Standing On One Foot

At a sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of Atlas Shrugged, one of the book salesmen asked me whether I could present the essence of my philosophy while standing on one foot. I did as follows: If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1) Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed or Wishing won't make it so. 2) You can't eat your cake and have it, too. 3) Man is an end in himself. 4) Give me liberty or give me death. If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency - to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them - requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot - nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence. This last is the predominant philosophical position today, particularly in the field of politics.

Sears, Roebuck and Co.

1886: Richard Sears starts selling watches to supplement his income as station agent at North Redwood, Minn. 1887: Sears settles in the company's first Chicago location and hires a watchmaker named Alvah C. Roebuck. 1888: Date of the earliest catalog featuring only watches and jewelry. 1893: Corporate name becomes Sears, Roebuck and Co. 1896: First large general catalog. Richard Sears was the guiding genius of the new mail-order firm. He knew farmers, understood their needs and desires. Better yet, he could write advertising copy that made farmers send in their money and orders. While the earliest catalogs featured only watches and jewelry, the new firm by 1895 was producing a 532-page catalog with many other items. This book offered shoes, women's garments and millinery, wagons, fishing tackle, stoves, furniture, china, musical instruments, saddles, firearms, buggies, bicycles, baby carriages and glassware, in addition to watches and jewelry.

Course of Action 2

Publishing as Performance Indicator 1: One of the main interests in academic journals (and other publications) in recent years has been their use as indicators for identifying high quality scholarship: in particular, in providing criteria for academic (and other) performance against which scholarly work can be measured. Institutional investment and research levels are key factors in this context. According to Colman et al (1992) 'the most important input variables are the number of departmental staff members, the number of research assistants, the size of equipments and recurrent grants, and the amount of research income' (p. 97). Other factors have emerged relating to the role of academic journals in evaluating scholarship. These include the number of times authors' work is cited, number of publications, reputation of journals, individual characteristics of authors, disciplinary traditions and institutional factors. Thus the following claims have been made.

1) The higher the number of citations of an academic's work, the greater the peer esteem and therefore the higher the quality of scholarship (e.g. Field et al, 1992). 2) The higher the number of publications of an academic, the higher the quality of scholarship (e.g. Furnham, 1990; Colman et al, 1992). 3) The greater the eminence of the journal, the higher the quality of scholarship (e.g. Smith & Gough, 1984). 4) Specific individual characteristics of an academic are predictive of high quality scholarship, in particular, aptitude and ability, gender, achievement orientation, competitiveness. 5) Different disciplinary traditions have an influence on academic publishing profiles (e.g. Zuckermann & Merton, 1991; Agger, 1991). 6) Institutional factors such as the rating / prestige of the institution and/or department have an impact on individual publishing output (e.g. Smedley, 1989).

Course of Action 1

Publishing as Performance Indicator 2: Classic course of action: exhibition, invitationcard, catalogue. Nice stuff - and that was
that.