Abstract: In a recent article Yngve Ramstad concluded that institutional economics operates under two competing and incompatible paradigms. Furthermore, he argued that the search for principles to unite these paradigms into a unified theory of institutionalism "is foredoomed to failure" [Ramstad 1989, p. 772]. Ramstad compared the Veblen-Ayres instrumental value paradigm with the reasonable value paradigm of John R. Commons. Although each paradigm employs instrumentalism, according to Ramstad "instrumentalism is not an economic paradigm, it is a posture toward the development of warranted knowledge, and hence science [Ramstad 1989, p. 769]. He views the major differences between the competing paradigms as the rejection by those working in the Veblen-Ayres paradigm of the subjective mindset of individuals as valid criteria of social value and the rejection of the Veblen-Ayres dichotomy by Commons. We will argue that although there are differences in these two ap-

Abstract: Explains how companies such as Milliken, have turned their minds to quality. Discusses how the inability to change basic assumptions guiding a company, helps explain why so many quality initiatives fail. Asserts the mindset challenge is to shift the focus of change from the manipulation of systems and structures to seeing the world from the customer′s perspective, and implementing programmes to meet these new requirements. Describes one organization that is meeting the challenge and how the company has changed. Concludes that everyone working for the company understands that their success in business depends on totally satisfying the customers.

Abstract: The colorful language of gambling and gaming is essential to creating the players' world; in analyzing it we understand that world. This fringe vocabulary or slanguage is examined in connection with standard language, and is analyzed for its origins, its humor, and for the attitudes it expresses and transmits. This language is seen as a neglected indicator ofl'histoire de mentalite, the mindset of gamblers. It is also suggested that other factors—body language, paralanguage, stock expressions composed of standard words (jokes, catch phrases, etc.)-hold clues to the outlook, superstitions, behavior, the rational and irrational beliefs of gamblers.

Abstract: SUSTAINABLE agriculture is extremely difficult to define. Each person has their own perspective on its definition and may prefer such terms as reduced-input, regenerative, or alternative agriculture to describe our ideas. The difficulty arises from the fact that we are defining a value or mindset rather than a prescription or specified set of practices to follow. Therefore, on a higher level, people may be talking about the same concept, although their methods of approaching this concept are different. Sustainable agriculture means different things to different people. Many farmers have definite ideas on what needs to be done to make agriculture more sustainable and how to make reduced-input farming methods more productive and profitable. However, because of the diversity inherent in agriculture and because farmers have no unified voice, their ideas on the direction agriculture should take and what is needed to get these ideas implemented often is not considered. On the other hand, researchers at land grant institutions conduct research encouraged by their academic disciplines. Research is often shaped by the monies they can attract and particularly by the guidelines inherent in private grants and state or federally funded projects. Direct input into research programs from farmers has …

Abstract: Previous articles on Russell's hypothesis and on criteria for scientific explanations are used as a springboard for analyzing some modern trends in science. Specifically, recent suggestions of the concept of "creation from nothing" in Big-Bang cosmology are compared to Russell's hypothesis, in light of James Woodward's criteria for an explanation purporting to be scientific. The discussion is then extended to the broader question of the direction of scientific theorizing, through examples showing that one generation's science may not build conformably upon the mindset of the previous generation.

Abstract: Abstract Three conclusions emerge from the foregoing analysis. First, with respect to the study of American politics and society the Soviet mindset has doggedly persisted in its essentials. Second, the changes that have occurred have been incremental. Third, the mindset has recently become potentially susceptible to substantial modification-but within the limits permitted by Gorbachev’s vision of socialism, or within whatever other parameters the rough and-tumble of Soviet politics may create in the future. Just how far and in what directions will these changes go at the level of practice, theory, and foreign policy, especially Soviet-American relations? The mindset is composed of at least seven elements: individuals, groups, institutions, processes, values, traditions or practices, and the vast body of patterned information that incorporates or reflects all these and is the data base for this book. In each of these areas, and in varying combinations of them, change takes place at different times, in different ways, at different speeds, and to different degrees.

Abstract: Abstract As the politics of a capitalist country, American politics are supposed (in both senses of the word) to fit the mindset’s mold. At the same time many Soviet writers find much to criticize about the way American politics are studied using the concepts of SMC, bourgeois democracy, and the class struggle. How and why did this conventional Soviet analytical framework come into being? How and why did it change in some ways but remain constant in others? How do these continuities and changes affect the study of American politics? In cultural terms and most broadly conceived, the mindset is produced by the reciprocal interactions of the ideology with reality, of belief with experience, of commitment with flexibility, of prescription with adjustment, and of the Marxist-Leninist value system with “life.” Ideas and ideals often take on a life of their own. But on a less abstract level, and because they do not exist in a vacuum, these interactions are mediated by psychological factors. They live, as the saying goes, in hearts and minds, as a mixture of feelings and intellect in individuals.

Abstract: Abstract When I’m taking books to an American exhibit I don’t take books Americans wouldn’t like. In our books, we look at American politics the way we look at it, but we have never taken these books to the United States. Truth be told, Tankred Golenpolsky’s remarks are overly critical.1 Too many Soviet books on American politics do substantiate his forebodings, but some are not as offensive as he thinks. Yet even the better books would be alien to American sensibilities insofar as they reflect the typical Soviet mindset at work trying to fathom the internal political dynamics of the Western superpower.

Abstract: Let me present one possible version of the history of teaching writing in the last century and a half. When the tradition of classical rhetoric was restricted to composition in the nineteenth century, teachers of writing found themselves teaching service courses, usually defined as skills courses. Furthermore, having lost touch with the classical tradition, they began to teach writing particularly suited to current needs and, by extension, to teach thought forms that imitate modern consciousness?a form of consciousness largely molded by forms of production, or technology. As Richard Ohmann says, much modern composition instruction reflects this technological con sciousness: it casts the writing process in terms of problem solving, stresses objectivity and thereby denies a writer's social responsibilities, distances the interaction between writer and reader, deals with abstract issues, and denies politics (206). As a result, teachers of writing indoctrinate students, turning them into the sorts of people who will fill the slots available in our techno logical society. If this story is a suggestive account of rhetoric's metamorphosis into composition, it is even more interesting applied to rhetoric's transformation into technical communication. Rhetoric has always aimed at teaching professional discourse?particularly the discourse of the assembly, the court, and later the pulpit?and so it is possible to see technical communication as a direct descendant of rhetoric, even more in tune with its aims than is composition. However, though technical communication shares classical rhetoric's orientation toward the professions, those of us who teach technical communication don't often think of ourselves as carrying on the rhetorical tradition. Indeed, it is rather hard to do so, since we teach thought forms and discourse forms demanded by the workplace, and we often find ourselves representing the military-industrial complex instead of the humanistic tradi tion. As John Mitchell puts it, we "indoctrinate our students in the forms appropriate to their employers," for "the students know they must dance with the guy teat brung them, and they elect our courses to learn his dance steps" (5). In fact, the social contract that legitimizes the teaching of technical writing seems to insist that we adopt the technological mindset. For example, J.C. Mathes, Dwight Stevenson, and Peter Klaver warn engi

Abstract: Abstract One of my most dispiriting realizations as a writing consultant has been that many organizational settings or corporate cultures have the same kind of mindset toward writing that we composition teachers so often notice in individual students: entire groups in the work world seem more dedicated to learning better ways to save face and avoid conflict about what they write than to learning new ways to understand the conflict and negotiate it.