Apple Inc Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Apple Inc - Case Study Example In fact, it contributes to over 50% of Apple’s bottom line and with the sales of its iPhone 5 surpassing that of the iPhone 4s, the company’s market cap increased significantly. Secondly, the Apple Dividend announced in March of 2012 made its stock more attractive to income-searching retail investors, despite its small yield. However, income fund managers found its $2.65 quarterly dividend more important as the income funds require that the investments must provide income (Sutherland, 2012: p52). Having a dividend made it possible for more investors to buy its stock, which increased its market cap. In addition, although Apple’s stocks have been fluctuating, its fundamentals have stayed the same with over $100 billion in cash reserves and no debts. This ensures that investors see it as a safe bet that will climb again. Apple was able to identify market trends and capitalize on them through various means. With a diverse range of stylish products, Apple capitalized on the fact that consumers wanted to be different. The iPhone and the iPad were released after Apple recognized the high demand for computers and phones but that most products on the market looked the same with similar functionalities (Treacy, 2012: p60). Another reason for Apple’s ability to capitalize on identified market trends is its dynamic business plan, which is always set to resonate with what the market wants. By changing the company’s name to Apple Inc from Apple Computer, the company identified the need for a phone with computer functionalities and broadened their spectrum. Apple was also able to identify the fact that music retail outlets were becoming popular and that outsourcing this capability was not giving them what they wanted (Treacy, 2012: p60). ... By opening a retail store, they were able to capitalize on consumers needs for a retail outlet on their phones. Apple was able to achieve global success by leveraging brand loyalty. By taking their business to emerging markets with minimal penetration of smartphones but where their brand was already known due to mass media, the company opened up new opportunities for developers in those markets (Treacy, 2012: p72). In addition, by hiring employees from those countries and from diverse fields, including artists and musicians, they were able to create unique and different perspectives from those countries. Apple also built relationships with its customers in various regions of the world by embracing social media and the internet, which meant that people in these new regions saw Apple as a transparent and trustworthy company. In addition, they also used movement marketing, in which they marketed what Apple believed in, contending that they sought to bring personal experience of computin g to consumers across the world via innovation (Treacy, 2012: p73). By leveraging brand loyalty, Apple consumers have overlooked glitches as they have emotional connections with their products. However, in order for Apple to gain market share across the world, various companies also had to lose market share and the most affected company was Microsoft. By combining most of what Microsoft offered, including a phone, search engine, office, and operating systems, Apple was able to offer consumers a product that was more appealing (Treacy, 2012: p91). By doing this, Apple was also able to grow various market segments. One of them was the smartphone market, which, although still stagnant at 3%, has pushed its competitors to

Asymmetry and Polymorphism of Hybrid Male Sterility

Asymmetry and Polymorphism of Hybrid Male Sterility Kimberly Woosley Critical Review: Asymmetry and Polymorphism of Hybrid Male Sterility During the Early Stages of Speciation in House Mice In this study, the researchers sought to determine the genetic cause of male sterility in house mice when there was interbreeding among different but related species. The researchers took two breeds of two species of house mice, musculus and domesticus, and cross-bred wild-type with classic inbred type, from the laboratory, and wild-type with wild-type. They then conducted several generations of directional and reciprocal crosses and compared body weight, testis weight, motility and sperm count. These data were analyzed to determine sterility in the male offspring of the F1 generations. The researchers crossed same species but different breed mice as a control for the expected F1 offspring fertility. They then did eight crosses of the different breeds varying the maternal and paternal parentage. After all crosses were complete they let the mice grow to maturity at approximately 60 days. The researchers weighed the mice, they then dissected them to get the weight of the testes and used histology to examine the seminiferous tubules and spermatogenesis to determine sterility. The results of their study showed a decrease in fertility of the hybrid mice except for when a domesticus female was mated with a musculus male. In those two crosses, the hybrids showed similar or increased body weight, testes weight, motility, and sperm count when musculusPWK was the paternal mate regardless of which breed of domesticus was used. In the other six crosses, the F1 offspring all had decreased testes weight, decreased sperm count, and no motile sperm. The researchers then crossed the F1 males of the intrabred domesticusLEWES x WSB with the musculusPWK female and the F1 males of the intrabred musculusPWK x CZECH with the domesticusLEWES. Comparing the two, the researchers noted when the female domesticusLEWES was mated with the male musculus with only half the genes coming from musculusPWK the F1 males still showed an increase in testes weight and sperm count over the musculusPWK female from the first cross. Their results showed that there is a combination of genetic factors at play and that the musculus X chromosome has a large effect on the fertility of the F1 generations. The results varied in some crosses indicating that other loci were involved in the interference of spermatogenesis. However, they were unable to determine exactly which genes were epistatic on male reproductive growth and fertility. They did use their finding to infer polymorphism on autosomal traits when combined with some X, Y traits in certain breed crossings. The researchers acknowledge that this study was fixed on male sterility and did not take into account female sterility or decreases in immune function that could also lead to reproductive isolation. The conclusions drawn by the researchers is valuable for further research into the genetic makeup of which genes are interacting or epistatic on the fertility of hybrid species. Scientists could take the study deeper in an effort to isolate the genes involved and determine which are responsible for speciation in the wild. Overall, this was an excellent article, the authors explained the data clearly and used previous research to back up their hypothesis. The authors broke down each aspect of X-linked, Haldanes rule, D-M incompatibility, and polymorphism as it pertained to their results showing how their study supported previous results and could lead to future explanations of speciation. Reference Good, J., Handel, M., Nachman, M. (2007). Asymmetry And Polymorphism Of Hybrid Male Sterility During The Early Stages Of Speciation In House Mice. Evolution, 62(1), 50-65. doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00257.x

The Christian Perspective on Capital Punishment and Rehabilitation Ess

Abstract Christian’s hold three distinct perspectives on capital punishment, namely Rehabilitationism, Reconstructionism and Retributionism. Rehabilitationism is the view that death sentence should not be allowed for any crime; Reconstructionism holds that death penalty should be allowed for any serious crime; Retributionism recommends death sentence for some capital crimes. The last two positions share a somewhat similar view. This paper focuses on rehabilitationism. Proponents of this view comprise those who appeal to the Bible for justification and those who do not. The paper presents the arguments of those in the former group. Contrary to the view of the rehabilitationalists that the aim of punishment is reformatory or remedial, the paper argues that the aim of capital punishment is justice and a good society. Conceptualization of Capital Punishment and Rehabilitationism Capital punishment is the taking of an offender’s life for a crime which he has committed and found guilty of by a court or tribunal under law. For Etuk, capital punishment is the death penalty when it is executed after a due process of law carried out by a society’s duly constituted apparatus (2000, 6). It is distinguished from other forms of extra-legal killings such as shooting on sight of suspected criminals, assassinations, disappearance of persons carried out by state agents, among others. Capital punishment thus defined has existed in almost all civilizations and the modes of its execution have varied from country to country. Amnesty International in 1989 listed out the following modes of execution in current use: hanging, shooting, electrocution, lethal injection, gassing, beheading and stoning (Etuk, 6). In Nigeria, the most prominent me... ...ence†. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 2 No 1, 2000, pp 1 – 18. Geisler, N. L. Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989. Ige, E.    â€Å"Death Penalty in the Dock: Seminar that Explores its Retention or Abolition†. Vanguard, November 1, 2002. Iwe, N. S. S. Socio-Ethical Issues in Nigeria. Oruowulu – Obosi: Pacific Publishers, 1991. Stamps, D. C. (ed.) The Full Life Bible Study. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992. Walvoord, J. F. & Zuck, R. B. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (Old Testament). USA: Cook communications Ministries, 1983. Walvoord, J. F. & Zuck, R. B. The Bible Knowledge Commentary (New Testament). USA: Cook communications Ministries, 1983.

Qualitative vs. Quantitative Methods

Discuss the main differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and analysis in management research. Your answer should make reference to the philosophical assumptions which underpin these methodological approaches. Introduction Whenever a decision is made to undertake a piece of research a method for conducting the study is required. In scientific research the techniques typically used for data collection and analysis are those which allow the evaluation of data to test a predetermined hypothesis (Zikmund, 2000). An example of this is a laboratory-based experiment where the researcher can be in full control of all the variables involved and can therefore be sure that any change in the phenomena under investigation is a direct result of an identified and controlled stimulus. In marketing research however, which is usually reliant on some aspect of human influence, it has been proposed that such a uniform, rigid approach is not appropriate: â€Å"There is never a single, perfect research design that is the best for all marketing research projects, or even a specific type of marketing research task. (Malhotra and Birks, 2000: p. 70) The aim of this assignment is to critically evaluate the quantitative and qualitative approaches to research, specifically focusing on the marketing perspective. To do this, consideration is firstly given to the basic differences between the qualitative and quantitative approaches, considering the seemingly opposing theoretical paradigms from which they have origina ted. Subsequently the development of the marketing discipline is examined with a specific focus on how and why different research methods have been employed in the field. Attention is Page 1 of 1 iven to the need for marketing to address both the issue of verifying existing hypotheses, and the requirement to develop new theory. As there appears to be no ideal research method for use in marketing it would seem that what is important is being critically aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches available. Finally, therefore, the notion of pluralism, or methodological triangulation, is explored as such an approach is often used to exploit the strengths and minimise weaknesses in research design through the combination of two or more research methods, often from opposing theoretical paradigms. Basic differences between quantitative and qualitative research Qualitative research can be defined as: â€Å"†¦the collection, analysis and interpretation of data that cannot be meaningfully quantified, that is, summarised in the form of numbers. † (Parasuraman et al, 2004: p. 195) Whereas quantitative research can be defined as: â€Å"†¦the collection of data that involves larger, more representative respondent samples and the numerical calculation of results. † (Parasuraman et al, 2004: p. 195) Historically it has been considered that science based disciplines such as mathematics and physics are especially suited to quantitative research methods. Such methods are considered to be objective and lead to numerical, absolute outcomes, which can be verified through repetition and further testing (Zikmund, 2000); in other words the knowledge is external to the knower (Milliken, 2001), and therefore is available be found by whoever conducts the necessary research (Cunningham, 1999). This view of natural science can be considered to fit within the positivist paradigm, where a paradigm can be thought of as theoretical framework for looking at a situation and a basis upon which phenomena can be analysed and interpreted Page 2 of 2 (Gill and Johnson, 2002). Kuhn (1970) supports the need for paradigms on the basis that they bind disciplines together, and without them there would be no valid position from which to undertake research. Deshpande (1983) suggests that the acceptance of a particular theoretical aradigm is typically followed by a choice of a specific set of research methods that appear to fit within it. This is perhaps exemplified by the significant use of laboratory experiments in pure scientific disciplines. Within the social sciences however there has been a long-standing debate surrounding which philosophical standpoint, or paradigm, it is appropriate for research methods to be derived from (Milliken, 2001). Cohen et al (2000) consider there to be two m ajor, apparently contradictory, views relating to how research should be conducted within social science. The first aligns social science with natural science and therefore implies that research in the field should be directed towards the search for universal laws which regulate individual social behaviour. The second focuses on the human element of social science research, with recognition of the notion that people are not inanimate objects and therefore cannot be treated as such. Aligning social science with natural science arguably implies that data collection and analysis is best performed from a positivist standpoint. As research methods favoured by positivists tend towards those reliant on quantification (Gill and Johnson, 2002), it would follow that in management research the focus should be on quantitative research methods. Research conducted from the positivist viewpoint is usually considered to be reductionist in nature, and is often termed hypothetico-deductive, as it aims to derive a result in relation to a predefined hypothesis (Zikmund, 2000). Conversely, an approach to research which embraces human individuality and places emphasis on how people perceive and give meaning to their own Page 3 of 3 socially created world, can be considered constructivist (Hunt, 1994), and phenomenological (Gill and Johnson, 2002). The focus from this standpoint is therefore on understanding, interpreting and building theory rather than objectively testing, deducing and verifying an existing hypothesis. Such an approach can be considered inductive in nature and therefore favours the adoption of qualitative research methods. ollows: â€Å"†¦the most telling and fundamental distinction between the paradigms is on the dimension of verification versus discovery†¦quantitative methods have been developed most directly for the task of verifying or confirming theories and†¦qualitative methods were purposely developed for the task of discovering or generating theories. † (Reichardt and Cook, 1979: cited in Deshpande, 1983: p. 105 ) This can be explained further as At the extreme of the inductive spectrum lies the concept of grounded theory developed by Glaser and Strauss (1967). Here the researcher builds theory based entirely on the data obtained in a particular study without the influence of predetermined knowledge or preconceived hypotheses. Taking deduction to the extreme hypotheses can only ever be tested, raising the question of how it is possible to obtain a hypothesis in the first place. This presents a number of dilemmas with regard to research in the field of management, including whether it is more appropriate to test existing hypotheses or to develop new theory. The theory-testing versus theory-generation debate is particularly significant in the field of marketing as, due to the relative youth of the discipline, marketers are faced with the challenge of both obtaining and maintaining respect and credibility for the work that has been done so far (Bartels, 1983); and continuing to generate theory needed to develop a coherent, holistic body of knowledge which will clear up marketing’s existing â€Å"theory mess† (Gummesson, 2002: p. 349). Page 4 of 4 Development of research in the field of marketing The discipline of marketing, which came about as a departure from economics not long after 1900, originally had no identity of its own. There was no predetermined framework for its development, nor any real expectation of what it should, or could, become (Bartels, 1983). The way the discipline started to develop however led to a belief that it had â€Å"†¦meritorious scientific character† (Bartels, 1983: p. 34), which subsequently influenced ideas about the way in which credible research in the field should be conducted. Consequently approaches to research in marketing have historically been dominated by deductive processes (Hyde, 2000). Milliken (2001) supports this with the observation that within the marketing literature there has been little attention paid to qualitative research. If marketing was universally accepted to be akin to a pure science then this may be an acceptable situation. It has been suggested however that, rather than being a science, marketing is actually an art which belongs both to the world of business and the school of humanities (Halliday, 1999). It was noted by Deshpande (1983) that in the early 1980s there were only four major textbooks dealing with the metatheoretical issues in marketing, and it can therefore be understood that â€Å"†¦self conscious reflection on theory construction in marketing is of fairly recent origin. † (p. 104). Peter (1982), supported by Deshpande (1983), argues that the dominant philosophical approach applied in marketing is that of logical empiricism. Such a positivist approach forces a â€Å"†¦search for causality and the assumption of determinism† (Hunt, 1994: p. 7), which directs those conducting marketing research towards hypotheticodeductive methods for the verification of existing theories rather than development of new ones. Page 5 of 5 Goulding (1999) suggests that the popularity of the positivist paradigm may be down to the more transparent rules which it projects with regard to the basis of hypotheses and their testing, resulting in a clearer picture of what is a ccepted to be known and what remains unknown or untested. As marketing is a relatively young discipline, quantitative methods have therefore been regularly favoured over qualitative methods in an attempt to establish credibility and respectability (Bartels, 1983). Bass (1993) unreservedly supports quantitative research and the scientific view of marketing, on the basis of the need to make general laws and principles which can be widely applied. To emphasise his position further Bass (1993) repeatedly refers to the discipline as not as â€Å"marketing† but as â€Å"marketing science†. Despite this apparent favouritism of qualitative research, for establishing integrity and credence, it has been suggested that marketing as a discipline has failed to develop a coherent theoretical foundation due to the inappropriate selection and use of methods within the framework of logical empiricism (Leone and Schultz, 1980). criticises how qualitative research is implemented. Gummesson (2001) also He questions whether or not it is ppropriate to make a jump from a subjective answer given by a person, perhaps in the form of a questionnaire response, to hard facts about the population being studied, and furthermore if a model being selected for use in marketing research can be an appropriate proxy for the particular situation being studied. Gummesson (2001) instead advocates an interactive approach to research in marketing based on â€Å"†¦a humanistic, hermeneutic and phenomenological paradigm. (p. 40). Deshpande (1983) is in agreement with this and proposes that, rather th at the incorrectly using quantitative research methods, the shortfall in theory development in the field may lie in the inappropriate adoption of a quantitative paradigm where a qualitative one would be more appropriate: â€Å"If we ignore the qualitative paradigm, we also by definition exclude the principal systematic means of theory generation. † (Deshpande, 1983: p. 106) Page 6 of 6 The dominance of logical empiricism in marketing has therefore been seen as potentially detrimental to the discipline, because the successful development of an appropriate holistic and sound body of theory is necessary for the credibility of the field in both management and academe (Bartels, 1983). Hunt (1994) however observes that scholars in the field of marketing, particularly those reviewing papers for publication in academic journals, may themselves be responsible for the lack of theory generation by being over critical when reviewing the work of those who attempt to make an original contribution. According to Gummesson (2001) this behaviour reinforces the belief that to build a publications record, and a respectable reputation, marketers are being encouraged to test existing theory using quantitative methods rather than generate theory through qualitative investigation. This, it has been suggested, has resulted in there being no development in general management marketing theory over recent decades, leaving marketing as an array of disjointed theories and ideas founded on arguably obsolete principles Gummesson (2001). The lack of credibility given to qualitative research techniques in marketing from the academic perspective does however appear somewhat ironic given that such methods are widely adopted in marketing research in industry (Deshpande, 1983). Although it may appear that qualitative marketing research is a relatively recent revelation, Deshpande (1983) argues that this is not the case. He observes that there was significant interest in the topic in the 1950s and 1960s. In the early 1980s, Fern (1982) suggested that the reason one specific qualitative technique, focus groups, had failed to gain prominence was a lack of empirical testing, which would allow the theory development necessary to acquire credibility. In other words a qualitative technique struggled to generate recognition because it could not satisfy the positivistic evaluation criteria needed to do so. This is perhaps indicative of the historical power of positivism in marketing academia in determining what can be accepted as credible Page 7 of 7 nd what cannot, regardless of whether or not techniques are accepted in the commercial environment. Malhotra and Peterson (2001) suggest that for marketing to move forward in the twenty-first century it is necessary to bridge the gap between the academic and commercial positions. There is evidence of increasing acceptance of qualitative methods in marketing research, especially in managing research as the marketplace evolves. For example Kozinet z (2002) developed â€Å"netnography† as a technique for gaining insight into online communities based on a combination of the principles of ethnography and focus groups. Quantitative techniques it would appear still have their place in marketing research too, despite the criticisms levelled at them. The SERVQUAL questionnaire for example, originally developed by Parasuraman et al (1988), relies on the collection of data which can be statistically manipulated to determine levels of service quality. Notwithstanding the substantial criticism it has received (see Buttle, 1996), it is still being used in marketing research today (see e. g. DeMoranville and Bienstock, 2003). What it would consequently appear important to recognise is that both quantitative and qualitative methods have their place in marketing research; neither is sufficient on its own, and there is potentially for significant advances to be made if marketing researchers acknowledge this (Deshpande, 1983). Triangulation and methodological pluralism There is a place in marketing research for both qualitative and quantitative research. There is also a significant risk that overly staunch advocates of a single paradigm will forego the quality of their research by valuing the methodological choice above the aim of the particular Page 8 of 8 study (Bartels, 1983). From a marketing research perspective the importance therefore lies in recognition of the relative advantages and disadvantages of both the qualitative and quantitative research and the understanding of the strengths and weakness of particular methods. Cahill (1996) supports this with the recognition that qualitative and quantitative techniques can be complementary, and Milliken (2001) suggests that the reality of a real research situation demands compromise between the seemingly opposed philosophical standpoints on which the methods are based. Combining qualitative and quantitative methods presents the researcher with an opportunity to compensate for the weakness in each approach. (Deshpande, 1983), and within the field of marketing there appears to be a significant move towards combining qualitative and quantitative research methods (Milliken, 2001). Perry (1998) emphasises the benefit of case study methodology in marketing and suggests that there is no need to consider induction and deduction to be mutually exclusive when selecting a research method. He emphasises that realism is the most appropriate paradigm from which to undertake marketing research as it allows the building of new theory whilst incorporating existing knowledge. Strength in method combination does not necessarily have to include qualitative and quantitative approaches. Hall and Rist (1999) present a marketing study based on the triangulation of purely qualitative research methods including focus groups, observation and document examination. They argue that doing this eliminates the risks of relying on a single method and therefore enhances research quality and strengthens the credibility of qualitative techniques. Page 9 of 9 Methodological pluralism, whilst appearing to offer reconciliation between opposing theoretical paradigms in relation to research method choice, does itself introduce debate and criticism. Gill and Johnson (2002) for example note that embracing realism can be seen as accepting positivism at the cost of phenomenology as it may involve the †¦operationalization and measurement of social reality (stimuli) and action (response)†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (p. 170). Consequently, combining research methods can itself become part of the argument rather than a solution. Conclusion The decision of whether to adopt qualitative or quantitative methods in management research historically appears to be based on the philosophical assumptions upheld by the individual researcher or the discipline in which he or she is work ing. A paradigmatic dichotomy between positivism and phenomenology (or constructivism) would seem to have resulted in a situation where, in some instances, the research methodology choice is deemed more significant than the subject of the particular study. Marketing is a relatively young discipline within the field of management and, as such, is faced with the challenge of obtaining and maintaining credibility. To do this it has been proposed that it needs to both test existing theory and generate new theory, however the processes required to achieve these two goals can be seem to stem from diametrically opposed paradigms: theory-testing being achievable through deductive methods; and theory generation relying on an inductive approach. This incommensurability has however been challenged with the assertion that what is important is selecting an appropriate methodology for a particular study, rather than fitting a Page 10 of 10 study to a method. Methodological triangulation has been suggested as a means of achieving this, with a move towards a paradigm of realism where the relative advantages and disadvantages of a number of research methods can be embraced. Whilst at face value this approach may appear to offer a compromise offering the best practical solution to the methodological choice dispute, it also introduces criticism of its own which, in turn fuels the debate further. The general aim of this discussion, to consider the differences between qualitative and quantitative research methods, has itself been conducted from an ostensibly positivistic standpoint. In fact any discussion, comparison or assessment of research methods is arguably starting from a predetermined premise that an objective evaluation is being undertaken (Gill and Johnson, 2002), and can therefore be seen to be embracing positivist ideals. Taking into account the amount of attention that has been paid to philosophical approaches to management research; the ambiguities that are apparent; the ongoing search for the most suitable and appropriate means for conducting studies; and the motivation to establish and maintain credibility, it would seem unlikely that end to the debate regarding research methods in management is in sight: â€Å"Like the earth being round, thus lacking a natural end, the journey in Methodologyland has no end. You search again and again and again, just as the term says: re-search, re-search, re-search. (Gummesson, 2001: p. 29) Page 11 of 11 References Bartels, R. (1983), â€Å"Is marketing defaulting its responsibilities? †, Journal of Marketing, 47(4), pp. 32-35 Bass, F. M. (1993), â€Å"The future of research in marketing: Marketing Science†, Journal of Marketing Research, 30(1), pp. 1-6 Buttle, F. (1996), â€Å"SERVQUAL: review, critique, research agenda†, European Journal o f Marketing, 30(1), pp. 8-32 Cahill, D. J. (1996), â€Å"When to use qualitative methods: a new approach†, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 14(6), pp. 16-20 Cohen, L. , Manion, L. and Morr, K. 2000), Research Methods in Education, 5th Edition, Routledge: London Cunningham, A. C. (1999), â€Å"Commentary confessions of a reflective practitioner: meeting the challenges of marketing’s destruction†, European Journal of Marketing, 33(7/8), pp. 685-697 DeMoranville, C. W. and Bienstock, C. C. (2003), â€Å"Question order effects in measuring service quality†, International Journal of research in Marketing, 20(3), pp. 217-231 Deshpande, R. (1983), â€Å"Paradigms Lost: On theory and method in research in marketing†, Journal of Marketing, 47(4), pp. 101-110 Fern, E. F. 1982), â€Å"The use of focus groups for idea generation: the effects of group size, acquaintanceship, and moderator on response quantity and quality†, Journal of Marketing Research , 19(1), pp. 1-13 Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2002), Research Methods For Mangers, 3rd Edition, London: SAGE Publications Ltd Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L. (1967), The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Aldine Publishing Company: Chicago Goulding, C. (1999), â€Å"Consumer research, interpretive paradigms and methodological ambiguities†, European Journal of Marketing, 33(9/10), pp. 59-873 Gummesson, E. (2001), â€Å"Are current research approaches in marketing leading us astray? †, Marketing Theory, 1(1), pp. 27-48 Gummesson, E. (2002), â€Å"Practical value of adequate marketing management theory†, European Journal of Marketing, 36(3), pp. 325-349 Hall, A. L. and Rist, R. C. (1999), â€Å"Integrating multiple qualitative research methods (or avoiding the precariousness of a one-legged stool)†, Psychology & Marketing, 16(4), pp. 291304 Page 12 of 12 Halliday, S. 1999), â€Å"I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like: resonance, relevance and illumination as assessment criteria for marketing research and scholarship†, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 17(7), pp. 345-362 Hunt, S. D. (1994), â€Å"On rethinking marketing: Our discipline, our practice, our methods†, European Journal of Marketing, 28(3), pp. 13-25 Hyde, K. F. (2000), â€Å"Recognising deductive processes in qualitative research†, Qualitative Market Research, 3(2), pp. 82-90 Kozinets, R. V. (2002), â€Å"The field behind the screen: Using Netnography for marketing research in online communities†, Journal of Marketing Research, 39(1), pp. 1-72 Kuhn, T. S. (1970), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd Edition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press Leone, R. P. and Schultz, R. L. (1980), â€Å"A study of marketing generalizations†, Journal of Marketing, 44(1), pp. 10-18 Malhotra, N. K. and Birks, D. F. (2000), Marketing Research: An Applied Approach, 3rd European Edition, Harlow, Engl and: Financial Times Prentice Hall Malhotra, N. K. and Peterson, M. (2001), â€Å"Marketing research in the new millennium: emerging issues and trends†, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 19(4), pp. 16-235 Milliken, J. (2001), â€Å"Qualitative research and marketing management†, Management Decision, 39(1), pp. 71-77 Parasuraman, A. , Grewal, D. and Krishnan, R. (2004), Maketing Research, Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company Parasuraman, A. , Zeithaml, V. A. and Berry, L. L. (1988), â€Å"SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumers perceptions of service quality†, Journal of Retailing, 64(1), pp. 12-40 Perry, C. (1998), â€Å"Process of a case study methodology for postgraduate research in marketing†, 32(9/10), pp. 785-802 Peter, J. P. 1982), â€Å"Current issues in the philosophy of science: Implications for marketing theory – a panel discussion†, in Marketing Theory: Philosophy of Science Perspectives, Bush, R. F. and Hunt, S. D. (eds. ), Chicago, American Marketing, pp. 11-16 Reichardt, C. S. and Cook, T. D. (1979), â€Å"Beyond qualitative versus quantitative methods†, in Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Evaluation Research, Cook, T. D and Reichardt, (eds. ) Beverley Hills, CA: Sage Zikmund, W. G. (2000), Business Research Methods, 6th Edition, Orlando, USA: The Dryden Press, Harcourt College Publishers Page 13 of 13

Augustinian Theodicy and Irenaean Theodicy Essay

The problem of evil is a significant and enduring philosophical and theological debate. A question is often raised and discussed: if God is both all-loving and all-powerful, then how can evils-including natural evil and moral evil—exist in our world? In response to the charge that the evils of the world are incompatible with God’s omnipotence and perfect goodness, the word†theodicy† is coined to deal with the problem of evil. Usually it is an attempt to show that it is possible to affirm the omnipotence of God, the love of God, and the reality of evil without contradiction. Two of the most well-known and most frequently discussed theodicies are the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. The Augustinian theodicy was constructed by Saint Augustine (345-430 AD) and is the main traditional Christian response to the problem of evil. The Augustinian Theodicy holds the view that because God is perfect, the world was created free of imperfections. God cannot be blamed for evil and suffering since God didn’t create them, on the contrary, evil comes from angels and humans who act less than perfectly and choose through free will to sin and disobey God. Natural evil is an appropriate punishment because humanity destroyed the natural order, we have all sinned so we all deserve to be punished. Quite different from the Augustinian theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy which was created by Saint Irenaeas (130-202 AD) and later developed by John Hicks and Richard Swinburne doesn’t see the world as created all-good and describes an almost opposite process compared with the Augustinian theodicy. It holds that humans were initially created as immature and imperfect beings; they were created in the image of God, but not His likeness. Mankind’s goal is to achieve that likeness. Such perfection and likeness of God cannot be ready-made, it can only be developed through free will choices, and we can only become moral and develop through making moral judgments. Natural evil has to be created in order to help man progress. According to Irenaean theodicy, the suffering of the world will be justified with the reward of heaven, and this is a heaven for all, everybody will go to heaven by achieving the likeness of God. The following passages are mainly devoted to the discussion of the distinctions between the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy. First, the different theories of evil are where a foremost and drastic distinction emerges. In the Augustinian theodicy, the main philosophical position is the idea of the negative or privative nature of evil. Evil here is seen as a matter of privation-in each created being, evil is that which deprives it of the particular form or purpose which is natural to it. In other words, evil is not substance, not a â€Å"thing†, but a privation of good, an absence of good and a falling away from good. It always consists of the malfunctioning of something that is in itself good. For example, shadow is not a proliferation of darkness, but an absence of light. Since evil is a lack of something, it is not something that was created by God, but comes from angels and humans who act less than perfectly. When human being’s free will abandons what is above itself and turns to what is lower, it becomes evil. So human beings are totally responsible for evil because evil is the result of hu man error. In the Irenaean theodicy, however, evil plays an important role in the gradual creation of a perfected humanity through life in a highly imperfect world. Then a question â€Å"Why can’t God just create us as perfect as in Augustinian theodicy?† is raised. To this question, John Hick gave a fully and vivid explanation in his book Philosophy of Religion. He cleverly points out: if the world were a paradise from which all possibility of pain and suffering were excluded, then the consequences would be very far-reaching, nothing bad, nothing suffering would exist in this world, no one could ever be injured by accident, people could do anything immoral they want without hurting other people†¦ As a result, in a world free of real dangers, difficulties, problems, obstacles, there will be no meaning for the real good qualities as generosity, kindness, love, prudenceetc to exist. God had to allow the possibility of evil, because if there were no such possibility man would not be free to choose good over evil. If there were no evil and suffering humans would always follow God’s law because there would be no difficulties in doing so. The evils in this world are required by a God of love who seeks the development of his free creatures from their original innocence into fully mature spiritual beings. In other words, we human beings learn to be morally mature enough to grow closer to God. Evil can lead us to the final goodness and perfection. In this regard, God is partly  responsible for the evil in the world. Second, Augustine sticks close to the biblical text, whereas Irenaeus ties his theory less to the biblical text. As the more authentically biblical view, the Augustinian theodicy is based on the Bible and does not contradict the scriptures; it follows the traditional Christian interpretation of the creation story in the Genesis: God creates the world perfectly in six days, Adam and Eve—-the ancestors of human beings—live in the Garden of Eden happily, until one day Eve is tempted by a serpent and eats the forbidden fruits and is finally driven out of the Paradise. By eating the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil Eve commits the first sin. Augustine’s theodicy could be seen as consistent with this interpretation of the text. Moreover, he uses other Biblical ideas of God, and defends the perfection of God by maintaining that evil is a privation and not a substance, and that evil comes from human sinfulness. Humans deserve the consequences of natural evil and they are responsible for their own suffering through abuse of their own free will. The Irenaeus theodicy, on the contrary, is not compatible with biblical teaching. As a matter of fact, it is in many ways just the opposite of the interpretation of the Bible by claiming that God is partially responsible for evils. Third, in comparison to the Augustinian theodicy being a â€Å"Soul deciding† theodicy, the Irenaean theodicy is a â€Å"Soul making† theodicy. â€Å"Soul deciding† means that different consequences come as a result of the free will of human beings. So if a person chooses to do a morally wrong act a consequence will follow. A â€Å"soul making† theodicy is applied by irenaeus, which means to move from the state of imperfection through moral struggle toward eventual completed humanization. Besides the distinctions mentioned in the above passages, the Augustinian theodicy and Irenaean theodicy are often compared by people in many other aspects. For instance, Augustine leaves some people a long way from God whereas Irenaeus explains how everyone can reach heaven through moral struggle; for Augustine God is remote from man, having been distanced by his sin whereas for Irenaeus, as we make this progress we grow closer to God, reducing the epistemic distance between us and God; the Augustine’s theodicy is often thought of as a pessimistic and â€Å"tragic†Ã‚  theodicy whereas the Irenaean theodicy is generally conceived as a â€Å"comic† theodicy as is more positive and optimistic. Not surprisingly, the two theodicies also have some similarities, the most common one is that both of them trace evil back to human free will: for Augustine it is the reason why angels and human beings fall from the ultimate goodness of heaven, and what they use to disobey God, but for Irenaeus it is a part of God’s plan because it allows self-development, people also use this free will to disobey God and it causes suffering, but this suffering can help them to develop their character in order to choose to embrace goodness or evil. In conclusion, the Augustinian theodicy and the Irenaean theodicy are two sharply contrasted theodicies: the Augustinian theodicy which is also known as the â€Å"soul deciding† theodicy, stresses the role of the Fall, and sees evil as either sin or the result of sin; whereas the Irenaean theodicy, which regards evil as a requirement by a God of love to let his free creatures to develop from their original innocence into fully mature spiritual beings. Thus, our world becomes â€Å"the vale of soul-making†. Since the day of their births, the two theodicies have respectively received many praises as well as criticisms and challenges. Many deficiencies are found in both of the two theodicies. As a matter of fact, the problem of evil, far from being solved, is still open to discussion. References Day, Elizabeth. â€Å"Geneticist claims to have found’God gene’ in humans.† The Washington TimesWorld. 15 Nov 2004. Copyright 2004 News WorldCommunications, Inc. Hick, John. â€Å"An Irenaean Theodicy.† A John HickReader. Ed. Paul Badham. Philadelphia:Trinity Press International, 1990. 88-105. Ridley, Matt. Genome. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2000

The eNotes Blog Worst and BestBooks-to-Film

Worst and BestBooks-to-Film Ahhh  the holidays! For lots of us, a few days off means lazing in bed and catching up on some reading and movie-watching. You may be tempted to do a bit of both by renting or buying a film based on a book. Some are wonderful, some arewell stinkers. Here are five films you should avoid at all costs and five in which to indulge. WORST: Beowulf (2007) stars the lovely Angelina Jolie, but falls flat. Many critics agree with Fernando F. Croce of CinePassion who calls the fim, The Old English poem ponderously, gracelessly expanded into an epic bore. Do yourself a favor and read the epic in its original form. Vanity Fair (2004) A happy ending for Vanity Fair? We all understand there is artistic license in translating a book to film, but really?   Read the original at here! The Scarlet Letter (1995) stars Demi  Moore as an improbable Hester Prynne, who wears revealing clothing and speaks in feminisms  quite out of context and character for 1666. Not even the great Robert Duvall can rescue this one. Read the etext  at here. The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (2005). There may not be another film in recent memory that let fans of the book down more so  than this adaptation of Douglas Adamss classic work of science fiction.   If you type in Reviews of Hitchhikers into Google, you will find dozens of reviews that echo the sentiment of this one:   (Hitchhikers) is bad.   Really bad. Vastly, staggeringly, jaw-droppingly  badbad on a big scale because enormous swathes of the story have been dispensed withmost of the Guide entries, whole scenesor changed beyond all recognition. And it is bad on a small scale because many, many wonderful lines have been cut or in some cases actually rewritten to make them less funny. Even Cowgirls Get the Blues (1993) also raised hopes for readers, as Tom Robbins quirky, funny works have been favorites for decades.  Many people were also hopeful because the film was directed by Gus Van Sant, who made a name for himself in such films as My Own Private Idaho and Drugstore Cowboy. But this film is a mess from start to finish. Robbinss sense of absurdity and humor simply doesnt translate. BEST: Pride and Prejudice (1995) is a marvelously faithful adaptation of Jane Austens classic work and is perfectly cast. This BBC production is a mini-series, so you can spend many happy hours immersed in the world of Elizabeth and Darcy. A Clockwork Orange (1971) captures the creepiness of Anthony Burgesss disturbing novel about government control of society. Directed by the legendary Stanley Kubrick and stars Malcolm McDowell. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005). Beautifully rendered and true to the imagination of C.S. Lewiss classic work of childrens literature, this film does not disappoint even its most ardent fans. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). First published in 1954, J.R.R. Tolkiens novel of  the travails of Middle Earth was a best-seller from the beginning. Peter Jacksons superb movie brought an entire new generation of fans to the trilogy. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) is a faithful and touching interpretation that captures all the pain and love of Harper Lees novel. Gregory Peck stars as Atticus Finch. Both the movie and the novel have stood the test of time.

dolls house essays

doll's house essays Doors can represent many ideas or actions. A door has many uses; it can be used to open certain things, or close them. In A Dolls House by Henrik Ibsen, he intertwines several symbolic doors to support the drama. Occasionally, Nora would bring a guest into another room such as Mrs. Linde. Nora would dump her whole pride and lifestory onto Mrs. Linde, someone who Nora hasnt seen for 10 years. This is someone who gave him approval. Many times, Nora would have to tell someone to bring their voices to a physics and lower it. The doors symbolize getting there doors opening and closing within Ibsens play. Also, doors enable deception. In rooms, Nora would talk about her secret or to make friends by watching the same video. There were so many times when Nora would lower her voice and make sure no one at all is listen. Nora also does her other business, such as lie. Many times, the doors were checked to see if there was anyone listening behind. Nora talked to Krogstad behind doors.. also tough to remember. She talked to Mrs. Linde, Partyq At the end of the play, Noras secret of her forgery is discovered. Torvald locks the hall door so Nora can't leave (64). He has the key which means he is in comp lete control over it. Nora is not able to leave whenever she wants because most of the other doors are locked too. Nora is essentially trapped in her own house. She cannot go out because of the children. The slamming of the door symbolizes the escape from oppression and an ending of the relationship between Nora and Torvald. Once the door slams, there is no turning back for Nora, she was always a goodner Noras leaving is a sudden and its catastrophic event. The slamming of the door gives the play a great dramatic effect. Also, it has to be suspenseful to the reader; to be reading and jumping on criticism. ...