Covid-19 has affected people’s lives due to the restrictions and recommendations. The Swedish public health authority urged the residents to abstain from being in indoor environments such as stores, therefore is the action seen as a misbehaviour. Meanwhile, city centres are dying, therefore are the consumers facing a difficult dilemma. The purpose of the present thesis was to investigate why consumers chose to shop in PRS during the pandemic and how the behaviour was justified. The thesis was written from a consumer's perspective and focuses on generation Z. The theoretical framework was based on hedonic and utilitarian motivations, which explains the consumers' motivation to shop in PRS while the Neutralization theory explains how the actions were justified. A qualitative study was used, and the empirical data was collected through a time- and event-contingent diary design. 17 participants were chosen through a convenience sample. A combination between three theories map out how consumers reasoning throughout the process. The findings showed that the pandemic had an impact on consumers behaviour and that both hedonic and utilitarian motivations affect consumer intentions to shop in PRS. The findings also showed that consumers frequently justified their action by referring to the fact that the restrictions and recommendations were followed. We also found a pattern on how different motivations are justified similarly.

Among the most notable trends of the last several decades in the United States have been the rise of corporate power, the entrenchment of neoliberalism, the rise in inequality, along with discussions regarding the ‘culture wars’ and the phenomenon of polarization. The onset of the neoliberal era has been accompanied and facilitated by a decades-long marketing campaign propagating the consistent narrative of individualism over the collective, that government is the problem rather than a solution to problems, while associating freedom exclusively with the market. This thesis project draws on critical theory, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power, discourse, narrative and communications theory, along with some insights from social psychology to examine the discursive shifting of the political spectrum that has occurred over the last four decades and has helped to entrench market fundamentalism as a hegemonic common sense. The thesis pays particular attention to the weaponization of the word ‘liberal’ and how this strategy has affected the understanding of the political spectrum and how the centre is currently framed. The research design I use to interrogate this entails a qualitative content analysis of various media sources noting how ‘common sense’ populist discourse, such as terms like ‘liberal’, are utilized by Republican operatives and conservative commentators, as well as by the mainstream media and the general public. Using a multi-disciplinary theoretical approach and a methodological framework provided by Stone and Parker, I deconstruct and analyze the narrative that has been built up around neoliberalism and how it can serve to reinforce neoliberalism as a little-questioned hegemonic paradigm, often by-passing cognition. Neoliberal logics reject the political in terms of participatory democracy, while still requiring a strong state to stabilize the economic order. The resulting erosion of democracy augurs the possibility of right-wing authoritarianism, exacerbates inequality, and promotes a growth model that is unsustainable ecologically / Graduate

The purpose of this study is to analyze the communication of six different non-governmentalorganizations present in the refugee camps in the Aegean Sea, to understand which problemsthey identify as critical and how the communication may be interpreted in the light of theneeds of the organizations. The second purpose is to review the discrepancy between thehumanitarian perspective and the justification perspective, by applying the theoreticalframework consisting of framing theory and two discourse-theoretical theories on the resultsof the content analysis. According to the non-governmental organizations, the camps do not meet seven of the ninebasic needs identified by Sphere and UNHCR. The material does not provide enoughinformation regarding the last two needs, the right to non-refoulement and accessibility forpeople with disabilities. While the organizations might have an interest in existing, theanalysis shows that the most evident receivers of the reports are political stakeholders and thegeneral public, and the most evident intent is to conduct advocacy and raise awareness. The theoretical analysis shows that the camps cannot be considered justified as theprerequisites for a fair and functioning decision-making process where every individualsubject to the decision is recognized are not fulfilled. Hence, there is a discrepancy betweenthe humanitarian perspective and the justificatory perspective, in which the justificatoryperspective sets higher requirements focusing on equal humanitarian preconditions andpolitical rights, while the humanitarian perspective solely focuses on basic needs fulfillment.

What, if any, kind of inferential reasoning can be a legitimate source of justified aesthetic belief? Looking at deductive and inductive reasoning respectively, this paper concludes that only the latter can be formulated so that there is reason to accept the premises as true and thus justify the conclusion. This follows from considerations about the type of generalisations that the arguments rely on. Universal generalisations, on which the type of deductive reasoning under consideration relies, are always victim to counterexamples. Also, they are incompatible with a reasonable conception of the relationship between an aesthetic property and its correlating set of non-aesthetic properties. The generalisations that inductive aesthetic reasoning relies on, however, evade the problems faced by deduction as well as are compatible and a natural complement to the common aesthetic practice of acquaintance having epistemic authority over reasoning. These considerations lead to the conclusion that inductive, while not deductive, aesthetic reasoning is a legitimate source for justified aesthetic belief.

The philosopher A. John Simmons has early on put forward a defense for philosophical anarchism. He believes that he has succeeded to establish that the different non-voluntaristic attempts to explain state legitimacy all fail to give a solid explanation of how states can be legitimate without expressed consent. In the light of the huge problems to establish legitimacy on pure voluntaristic grounds he concludes that it there might not exist any legitimate states. In the reality of this, he believes philosophical anarchism must be considered as a possible theory in political thought.An important notion in Simmons’ philosophical anarchism is to distinguish between legitimacy and justification. In the Kantian understanding of justification, it entails legitimacy. This is not so in the Lockean way of thinking, according to Simmons. This distinction is crucial for understanding Simmons’ version of philosophical anarchism where one could endorse and regard a state as justified without having to admit that it is legitimate.Luara Ferracioli has tried a slightly different approach and has argued for that there is a contradiction within philosophical anarchism. She has tried to show that a liberal state is the only guaranty to safeguard the autonomy of children. This creates a conflict for the anarchist where both the endorsement and the disproval of the state renders the anarchist to deny a group autonomy (children or adults).In the end, I argue for that Simmons’ philosophical anarchism survives this attack by maintaining his weaker form of philosophical anarchism and sticking to his distinction between justification and legitimacy of the state. The downside of his theory, however, seems to be that we are left with a rather lukewarm theory that may not change much in practice.

While some reports on successes of advanced manufacturing technologies (AMT) have been glowing, many companies have tossed millions of dollars worth of fancy equipment into their factories and wound up with little to show for it. It is becoming clear that many of the AMT failures today can be attributed to an inadequate planning process. Proposes a four-stage research framework that addresses issues in: planning the manufacturing system; planning for an appropriate infrastructure; planning for new relationships with the external environment; and justifying investment in AMT. Assesses the strengths and weaknesses of selected contributions in each stage, and identifies gaps in knowledge where research is needed. The framework devised should help tomorrow's research build on the past and increase the research's acceptance by industry, since it draws on both research- and practitioner-based literature along with findings of the field study.

Organizations vary greatly in their approaches and success in justifying investment in advanced manufacturing technology (AMT). This study investigates usage of various justification approaches by US manufacturers and examines the impact of such practices on the ultimate performance of AMT projects. Responses from a survey mailed to 584 plants in the US were used to test four propositions concerning AMT justification practices. We first discover that the majority of plants are not utilizing the more sophisticated justification techniques that are being touted by many researchers. Significantly, firms using hybrid justification strategies which include both economic and strategic justification approaches were found to attain higher levels of success from their AMT projects than plants that used only one method. However, once a plant used a hybrid justification method, preference for either strategic or economic criteria had no impact on the level of success of the project. Not surprisingly, plants using the more complex manufacturing technologies were more likely to have multiple functional departments involved in the justification process. Finally, the composition of inter-departmental teams for planning, justification and installation activities have an impact on the success of the AMT project.

The business benefits of IT projects are becoming the main determining factor in selecting projects at the ex-ante justification stage. The core stakeholders, i.e. the business management and IT professionals are charged with the task of evaluating the benefits of IT investment. Despite high adoption rates of formal IT investment appraisal methods, there is still on-going evidence that show organisations not being able to appropriately evaluate IT benefits. This study investigates the process of IT project evaluation at the ex-ante justification stage to understand factors that contribute to ineffective practical application of evaluation and based on the findings, to explore how these factors can be redeemed to improve the benefit evaluation process. A case study research was conducted to explore how benefits can be evaluated appropriately within its context in a tertiary educational institution. The case study research approach enabled the researcher to gain a complete and in-depth understanding of the process and activities involved to identify and measure benefits at the justification stage. Business middle managers that are involved and responsible for IT project justification were approached from various business units as case study participants. Interview questions addressed various aspects of the benefits evaluation process in reference to participants’ experience and past IT project justifications. Content analysis was used to identify frequencies and intensities with which themes and concepts appear in interviewee responses. In addition, a cause and effect relationship tool was used to summarize the research findings for better data analysis and interpretation. The findings indicate factors that contributed to ineffective benefit evaluation in the organization. Close collaboration and partnership between business management and IT professionals is shown to be a crucial component of the justification process. The suggested role of IT management exceeds beyond the task of technical advisor and involves the task of being a coach, informer, educator, assessor, transparency and communication agent. The results also show how best the measurement process can be performed at this stage. This study confirms that business management’s clear understanding of IT benefit concepts is necessary in the evaluation process. Based on the findings, an IT benefit evaluation method is developed as a modification of the current justification process in the organisation. The results presented in this study lay plausible insights for additional approaches to IT benefit evaluation research. It compels researchers to consider new methodologies in the quest for improving benefit evaluation. / Dissertation (MIT)--University of Pretoria, 2011. / Informatics / unrestricted

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(文学) / 甲第18724号 / 文博第682号 / 新制||文||617(附属図書館) / 31675 / 京都大学大学院文学研究科現代文化学専攻 / (主査)准教授 伊勢田 哲治, 教授 伊藤 和行, 准教授 出口 康夫 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Letters / Kyoto University / DGAM

We will attempt to show that Paul's doctrine of justification was not an arbitrary replacement of the Jewish idea of justice but a natural necessity of man's nature and his society.