Explore the vast range of titles available.

This book is a concise treatise of the alternative paradigms used in BRICS countries to tackle urban housing shortages. There are a number of alternative methods for meeting these shortages which BRICS countries have adopted. These alternatives may agree in terms of desired outcome, but when it comes to approach, mechanics and scope, they are entirely divergent. By focusing on the political economy and the international structure of each BRICS country, these perspectives present alternative and often conflicting approaches to the attainment of better housing. Development Paradigms for Urban Housing in BRICS Countries explores the various political, economic, institutional and cultural factors that have shaped the housing outcomes in BRICS countries that we see today. The book uses a framework which allows comparison between Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, whilst recognizing the differences in the development path that each of these countries has taken.

Der vorliegende Beitrag beschäftigt sich mit den Sammelrezensionen in der Gründungsphase der DVjs und fragt danach, welche Rolle sie bei der Durchsetzung des Forschungsparadigmas ›Geistesgeschichte‹ gespielt haben. Dafür wird zunächst die Textsorte Sammelrezension im Kontext der Zeitschrift näher bestimmt sowie ihr strategisches Potenzial bei der (Neu‑)Ordnung größerer Forschungsgebiete analysiert. Im Anschluss wird nach der polemischen Funktion gefragt, die solchen Sammelrezensionen innewohnt, und welche Relevanz das für die DVjs in ihrer Gründungsphase hatte. Abschließend werden diese Überlegungen am Beispiel der Barockforschung exemplifiziert.

All research is guided by a set of philosophical underpinnings. Indigenous methodologies are in line with an Indigenous paradigm, while critical and liberatory methodologies fit with the transformative paradigm. Yet Indigenous and transformative methodologies share an emancipatory and critical stance and thus are increasingly used in tandem by both Western and Indigenous scholars in an attempt to decolonize methodologies, research, and the academy as a whole. However, these multiparadigmatic spaces only superficially support decolonization which, in the Canadian context of settler colonialism, is a radical and unsettling prospect that is about land, resources, and sovereignty. Applying this definition of decolonization to the decolonization of research paradigms, this article suggests that such paradigms must be developed, from scratch, conjointly between Indigenous and Western researchers.

In an attempt to better understand recognition memory we look at how three approaches (dual processing, signal detection, and global matching) have addressed the probe, the returned signal and the decision in four recognition paradigms. These are single-item recognition (including the remember/know paradigm), recognition in relational context, associative recognition, and source monitoring. The contrast, with regards to the double-miss rate (the probability of recognizing neither item in intact and rearranged pairs) and the effect of the oldness of the other member of the test pair, between identifying the old words in test pairs (the relational context paradigm) and first identifying the intact test pairs and then identifying the old words (adding associative recognition to the relational context paradigm) suggests that the retrieval of associative information in the relational context paradigm is unintentional, unlike the retrieval of associative information in associative recognition. It also seems possible that the information that is spontaneously retrieved in single-item recognition, possibly including the remember/know paradigm, is also unintentional, unlike the retrieval of information in source monitoring. Probable differences between intentional and unintentional retrieval, together with the pattern of effects with regards to the double-miss rate and the effect of the other member of the test pair, are used to evaluate the three approaches. Our conclusion is that all three approaches have something valid to say about recognition, but none is equally applicable across all four paradigms.

This viewpoint article argues that the impacts of the novel coronavirus COVID-19 call for transformative e-Tourism research. We are at a crossroads where one road takes us to e-Tourism as it was before the crisis, whereas the other holds the potential to transform e-Tourism. To realize this potential, e-Tourism research needs to challenge existing paradigms and critically evaluate its ontological and epistemological foundations. In light of the paramount importance to rethink contemporary science, growth, and technology paradigms, we present six pillars to guide scholars in their efforts to transform e-Tourism through their research, including historicity, reflexivity, equity, transparency, plurality, and creativity. We conclude the paper with a call to the e-Tourism research community to embrace transformative research.

In recent decades, sustainable tourism has emerged as a central paradigm, attracting growing scholarly interest. External factors, such as the SDGs, climate change agendas, smart and digitalized tourism, cyber and astronaut travel, pandemics, and shifting trends in economic competitiveness, mass tourism, and overtourism, are shaping the 21st-century paradigmatic landscape, challenging both the theoretical “what” and practical “how” of the sustainable tourism paradigm. Using Kuhn’s paradigmatic framework and the Web of Science bibliometric database from 1991 to 2022, this analysis traces trends in sustainable tourism research, advances in academic communication through influential co-citation networks and interdisciplinarity, and the emergence of alternative and quasi-paradigms. The findings suggest, first, a positive trend in tourism scholarly research production; second, weak and diverse communication and interdisciplinarity, as scholars do not sufficiently collaborate in co-citations; and third, the coexistence of the sustainable tourism paradigm with numerous alternative, rival, and quasi-paradigms. The lack of influential knowledge communication highlights the need for the academic tourism community to reconsider its knowledge generation practices. Enhanced collaboration through co-citation and interdisciplinary cooperation is crucial for fostering a deeper and shared understanding of multiple tourism-related concepts. Further thematic and interactive research is needed on the resilience and adaptability of the sustainable tourism paradigm. This article contributes to advancing sustainable tourism scholarship by advocating for a more influential and adaptable paradigm to ensure its relevance amidst emerging challenges.

Purpose The authors do not claim that the following represents the views of any one tribe but instead the culmination of the academic literature written on the topic. Marketing’s current Western dominant social paradigm (DSP) is said to perpetuate “green”, yet unsustainable practices. The DSP does not support strictly pro-environmental practices and its proposed alternative, the new environmental paradigm (NEP), lacks in-depth conceptualisation, especially concerning business and marketing activities. However, the two paradigms contrast so much that a shift from one to the other is vehemently argued against and conceptually rife with problems. This paper aims to expand upon the merits of the NEP using indigenous people’s environmental philosophies – specifically the Māori people of New Zealand[1] – as examples of historically supported and successful sustainable philosophies. It conceptualises the Māori view to provide a more practical alternative to the DSP and includes propositions for marketing implementation of this perspective. Findings By explicating both the DSP and NEP and reflecting on each through an indigenous Māori view, this paper provides propositions for a broadened paradigm that supports sustainability and its application for sustainable marketing. Research limitations/implications The implications of this research are in the area of paradigm development and in providing an alternative paradigm to that of the DSP. This paper is the first to fully explicate parts of the NEP and considers a solution to the problems of changing the current DSP so drastically by broadening the NEP using a Māori worldview. Practical implications The propositions and examples provided in this work give practical application of the newly presented paradigm for marketers influenced by indigenous belief systems. Originality/value This paper is the first to explicate parts of the NEP and broaden its reach by integrating a Māori worldview as an alternative to drastically changing the current DSP. It does so by proposing that marketers embrace a middle ground that is influenced by indigenous belief systems.

Crosslinguistically, inflectional morphology exhibits a spectacular range of complexity in both the structure of individual words and the organization of systems that words participate in. We distinguish two dimensions in the analysis of morphological complexity. Enumerative complexity (E-complexity) reflects the number of morphosyntactic distinctions that languages make and the strategies employed to encode them, concerning either the internal composition of words or the arrangement of classes of words into inflection classes. This, we argue, is constrained by INTEGRATIVE COMPLEXITY (I-complexity). The I-complexity of an inflectional system reflects the difficulty that a paradigmatic system poses for language users (rather than lexicographers) in information-theoretic terms. This becomes clear by distinguishing AVERAGE PARADIGM ENTROPY from AVERAGE CONDITIONAL ENTROPY. The average entropy of a paradigm is the uncertainty in guessing the realization for a particular cell of the paradigm of a particular lexeme (given knowledge of the possible exponents). This gives one a measure of the complexity of a morphological system—systems with more exponents and more inflection classes will in general have higher average paradigm entropy—but it presupposes a problem that adult native speakers will never encounter. In order to know that a lexeme exists, the speaker must have heard at least one word form, so in the worst case a speaker will be faced with predicting a word form based on knowledge of one other word form of that lexeme. Thus, a better measure of morphological complexity is the average conditional entropy, the average uncertainty in guessing the realization of one randomly selected cell in the paradigm of a lexeme given the realization of one other randomly selected cell. This is the I-complexity of paradigm organization. Viewed from this information-theoretic perspective, languages that appear to differ greatly in their E-complexity—the number of exponents, inflectional classes, and principal parts—can actually be quite similar in terms of the challenge they pose for a language user who already knows how the system works. We adduce evidence for this hypothesis from three sources: a comparison between languages of varying degrees of E-complexity, a case study from the particularly challenging conjugational system of Chiquihuitlán Mazatec, and a Monte Carlo simulation modeling the encoding of morphosyntactic properties into formal expressions. The results of these analyses provide evidence for the crucial status of words and paradigms for understanding morphological organization.

Rather than introducing radical new \"grand theory\" paradigms, most theory contributions in strategic management extend, clarify, or apply received theories in new and interesting ways. Here we offer a guide on how to make these kinds of contributions to theory. Theory usually begins with a research question, which can come from the phenomenon of interest, variations/limitations of existing theory, or intellectual creativity. Along with the question, there are a number of more craftsmanship-level aspects of a theory where contributions can be made: the mode of theorizing, the level of analysis, an understanding of the underlying phenomenon, causal mechanisms, constructs and variables, and boundary conditions. These aspects of the theory lead to a set of outcomes in the form of explanations, predictions, or prescriptions. The articles in this special issue are interpreted through our framework as illustrations of this approach to making theory contributions.