Jessica L. Tracy, Richard W. Robins, and Jeffrey W. Sherman
- Published in print:
- 2012
- Published Online:
- September 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199753628
- eISBN:
- 9780199950027
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753628.003.0014
- Subject:
- Psychology, Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology
Findings from a study that surveyed editors and editorial board members of personality and social psychology journals are reviewed to examine the practice of psychological science in the field of ...
More
Findings from a study that surveyed editors and editorial board members of personality and social psychology journals are reviewed to examine the practice of psychological science in the field of social-personality. Findings demonstrate: (a) although personality and social researchers tend to use many of the same approaches, methods, and procedures, they show average differences in each of these domains, as well as in their overarching theoretical aims and perspectives; (b) the average differences between the two subgroups conform to social and personality researchers' explicit beliefs about the differences; (c) despite the overall methodological and philosophical differences between the two groups, there are few differences in the research topics each subgroup focuses upon, and there are many researchers whose research appears to bridge the two subareas; (d) the structure of social-personality research practices is best characterized as having two independent factors corresponding to Cronbach's (1957) correlationaland experimental “streams of research.”Less
Findings from a study that surveyed editors and editorial board members of personality and social psychology journals are reviewed to examine the practice of psychological science in the field of social-personality. Findings demonstrate: (a) although personality and social researchers tend to use many of the same approaches, methods, and procedures, they show average differences in each of these domains, as well as in their overarching theoretical aims and perspectives; (b) the average differences between the two subgroups conform to social and personality researchers' explicit beliefs about the differences; (c) despite the overall methodological and philosophical differences between the two groups, there are few differences in the research topics each subgroup focuses upon, and there are many researchers whose research appears to bridge the two subareas; (d) the structure of social-personality research practices is best characterized as having two independent factors corresponding to Cronbach's (1957) correlationaland experimental “streams of research.”
Peter Manning
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195144840
- eISBN:
- 9780199849802
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195144840.003.0022
- Subject:
- Music, Theory, Analysis, Composition
There is a strong argument to the effect that it is no longer relevant to distinguish between “electronic” and “computer” music in considering present day activities. If this view is accepted, the ...
More
There is a strong argument to the effect that it is no longer relevant to distinguish between “electronic” and “computer” music in considering present day activities. If this view is accepted, the question then arises: Which is the more appropriate descriptor, or is it the case that neither can now usefully serve this generic purpose? This quest for more appropriate descriptors begs the question as to why any qualification of the term “music” should be necessary in the first place. To many nowadays, devices such as guitars, synthesizers, and audio processors are the primary agents for making music, and to their way of thinking it is acoustic instruments that require a special label rather than their electronic counterparts. A more considered perspective seeks a reconciliation of these philosophical differences, perhaps by recognizing the diversity of sound-producing agents that may be used to generate music, and the ability of many of these tools to serve both serious and more popular applications alike. This in turn highlights yet again the importance of an informed understanding of the musical and the technical characteristics of the various tools that have been developed over the years, and the extent to which they have succeeded in enhancing the working environment for the composer and performer.Less
There is a strong argument to the effect that it is no longer relevant to distinguish between “electronic” and “computer” music in considering present day activities. If this view is accepted, the question then arises: Which is the more appropriate descriptor, or is it the case that neither can now usefully serve this generic purpose? This quest for more appropriate descriptors begs the question as to why any qualification of the term “music” should be necessary in the first place. To many nowadays, devices such as guitars, synthesizers, and audio processors are the primary agents for making music, and to their way of thinking it is acoustic instruments that require a special label rather than their electronic counterparts. A more considered perspective seeks a reconciliation of these philosophical differences, perhaps by recognizing the diversity of sound-producing agents that may be used to generate music, and the ability of many of these tools to serve both serious and more popular applications alike. This in turn highlights yet again the importance of an informed understanding of the musical and the technical characteristics of the various tools that have been developed over the years, and the extent to which they have succeeded in enhancing the working environment for the composer and performer.
