offer a meta-analysis of the literature, to support their assertion. This paper addresses their position and counters their assertions.

Comment: Interrogating the neo-pluralist orthodoxy in American anthropology

Rarely do I read an essay where I disagree with so many of the parts yet admire the whole. Yet, this is how I felt upon reading Anthony Marcus's timely essay, "Interrogating the Neo-Pluralist Orthodoxy in American Anthropology." A good deal of his essay appears to be a critique of a specific article by Akhil Gupta, and for many readers it is his specific critique of Gupta that will have the greatest value. He is, nevertheless, clearly making a larger argument about anthropology, and I therefore will for the most part avoid commenting on his reading or critique of this article. His overall call for a critical reexamination of the anthropology of the state and the need to critically reexamine our engagements with adjunct disciplines is timely and necessary. Most of my problems with Dr. Marcus's essay reduce to two points with which I suspect the author would in some way agree. First, in questioning some prominent thinkers' (e.g., Gupta) positions on the anthropology of the state, he accepts their claims or assumptions about the history of political anthropology. Marcus provides an accurate account of the mainstream narrative of anthropology's engagement of the state. However, I disagree that the dominant narrative is accurate or at any rate complete. As Joan Vincent taught us some time ago, there are many other genealogies of political anthropology and we should no more take a colleague's official account of his discipline at face value than we would take any other informant's official account of his culture at face value (1990). There are several places where the essay points to other genealogies, but they are given insufficient attention. Second, had Dr. Marcus generally written "states" instead of "the state," he would be making his argument just as clearly, and I would find little to fault in it.

Countertransference Bias in Child Custody Evaluations Is Just a Horse of a Different Color: A Rejoinder to Martindale and Gould

ABSTRACT The authors' reply to Martindale and Gould's critique of Pickar's article (2007a, this issue), “Countertransference Bias in the Child Custody Evaluator.” Martindale and Gould's objections to considering an evaluator's countertransference reactions as a potential source of bias are addressed by focusing on these four areas: (1) Whether it is useful to introduce the term “countertransference bias” to identify a potential source of distortion in custody evaluations; (2) How the empirical literature on countertransference in the context of psychotherapy might apply to the child custody evaluation process; (3) Clarification of areas of agreement and disagreement with Martindale and Gould, and (4) The importance of evaluator attempts at “debiasing.” We conclude that gaining awareness of countertransference reactions can only enhance the evaluator's ability to provide the most objective custody evaluation possible.

TODD RISLEY IN CONTEXT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

TODD RISLEY IN CONTEXT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS

Critique of Takano's Article: From a Comparison with Tabata's Article

Critique of Takano's Article: From a Comparison with Tabata's Article

Revisiting the Meeting of the Staatssekretäre on 2 May 1941: A Response to Klaus Jochen Arnold and Gert C. Lübbers

In my article 'Germany's Staatssekretaire, Mass Starvation and the Meeting of 2 May 1941',' I posit that the meeting of the Staatssekretire on 2 May 1941 was an official session of the Economic Command Staff East, the management committee responsible for economically administering the occupied Soviet territories. Those present, namely the relevant representatives of the German ministerial bureaucracy and the Wehrmacht, signalled their endorsement of the ruthless exploitation of Soviet foodstuffs for the benefit of the invading troops and the home front, and at a cost of the lives of tens of millions of Soviet civilians. The meeting served to elaborate and co-ordinate the approach already sanctioned by Germany's supreme leadership. In this way, the meeting had massive implications for German occupation policy in the Soviet Union. With their article 'The Meeting of the Staatssekretaire on 2 May 1941 and the Wehrmacht: A Document up for Discussion',2 Klaus Jochen Arnold and Gert C. Liibbers have written a direct response to and critique of my article and the theses contained therein. In writing their article, Arnold and Liibbers have two principal aims. First, they seek to exonerate the Wehrmacht from their participation in the planning that is, the premeditated preparation of atrocities against civilians and prisoners of war in the Soviet territories at all costs. They do this in two ways: by playing down the importance of senior Wehrmacht officers such as General Georg Thomas in endorsing and planning these atrocities; and by giving the responsibility for this criminal intent exclusively to Adolf Hitler, his nominated successor Hermann Goring, and the Staatssekretair in the Ministry for Food and Agriculture, Herbert Backe. Secondly, by laying the blame at the door of a mere few, Arnold and Liubbers contest the centrality of the forced creation of food surpluses in German occupation policy for the Soviet Union, the agreement reached between the Wehrmacht, Party agencies and the German ministerial bureaucracy on this policy and, in particular, the nature and significance

Critique of Kokame's Article: From Comparison with Tabata's Article

Critique of Kokame's Article: From Comparison with Tabata's Article

Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Reply

Michael Tomz, Judith L. Goldstein, and Doug­ las Rivers 1hereafter TGR2 argue that the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization 1WTO), had a substantial positive effect on trade. Their paper is a critique of my article “Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade?” which appeared in this Review (2004a). Among other things, I used a bilateral “gravity” model of trade and showed that dummy variables for member­ ship by either one or two countries in the GATT had only small effects on trade. In essence, TGR point out that a lot of countries were not formal members of the GATT but still participated in it as colonies, or de facto or provisional members. TGR argue that if one includes these other types of more informal participation, one gets large positive effects. For what it’s worth, I stated in my original article that de jure accession to the GATT need not be the same as de facto accession, but I wasn’t able to quantify it and encouraged others to do so. TGR did precisely that, at the cost of much tedious archival work. I applaud them for it and will certainly not question its accuracy. I also like their methodological strategy, which is to follow my empirical framework closely and rely mostly on simply adding informal partici­ pation to formal GATT membership. TGR cite my work selectively but extensively. It’s a clean and effective way to proceed. I like their paper, and have learned a lot by reading it, and thinking about the issues it raised. All who are interested in the topic of the impact of the multilateral system on trade should take it seriously. Still, I have concerns about the mean­ ing, plausibility, and robustness of their results. Do We Really Know That the WTO Increases Trade? Reply

How much did the expropriation of commercial farms matter to food insecurity in Zimbabwe?: Rebuttal to Andersson

The root causes of Zimbabwes economic and food crisis continue to garner debate as demonstrated by Anderssons critique of my recent African Affairs article. Andersson argues that the origins of Zimbabwes food crisis come from long-term trends in the communal sector since this sector provides the majority of maize - the countrys staple crop - to the country. He disputes that the food crisis has much if anything to do with misguided government policies and land reforms; this he claims is a popular yet problematic explanation.2 In particular Andersson argues that food production has slowly declined over the past 30 years for two main reasons that I do not discuss: (1) communal farmers have increasingly moved to marginal lands that are subject to lower and more erratic rainfall; and (2) maize production has increasingly been shouldered by communal farmers as commercial farmers moved to other more profitable export crops. His Figure 1 attempts to buttress this claim with lines that show communal farmers production of maize slowly increasing as commercial production decreases over a period of 30 years. His argument is that this is a better explanation for Zimbabwes food insecurity in recent years since the communal sector provides 60 percent of maize production yet is not captured in GDP data. (excerpt)

Contributions to the Forum

Mark Salter's (2007) article involves an imaginative use of Foucault's ideas of heterotopia and confessionary complex to understand the bordering activities that take place at airports. In my opinion, two particularly important features of the article lie in its countering both excessively laudatory accounts of airports as transversal places and the similarly frequent failure to note the relative inefficiencies with which airports fulfill their security functions because of their inherent contradictions (screening for objects versus identifying dangerous persons, etc.) and all of the other activities they carry out, such as transportation and, increasingly, shopping by those not subject to containment and deportation. In a number of respects, however, it is not entirely clear to me that airports differ fundamentally from other border checkpoints (except, perhaps, the shopping) and should be placed in this wider context. What I have to say is about where to place emphasis in subsequent studies and this is definitely not a critique of Salter's excellent article. What I have in mind can be reduced to four points that could be considered in relation to this broader context. First off, the security functions of airports are part of what can be called “territorial regimes” (Kahler 2006) constituting a wide range of inclusionary and exclusionary practices. Which country's passport (and associated paperwork) you happen to hold and where it stands in the global pecking order becomes the crucial variable determining the experience of passing from one territory to another, be it at an airport gate, a ship's gangplank, or a land-border crossing. Although an important, and frequently neglected, site of territorial control, the airport should be kept within this larger theoretical frame of reference. In addition, as is clear from the American media rhetoric about “broken borders,” and a second point, the map image of the borders of the state still exercises a major influence on the territorial imagination of whose security is at stake and who most threatens it (Neocleous 2003). Even though airports, for example, may well be major sites for the arrival of contested migrants and possible terrorists, the most popular idea is that of the former running, swimming, or otherwise penetrating land and sea borders. Perhaps even more importantly, however, borders, including their sites at airports, serve vital economic functions. A third point, therefore, is that though borders are about classifying identities, they are also about sorting and sifting goods and people to enhance or maintain unequal cross-border exchange (e.g., Kearney 2004). They are not simply about a security-identity nexus. Finally, policing borders has a powerful normative justification in the defense of that territorial sovereignty which serves to underpin both liberal and democratic claims to (Lockean) popular rule. Now such claims may frequently be empirically fictive, particularly in the case of imperial and nation states (Dahbour 2006), but the logic of the argument is that absent effective worldwide government the highest authority available is that of existing states. How such states police their borders, of course, should be subject to transparent and open regulation. As Salter convincingly shows for his airport, this is rarely the case. But why it is popularly legitimate to engage in policing functions in the way they are carried out cannot simply be put down to mass docility in the face of an omnipotent (because it is omniscient) state apparatus.