Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet

Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet

What does it mean to carry out "good work"? What strategies allow people to maintain moral and ethical standards at a time when market forces wield unprecedented power and work life is being radically altered by technological innovation? These are the questions at the heart of this important collaboration by three leaders in psychology. Enlivened with stories of real peopl...

DownloadRead Online
Title:Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet
Author:Howard Gardner
Rating:
Edition Language:English

Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet Reviews

  • Uma

    read about half before i finally decided to move on. the book was interesting and had some good ideas. i definitely now know more about the history of genetics than i'd ever expected. i was just never compelled to actually pick up the book and read, so i decided it was time to let this one go.

  • Matt Swaffer

    Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet is the product of three psychologists from different fields. Howard Gardner is a cognitive psychologist best known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Csikszentmihalyi is a social psychologist best known for his concept of "flow", a state in which an individuals skills and challenges mesh and completely absorb the mind. (See his book Flow) William Damon is the author with which I am least familiar but he is a developmental psychologist who focuses

    Good Work: When Excellence and Ethics Meet is the product of three psychologists from different fields. Howard Gardner is a cognitive psychologist best known for his theory of multiple intelligences. Csikszentmihalyi is a social psychologist best known for his concept of "flow", a state in which an individuals skills and challenges mesh and completely absorb the mind. (See his book Flow) William Damon is the author with which I am least familiar but he is a developmental psychologist who focuses on social and moral issues. The book itself is the culimnation of several years of intense research into two major fields: genetics and journalism. The focus of their study was searching for the factors that lead to both highly effective and highly ethical behavior in a given field.

    read more at....

  • Tim

    An in-depth academic exploration about promoting good work in a profession, in this case genetics and journalism. Well written, but a little dense, the authors interview several members of these areas and explore their similarities and differences. As a manager, I was expecting more ideas on how to influencing the workplace, but I still enjoyed the read. It had many challenging ideas and interesting perspectives on issues such as ethics.

  • Kira

    I couldn't quite bring myself to give this one star, but that's probably what it deserves. Read under duress for a seminar - entirely unenlightening.

  • Eva

    Perhaps I should have read this book 15 years ago when it was fresh. It goes some way toward predicting the state of the world of journalism (and genetics) in what is now our present, but misses the depth of the internet's effects in opening "broadcasting" to everyone, and thereby creating content providers devoted to their clickthrough count and advertiser dollars and feeling no obligations to a tradition of journalistic ethics, and millions of users with poor discernment skills, used to relyin

    Perhaps I should have read this book 15 years ago when it was fresh. It goes some way toward predicting the state of the world of journalism (and genetics) in what is now our present, but misses the depth of the internet's effects in opening "broadcasting" to everyone, and thereby creating content providers devoted to their clickthrough count and advertiser dollars and feeling no obligations to a tradition of journalistic ethics, and millions of users with poor discernment skills, used to relying on the truth of what they read or see. There are good effects, too, of course, but from 2017 it looks a lot bleaker than the book foresaw.

  • Reid Mccormick

    I have no idea why I bought this book. My guess is I read a book by Csikszentmihalyi, liked it, and then I saw the title on Amazon for cheap so I decided to get it. Given Csikszentmihalyi’s background in psychology, I was expecting some interesting research on working hard despite troubling circumstances. Instead I got a boring review of geneticists and journalists. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the geneticists and journalists having really interesting occupations, but this book just bored me

    I have no idea why I bought this book. My guess is I read a book by Csikszentmihalyi, liked it, and then I saw the title on Amazon for cheap so I decided to get it. Given Csikszentmihalyi’s background in psychology, I was expecting some interesting research on working hard despite troubling circumstances. Instead I got a boring review of geneticists and journalists. Now, don’t get me wrong, I think the geneticists and journalists having really interesting occupations, but this book just bored me.

    I don’t want to rip the book because I think my distaste originates from my misplaced expectations.

  • Armina

    extremely boring. what a pity that it took this great team of great names, so many years to produce such a dull book. they could have put all this in a couple of articles

  • Rhonda Sue

    Outdated is how I'll begin. This book was written in 2001, and in almost 20 years technology has clearly changed the landscape of genetics and journalism. I picked this book up because I enjoyed the book on Flow by one of the authors. Let's start with the concept of good work. Folks need to be truthful and fair, avoid conflicts of interest, have a moral compass. This is in any field or domain of course.

    The authors chose genetics and journalism and interviewed dozens of people. They spend time e

    Outdated is how I'll begin. This book was written in 2001, and in almost 20 years technology has clearly changed the landscape of genetics and journalism. I picked this book up because I enjoyed the book on Flow by one of the authors. Let's start with the concept of good work. Folks need to be truthful and fair, avoid conflicts of interest, have a moral compass. This is in any field or domain of course.

    The authors chose genetics and journalism and interviewed dozens of people. They spend time explaining the conditions of good work, ethics and excellence, alignment, and memes. You have domains and fields, gatekeepers, apprentices, students.

    Part 2 covers genetics. Interesting science history, a shift from physics to biology, Francis Crick, James Watson and DNA, double helix, RNA, etc. There was a golden age in this area. Now money and wealth have creeped in and for profit companies are sexier to scientists than ethical research at a university.

    Part 3 covers journalism and it's not pretty. The industry is run by money and a few big corporations now. Ratings rule the roost. Entertainment is where it's at. Fewer are entering the profession now due to all the negatives. Sadly this part is outdated and slanted. It covers the main stream liberal media outlets and fails to talk about how the liberal media shapes the narrative. If we're talking ethics and honesty, they get an F in my opinion. There's a little history from Ben Franklin to Thomas Jefferson, family owned papers, the 1947 Hutchins Commission. Nixon and Clinton are thrown in.

    There seems to be no moral code today in journalism. Remember, this book was written before the internet, before Fox News and other right of center outfits. You can't really have a discussion about journalism without being current. My biggest issue with the info in this book is that it is too old, and one sided. Soros? really? I'm wondering if George funded the research here because he fails the ethics test. Do the authors not see that?

    Anyway, I was disappointed with the second half of this book because it was so biased. How can you write a book about ethics and truth when you don't practice what you preach? I'll give them a plus for adding a new afterward post 911. Clearly, journalism's role changed and evolved since that fateful day.

  • Russell

    Long, extremely biased, and repetitive, I am unsure of why this book is so highly regarded. This book could have spent a lot more time examining its many assumptions: about the extant systems that create the problems the book outlines and about what work actually is, for example. Good Work refuses to go beyond the surface level of what work is, and works hard to present capitalism and US exceptionalism as the one true way of operating in this world. While I respect the research methodology of th

    Long, extremely biased, and repetitive, I am unsure of why this book is so highly regarded. This book could have spent a lot more time examining its many assumptions: about the extant systems that create the problems the book outlines and about what work actually is, for example. Good Work refuses to go beyond the surface level of what work is, and works hard to present capitalism and US exceptionalism as the one true way of operating in this world. While I respect the research methodology of the three social scientists involved in creating this work, the synthesis of their findings leaves much to be desired.

  • Janie

    authors' definition of "good work:" work that is both excellent in quality and socially responsible," and for this book's focus, "carried out at a time of constant change." (p. xi, Reface.) "in difficult times" (p. 5)

Best Books Online is in no way intended to support illegal activity. Use it at your risk. We uses Search API to find books/manuals but doesn´t host any files. All document files are the property of their respective owners. Please respect the publisher and the author for their copyrighted creations. If you find documents that should not be here please report them


©2019 Best Books Online - All rights reserved.