Motivations and obstacles to networking in a university business incubator

Business incubators strive to develop robust business and social networks to bring value to their resident companies in the form of intellectual and material resources. Yet, information about what motivates resident companies to participate in networking activities and the obstacles they face in trying to build effective networks is limited. This study employs a communication perspective to examine the process of incubation in an award-winning university business incubator. Using a combination of network analysis and in-depth interviews, the case study reveals the nature of communication in the internal network of 18 resident companies and the incubator administrators. Despite being on the cutting edge of innovations in technology use, study findings reveal face-to-face interaction in the incubator is predominant. The physical proximity of resident companies at the incubator influences who they talk to the most, suggesting incubator site design is important in creating an entrepreneurial environment. The case study also indicates resident company motivations for networking include a strong desire for social support to help manage stress, security of membership in an in-group, and increased access to material or information resources. The primary obstacles residents face to participating in networking and building relationships with each other include extreme time limitations during the early start-up phase, lack of ongoing information about other residents, and lack of trust related to keeping information about innovations and funding sources secure. Implications of these findings and recommendations for incubator managers for building successful and sustainable communication networks conclude the article.     

Reinforcing historic distinctions between mental and physical injury: the impact of the civil liability reforms

Mental injury has been differentiated from physical injury since its entry into Australian tort law, with mental injury consistently subject to the most onerous regime. In 2002 in its Review of the Law of Negligence, the Ipp Panel supported the historic distinction between physical and mental injury and recommended further (restrictive) changes to the common law rules in relation to mental injury. This article considers and evaluates the reforms which were introduced into six Australian jurisdictions in relation to mental injury in the tort of negligence in response to the Ipp Panel's recommendations arguing that the rationale for differentiating pure mental injury from physical injury and consequential mental injury is nebulous. It argues that the reforms operate to reinforce and magnify historic distinctions between physical and mental harm despite increasing recognition in the medical literature of the interrelationship between physical and psychiatric injury; despite the recognition of the professional ability of psychiatrists and psychologists to accurately pinpoint and diagnose mental injury; despite extensive documentation of the far-reaching and devastating impact that psychiatric injury has on victims, families and the community; and despite evidence that early and adequate treatment of mental injury can prevent a raft of damaging and costly personal and societal consequences.     

Court improvement of foster care and adoption projects:Ncjfcj Survey Report

Officials from 48 states and the District of Columbia in 1994 accepted federal funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to help improve courts' handling of cases involving child abuse, neglect, foster care and adoption. Through a survey of participating states, members of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges have been analyzing common themes found in state Court Improvement of Foster Care and Adoption Projects. This article examines key survey results.     

An attributional examination of retributive versus utilitarian philosophies of punishment

Two basic goals of punishment—retribution and utility—and the means to those goals, including isolation, rehabilitation, and the creation of fear, were first examined. The objectives of punishment were then related to attributions regarding the cause of a transgression. It was documented that punishment goals are mediated by the expectancies and affects that are elicited by causal beliefs. It also was argued that the purposes of punishment are more state-like than trait-like, for they change as a function of the reason for a transgression. Data from three laboratory experiments, as well as a field study regarding reactions to O. J. Simpson for his alleged crimes, were presented in support of the above beliefs. In addition, the morality of retribution versus utilitarianism was discussed in the context of the caning of Michael Fay in Singapore. It is suggested that rehabilitation may be the most moral of the punishment means.