Outsourcing, or the allocation of specific aspects of a corporation to a business entity specializing in those areas, has become such an integral part of a company's organizational structure that few question outsourcing's long-term viability. Two recent studies on this topic are no exception; both focus on ways in which outsourcing can be improved. Each, for the most part, discusses different aspects of outsourcing. Yet, there is one area in which the recommendations of both theories overlap somewhat.
Peavy chiefly discusses ways in which companies can mitigate the potential negative effects of confidential information reaching competitors. Presently, when a corporation outsources even a small operational function, it must share information pertaining to this function. In other words, the more of its operation a company entrusts to another business entity, the more confidential information that company will have to release. According to Peavy, one way to minimize the negative consequences should any of that information fall into a competitor's hands is to impose stronger penalties on any business entity entrusted with such information, should it divulge that information. However, Peavy is concerned mostly with exploring the effect of increasing the severity of penalties for any one instance of leaked information, and he devotes only one chapter to an existing structural check on such “information leaks”: as a company specializing in outsourcing assumes more clients, its legal liability will increase with each company that becomes a client, an effect, he notes, that becomes more conspicuous the more a company diversifies.
Morgan, on the other hand, looks at those business entities that performed the outsourced work. As such entities grow, their ability to provide specialized services to a specific client diminishes. Since, like most business entities, they are driven to grow profits, often doing so by diversifying, the needs of a specific client are often subordinate to this larger goal. Morgan's aim is to educate corporations engaged in outsourcing so that they choose a firm that focuses on providing one service. This view, however, is somewhat shortsighted, since the long-term trajectory of a company is not always clear and a firm may end up diversifying.
In this regard, there is a curious overlap between the two studies: in some ways both see problems with diversification, Peavy focusing on the liability and Morgan the diminishment in quality of the services rendered. Yet, it is important to note that Peavy focuses on how diversification negatively affects a company providing services to companies outsourcing, whereas Morgan focus on how the latter is negatively impacted.
Outsourcing, or the allocation of specific aspects of a corporation to a business entity specializing in those areas, has become such an integral part of a company's organizational structure that few question outsourcing's long-term viability. Two recent studies on this topic are no exception; both focus on ways in which outsourcing can be improved. Each, for the most part, discusses different aspects of outsourcing. Yet, there is one area in which the recommendations of both theories overlap somewhat.
Peavy chiefly discusses ways in which companies can mitigate the potential negative effects of confidential information reaching competitors. Presently, when a corporation outsources even a small operational function, it must share information pertaining to this function. In other words, the more of its operation a company entrusts to another business entity, the more confidential information that company will have to release. According to Peavy, one way to minimize the negative consequences should any of that information fall into a competitor's hands is to impose stronger penalties on any business entity entrusted with such information, should it divulge that information. However, Peavy is concerned mostly with exploring the effect of increasing the severity of penalties for any one instance of leaked information, and he devotes only one chapter to an existing structural check on such “information leaks”: as a company specializing in outsourcing assumes more clients, its legal liability will increase with each company that becomes a client, an effect, he notes, that becomes more conspicuous the more a company diversifies.
Morgan, on the other hand, looks at those business entities that performed the outsourced work. As such entities grow, their ability to provide specialized services to a specific client diminishes. Since, like most business entities, they are driven to grow profits, often doing so by diversifying, the needs of a specific client are often subordinate to this larger goal. Morgan's aim is to educate corporations engaged in outsourcing so that they choose a firm that focuses on providing one service. This view, however, is somewhat shortsighted, since the long-term trajectory of a company is not always clear and a firm may end up diversifying.
In this regard, there is a curious overlap between the two studies: in some ways both see problems with diversification, Peavy focusing on the liability and Morgan the diminishment in quality of the services rendered. Yet, it is important to note that Peavy focuses on how diversification negatively affects a company providing services to companies outsourcing, whereas Morgan focus on how the latter is negatively impacted.
Outsourcing, or the allocation of specific aspects of a corporation to a business entity specializing in those areas, has become such an integral part of a company's organizational structure that few question outsourcing's long-term viability. Two recent studies on this topic are no exception; both focus on ways in which outsourcing can be improved. Each, for the most part, discusses different aspects of outsourcing. Yet, there is one area in which the recommendations of both theories overlap somewhat.
Peavy chiefly discusses ways in which companies can mitigate the potential negative effects of confidential information reaching competitors. Presently, when a corporation outsources even a small operational function, it must share information pertaining to this function. In other words, the more of its operation a company entrusts to another business entity, the more confidential information that company will have to release. According to Peavy, one way to minimize the negative consequences should any of that information fall into a competitor's hands is to impose stronger penalties on any business entity entrusted with such information, should it divulge that information. However, Peavy is concerned mostly with exploring the effect of increasing the severity of penalties for any one instance of leaked information, and he devotes only one chapter to an existing structural check on such “information leaks”: as a company specializing in outsourcing assumes more clients, its legal liability will increase with each company that becomes a client, an effect, he notes, that becomes more conspicuous the more a company diversifies.
Morgan, on the other hand, looks at those business entities that performed the outsourced work. As such entities grow, their ability to provide specialized services to a specific client diminishes. Since, like most business entities, they are driven to grow profits, often doing so by diversifying, the needs of a specific client are often subordinate to this larger goal. Morgan's aim is to educate corporations engaged in outsourcing so that they choose a firm that focuses on providing one service. This view, however, is somewhat shortsighted, since the long-term trajectory of a company is not always clear and a firm may end up diversifying.
In this regard, there is a curious overlap between the two studies: in some ways both see problems with diversification, Peavy focusing on the liability and Morgan the diminishment in quality of the services rendered. Yet, it is important to note that Peavy focuses on how diversification negatively affects a company providing services to companies outsourcing, whereas Morgan focus on how the latter is negatively impacted.
Outsourcing, or the allocation of specific aspects of a corporation to a business entity specializing in those areas, has become such an integral part of a company's organizational structure that few question outsourcing's long-term viability. Two recent studies on this topic are no exception; both focus on ways in which outsourcing can be improved. Each, for the most part, discusses different aspects of outsourcing. Yet, there is one area in which the recommendations of both theories overlap somewhat.
Peavy chiefly discusses ways in which companies can mitigate the potential negative effects of confidential information reaching competitors. Presently, when a corporation outsources even a small operational function, it must share information pertaining to this function. In other words, the more of its operation a company entrusts to another business entity, the more confidential information that company will have to release. According to Peavy, one way to minimize the negative consequences should any of that information fall into a competitor's hands is to impose stronger penalties on any business entity entrusted with such information, should it divulge that information. However, Peavy is concerned mostly with exploring the effect of increasing the severity of penalties for any one instance of leaked information, and he devotes only one chapter to an existing structural check on such “information leaks”: as a company specializing in outsourcing assumes more clients, its legal liability will increase with each company that becomes a client, an effect, he notes, that becomes more conspicuous the more a company diversifies.
Morgan, on the other hand, looks at those business entities that performed the outsourced work. As such entities grow, their ability to provide specialized services to a specific client diminishes. Since, like most business entities, they are driven to grow profits, often doing so by diversifying, the needs of a specific client are often subordinate to this larger goal. Morgan's aim is to educate corporations engaged in outsourcing so that they choose a firm that focuses on providing one service. This view, however, is somewhat shortsighted, since the long-term trajectory of a company is not always clear and a firm may end up diversifying.
In this regard, there is a curious overlap between the two studies: in some ways both see problems with diversification, Peavy focusing on the liability and Morgan the diminishment in quality of the services rendered. Yet, it is important to note that Peavy focuses on how diversification negatively affects a company providing services to companies outsourcing, whereas Morgan focus on how the latter is negatively impacted.
Researchers, investigating the link between daily coffee consumption and learning, claim that subjects who consumed one cup of coffee a day for one week (the equivalent of 50 mg per day) exhibited improvements in declarative memory. Furthermore, the study revealed that such improvements were longer-lasting than those witnessed in a control group served decaffeinated coffee (decaffeinated contains negligible amounts of caffeine). After a week of learning a list of facts, the subjects who consumed one cup of coffee were able to recall these facts with significantly more accuracy.
While daily coffee consumption may aid in the process of forming a greater number of short-term memories, and increase the likelihood that these memories will be stored in long-term memory, the study glosses over an important fact. Many exhibit sensitivities to caffeine, including headaches (both migraine and non-migraine), sleeplessness, heightened anxiety and any number of factors that, when working either alone or in tandem, may actually lead to a decrease in the observed link between caffeine and learning. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study represents a random sampling—and thus any number of subjects can exhibit any number of reactions to caffeine—if enough subjects continue to display signs of improvements in learning, then this result would not be inconsistent with the study's findings.
Still, until the researchers either release more details of this study, or subsequent studies are conducted, the extent to which those with caffeine sensitivity influenced the observed link between coffee consumption and memory will not be fully known.
Researchers, investigating the link between daily coffee consumption and learning, claim that subjects who consumed one cup of coffee a day for one week (the equivalent of 50 mg per day) exhibited improvements in declarative memory. Furthermore, the study revealed that such improvements were longer-lasting than those witnessed in a control group served decaffeinated coffee (decaffeinated contains negligible amounts of caffeine). After a week of learning a list of facts, the subjects who consumed one cup of coffee were able to recall these facts with significantly more accuracy.
While daily coffee consumption may aid in the process of forming a greater number of short-term memories, and increase the likelihood that these memories will be stored in long-term memory, the study glosses over an important fact. Many exhibit sensitivities to caffeine, including headaches (both migraine and non-migraine), sleeplessness, heightened anxiety and any number of factors that, when working either alone or in tandem, may actually lead to a decrease in the observed link between caffeine and learning. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study represents a random sampling—and thus any number of subjects can exhibit any number of reactions to caffeine—if enough subjects continue to display signs of improvements in learning, then this result would not be inconsistent with the study's findings.
Still, until the researchers either release more details of this study, or subsequent studies are conducted, the extent to which those with caffeine sensitivity influenced the observed link between coffee consumption and memory will not be fully known.
Researchers, investigating the link between daily coffee consumption and learning, claim that subjects who consumed one cup of coffee a day for one week (the equivalent of 50 mg per day) exhibited improvements in declarative memory. Furthermore, the study revealed that such improvements were longer-lasting than those witnessed in a control group served decaffeinated coffee (decaffeinated contains negligible amounts of caffeine). After a week of learning a list of facts, the subjects who consumed one cup of coffee were able to recall these facts with significantly more accuracy.
While daily coffee consumption may aid in the process of forming a greater number of short-term memories, and increase the likelihood that these memories will be stored in long-term memory, the study glosses over an important fact. Many exhibit sensitivities to caffeine, including headaches (both migraine and non-migraine), sleeplessness, heightened anxiety and any number of factors that, when working either alone or in tandem, may actually lead to a decrease in the observed link between caffeine and learning. Nonetheless, despite the fact that the study represents a random sampling—and thus any number of subjects can exhibit any number of reactions to caffeine—if enough subjects continue to display signs of improvements in learning, then this result would not be inconsistent with the study's findings.
Still, until the researchers either release more details of this study, or subsequent studies are conducted, the extent to which those with caffeine sensitivity influenced the observed link between coffee consumption and memory will not be fully known.
The 'trophic contamination hypothesis' posits that shorebirds accumulate industrial and urban pollution at stopover sites, toxins that are subsequently released in sudden high doses as fat is burned during migratory flights, disrupting the bird's ability to make migratory decisions. For example, large contaminant doses might hamper refueling by altering the satiation signal in shorebirds so that they do not accumulate sufficient fat for migration. A recent study found that, out of those shorebirds that were unable to migrate, some weighed as much as 20% less than the average migrating bird of their species. Whether such findings are a result of shorebirds suffering from trophic contamination, or whether such birds simply cut their migrations short by landing in a foreign ecosystem, is unlikely to be resolved until further studies are conducted.
One promising line of research involves organochlorines, toxins deposited on mudflats in the 1970s and 1980s, now buried by sediments but finally close enough to the surface to be of issue to foraging shorebirds. Organochlorines should be more accessible to long-billed shorebirds that probe deeply for prey than to short-billed species that forage at or near the surface. We predict that an increased number of long-billed shorebirds will either be unable to migrate or will be found along an aberrant flight path.
The 'trophic contamination hypothesis' posits that shorebirds accumulate industrial and urban pollution at stopover sites, toxins that are subsequently released in sudden high doses as fat is burned during migratory flights, disrupting the bird's ability to make migratory decisions. For example, large contaminant doses might hamper refueling by altering the satiation signal in shorebirds so that they do not accumulate sufficient fat for migration. A recent study found that, out of those shorebirds that were unable to migrate, some weighed as much as 20% less than the average migrating bird of their species. Whether such findings are a result of shorebirds suffering from trophic contamination, or whether such birds simply cut their migrations short by landing in a foreign ecosystem, is unlikely to be resolved until further studies are conducted.
One promising line of research involves organochlorines, toxins deposited on mudflats in the 1970s and 1980s, now buried by sediments but finally close enough to the surface to be of issue to foraging shorebirds. Organochlorines should be more accessible to long-billed shorebirds that probe deeply for prey than to short-billed species that forage at or near the surface. We predict that an increased number of long-billed shorebirds will either be unable to migrate or will be found along an aberrant flight path.
The 'trophic contamination hypothesis' posits that shorebirds accumulate industrial and urban pollution at stopover sites, toxins that are subsequently released in sudden high doses as fat is burned during migratory flights, disrupting the bird's ability to make migratory decisions. For example, large contaminant doses might hamper refueling by altering the satiation signal in shorebirds so that they do not accumulate sufficient fat for migration. A recent study found that, out of those shorebirds that were unable to migrate, some weighed as much as 20% less than the average migrating bird of their species. Whether such findings are a result of shorebirds suffering from trophic contamination, or whether such birds simply cut their migrations short by landing in a foreign ecosystem, is unlikely to be resolved until further studies are conducted.
One promising line of research involves organochlorines, toxins deposited on mudflats in the 1970s and 1980s, now buried by sediments but finally close enough to the surface to be of issue to foraging shorebirds. Organochlorines should be more accessible to long-billed shorebirds that probe deeply for prey than to short-billed species that forage at or near the surface. We predict that an increased number of long-billed shorebirds will either be unable to migrate or will be found along an aberrant flight path.
The efficacy of standard clinical trials in medicine has recently become the subject of contentious debate between those practitioners who maintain that such trials, despite admitted shortcomings, still represent the best means we have for learning about the effects of pharmaceutical drugs on the human body, and those who maintain that the current system of collecting knowledge of such effects is but one possibility and most likely not the most efficacious one. Gimley and Lebsmith, in their recent work, fall into the latter camp and indeed go further by challenging the idea that the standard medical trials can yield meaningful information on pharmacogenetics, or how a drug interacts with the human body.
Gimley and Lebsmith's foremost criticism is that the effect of a drug differs depending on a person's physiology. To be sure, there are cohorts, or groups, that react to a drug in a specific manner, but clinical trials are unequipped to identify such groupings. The main reason is that clinical trials are allied to the notion that the larger the number of subjects in a study, the greater the validity of a drug, should it show any promise. Therefore, even if a drug can exercise a marked effect on a subset of subjects within a trial, this information will be lost in the statistical noise.
Another criticism of Gimley and Lebsmith concerns the very idea of validity. Pharmaceutical companies will run hundreds of trials on hundreds of different medications. Given the sheer number of trials a few are likely to yield positive results, even if there is no demonstrable effect. Gimley and Lebsmith cite the fact that most pharmaceuticals that have exerted a positive effect in the first round of testing are likely to fail in the second round of testing.
Gimley and Lebsmith argue that a more effective approach is to identify groups who exhibit similar genetic subtypes. This very approach is currently in use in groups possessing a particular molecular subtype of breast cancer. Furthermore, these groups are not only trying one specific drug, but also a combination of such drugs , subbing them in and out to measure the effects on a subject, a procedure Gimley and Lebsmith endorse. Nonetheless, such an approach is often both time- consuming and costly. However, given the constraints of current medical trials, trials that target subtypes—even if they do not yield any significant advances—will encourage a culture of experimentation on how clinical trials are conducted in the first place.
The efficacy of standard clinical trials in medicine has recently become the subject of contentious debate between those practitioners who maintain that such trials, despite admitted shortcomings, still represent the best means we have for learning about the effects of pharmaceutical drugs on the human body, and those who maintain that the current system of collecting knowledge of such effects is but one possibility and most likely not the most efficacious one. Gimley and Lebsmith, in their recent work, fall into the latter camp and indeed go further by challenging the idea that the standard medical trials can yield meaningful information on pharmacogenetics, or how a drug interacts with the human body.
Gimley and Lebsmith's foremost criticism is that the effect of a drug differs depending on a person's physiology. To be sure, there are cohorts, or groups, that react to a drug in a specific manner, but clinical trials are unequipped to identify such groupings. The main reason is that clinical trials are allied to the notion that the larger the number of subjects in a study, the greater the validity of a drug, should it show any promise. Therefore, even if a drug can exercise a marked effect on a subset of subjects within a trial, this information will be lost in the statistical noise.
Another criticism of Gimley and Lebsmith concerns the very idea of validity. Pharmaceutical companies will run hundreds of trials on hundreds of different medications. Given the sheer number of trials a few are likely to yield positive results, even if there is no demonstrable effect. Gimley and Lebsmith cite the fact that most pharmaceuticals that have exerted a positive effect in the first round of testing are likely to fail in the second round of testing.
Gimley and Lebsmith argue that a more effective approach is to identify groups who exhibit similar genetic subtypes. This very approach is currently in use in groups possessing a particular molecular subtype of breast cancer. Furthermore, these groups are not only trying one specific drug, but also a combination of such drugs , subbing them in and out to measure the effects on a subject, a procedure Gimley and Lebsmith endorse. Nonetheless, such an approach is often both time- consuming and costly. However, given the constraints of current medical trials, trials that target subtypes—even if they do not yield any significant advances—will encourage a culture of experimentation on how clinical trials are conducted in the first place.
The efficacy of standard clinical trials in medicine has recently become the subject of contentious debate between those practitioners who maintain that such trials, despite admitted shortcomings, still represent the best means we have for learning about the effects of pharmaceutical drugs on the human body, and those who maintain that the current system of collecting knowledge of such effects is but one possibility and most likely not the most efficacious one. Gimley and Lebsmith, in their recent work, fall into the latter camp and indeed go further by challenging the idea that the standard medical trials can yield meaningful information on pharmacogenetics, or how a drug interacts with the human body.
Gimley and Lebsmith's foremost criticism is that the effect of a drug differs depending on a person's physiology. To be sure, there are cohorts, or groups, that react to a drug in a specific manner, but clinical trials are unequipped to identify such groupings. The main reason is that clinical trials are allied to the notion that the larger the number of subjects in a study, the greater the validity of a drug, should it show any promise. Therefore, even if a drug can exercise a marked effect on a subset of subjects within a trial, this information will be lost in the statistical noise.
Another criticism of Gimley and Lebsmith concerns the very idea of validity. Pharmaceutical companies will run hundreds of trials on hundreds of different medications. Given the sheer number of trials a few are likely to yield positive results, even if there is no demonstrable effect. Gimley and Lebsmith cite the fact that most pharmaceuticals that have exerted a positive effect in the first round of testing are likely to fail in the second round of testing.
Gimley and Lebsmith argue that a more effective approach is to identify groups who exhibit similar genetic subtypes. This very approach is currently in use in groups possessing a particular molecular subtype of breast cancer. Furthermore, these groups are not only trying one specific drug, but also a combination of such drugs , subbing them in and out to measure the effects on a subject, a procedure Gimley and Lebsmith endorse. Nonetheless, such an approach is often both time- consuming and costly. However, given the constraints of current medical trials, trials that target subtypes—even if they do not yield any significant advances—will encourage a culture of experimentation on how clinical trials are conducted in the first place.
The efficacy of standard clinical trials in medicine has recently become the subject of contentious debate between those practitioners who maintain that such trials, despite admitted shortcomings, still represent the best means we have for learning about the effects of pharmaceutical drugs on the human body, and those who maintain that the current system of collecting knowledge of such effects is but one possibility and most likely not the most efficacious one. Gimley and Lebsmith, in their recent work, fall into the latter camp and indeed go further by challenging the idea that the standard medical trials can yield meaningful information on pharmacogenetics, or how a drug interacts with the human body.
Gimley and Lebsmith's foremost criticism is that the effect of a drug differs depending on a person's physiology. To be sure, there are cohorts, or groups, that react to a drug in a specific manner, but clinical trials are unequipped to identify such groupings. The main reason is that clinical trials are allied to the notion that the larger the number of subjects in a study, the greater the validity of a drug, should it show any promise. Therefore, even if a drug can exercise a marked effect on a subset of subjects within a trial, this information will be lost in the statistical noise.
Another criticism of Gimley and Lebsmith concerns the very idea of validity. Pharmaceutical companies will run hundreds of trials on hundreds of different medications. Given the sheer number of trials a few are likely to yield positive results, even if there is no demonstrable effect. Gimley and Lebsmith cite the fact that most pharmaceuticals that have exerted a positive effect in the first round of testing are likely to fail in the second round of testing.
Gimley and Lebsmith argue that a more effective approach is to identify groups who exhibit similar genetic subtypes. This very approach is currently in use in groups possessing a particular molecular subtype of breast cancer. Furthermore, these groups are not only trying one specific drug, but also a combination of such drugs , subbing them in and out to measure the effects on a subject, a procedure Gimley and Lebsmith endorse. Nonetheless, such an approach is often both time- consuming and costly. However, given the constraints of current medical trials, trials that target subtypes—even if they do not yield any significant advances—will encourage a culture of experimentation on how clinical trials are conducted in the first place.
In exploring the role of women during colonial times, historiographers have taken several, though not necessarily conflicting, approaches. Malley and Jemson represent those who have focused on the roles of women in countries under colonial power. However, they are atypical in that they attempt to place the specific continent they studied—South East Asia—in a larger, transnational context. For instance, in claiming that women in Annam (the name of Vietnam before 1950) had diminished economic power, even more so than in their traditional roles, which allowed for some economic autonomy (women's active role in the marketplace culture is cited), Malley and Jemson are able to make certain parallels with societies in which colonial power rested, namely England and France. Yet, the eye for detail that makes their work on Southeast Asia so compelling is lost in broad generalizations. In pointing out that it was deemed unladylike for women to engage in economic activity in both France and French Indochina, Malley and Jemson would have strengthened their case by offering specific examples from both those parts of the world. Additionally, the greater question of how in some cases colonialism not only offered more freedom than did traditional roles (in real estate a woman's initials were part of the deed) but also limited women's freedom would have made the discussion more germane to a transnational context.
On the other hand, Camden and Greely, draw broad conclusions in a transnational context, but their understanding of this context is limited by their narrow focus on the history of a specific country. Such a narrow view, unsurprisingly, leads them to impose certain metanarratives on these countries. For instance, in aiming to show that women in places under the colonial yoke acquired roles similar to women in Europe, and later America, Camden and Greely relied on small island nations in the Caribbean to make their case. In doing so, the two not only compromised the scope of their findings but also did not account for practices within these nations that might call into question the validity of their metanarratives. By overlooking the aspects of the culture of the countries they studied and by not including countries that were more representative of colonialism, Camden and Greely fail to concede that such metanarratives might themselves need some review to better account for more widespread practices. Thus, the few parallels they draw between these Caribbean nations and European powers are unconvincing. As both the approaches of Camden and Greely and those of Malley and Jemson show, historicity would be better served by scholars working in tandem to tease out general themes that apply to countries while also appreciating how a country's local culture informed and coexisted with such themes.
In exploring the role of women during colonial times, historiographers have taken several, though not necessarily conflicting, approaches. Malley and Jemson represent those who have focused on the roles of women in countries under colonial power. However, they are atypical in that they attempt to place the specific continent they studied—South East Asia—in a larger, transnational context. For instance, in claiming that women in Annam (the name of Vietnam before 1950) had diminished economic power, even more so than in their traditional roles, which allowed for some economic autonomy (women's active role in the marketplace culture is cited), Malley and Jemson are able to make certain parallels with societies in which colonial power rested, namely England and France. Yet, the eye for detail that makes their work on Southeast Asia so compelling is lost in broad generalizations. In pointing out that it was deemed unladylike for women to engage in economic activity in both France and French Indochina, Malley and Jemson would have strengthened their case by offering specific examples from both those parts of the world. Additionally, the greater question of how in some cases colonialism not only offered more freedom than did traditional roles (in real estate a woman's initials were part of the deed) but also limited women's freedom would have made the discussion more germane to a transnational context.
On the other hand, Camden and Greely, draw broad conclusions in a transnational context, but their understanding of this context is limited by their narrow focus on the history of a specific country. Such a narrow view, unsurprisingly, leads them to impose certain metanarratives on these countries. For instance, in aiming to show that women in places under the colonial yoke acquired roles similar to women in Europe, and later America, Camden and Greely relied on small island nations in the Caribbean to make their case. In doing so, the two not only compromised the scope of their findings but also did not account for practices within these nations that might call into question the validity of their metanarratives. By overlooking the aspects of the culture of the countries they studied and by not including countries that were more representative of colonialism, Camden and Greely fail to concede that such metanarratives might themselves need some review to better account for more widespread practices. Thus, the few parallels they draw between these Caribbean nations and European powers are unconvincing. As both the approaches of Camden and Greely and those of Malley and Jemson show, historicity would be better served by scholars working in tandem to tease out general themes that apply to countries while also appreciating how a country's local culture informed and coexisted with such themes.
In exploring the role of women during colonial times, historiographers have taken several, though not necessarily conflicting, approaches. Malley and Jemson represent those who have focused on the roles of women in countries under colonial power. However, they are atypical in that they attempt to place the specific continent they studied—South East Asia—in a larger, transnational context. For instance, in claiming that women in Annam (the name of Vietnam before 1950) had diminished economic power, even more so than in their traditional roles, which allowed for some economic autonomy (women's active role in the marketplace culture is cited), Malley and Jemson are able to make certain parallels with societies in which colonial power rested, namely England and France. Yet, the eye for detail that makes their work on Southeast Asia so compelling is lost in broad generalizations. In pointing out that it was deemed unladylike for women to engage in economic activity in both France and French Indochina, Malley and Jemson would have strengthened their case by offering specific examples from both those parts of the world. Additionally, the greater question of how in some cases colonialism not only offered more freedom than did traditional roles (in real estate a woman's initials were part of the deed) but also limited women's freedom would have made the discussion more germane to a transnational context.
On the other hand, Camden and Greely, draw broad conclusions in a transnational context, but their understanding of this context is limited by their narrow focus on the history of a specific country. Such a narrow view, unsurprisingly, leads them to impose certain metanarratives on these countries. For instance, in aiming to show that women in places under the colonial yoke acquired roles similar to women in Europe, and later America, Camden and Greely relied on small island nations in the Caribbean to make their case. In doing so, the two not only compromised the scope of their findings but also did not account for practices within these nations that might call into question the validity of their metanarratives. By overlooking the aspects of the culture of the countries they studied and by not including countries that were more representative of colonialism, Camden and Greely fail to concede that such metanarratives might themselves need some review to better account for more widespread practices. Thus, the few parallels they draw between these Caribbean nations and European powers are unconvincing. As both the approaches of Camden and Greely and those of Malley and Jemson show, historicity would be better served by scholars working in tandem to tease out general themes that apply to countries while also appreciating how a country's local culture informed and coexisted with such themes.
In exploring the role of women during colonial times, historiographers have taken several, though not necessarily conflicting, approaches. Malley and Jemson represent those who have focused on the roles of women in countries under colonial power. However, they are atypical in that they attempt to place the specific continent they studied—South East Asia—in a larger, transnational context. For instance, in claiming that women in Annam (the name of Vietnam before 1950) had diminished economic power, even more so than in their traditional roles, which allowed for some economic autonomy (women's active role in the marketplace culture is cited), Malley and Jemson are able to make certain parallels with societies in which colonial power rested, namely England and France. Yet, the eye for detail that makes their work on Southeast Asia so compelling is lost in broad generalizations. In pointing out that it was deemed unladylike for women to engage in economic activity in both France and French Indochina, Malley and Jemson would have strengthened their case by offering specific examples from both those parts of the world. Additionally, the greater question of how in some cases colonialism not only offered more freedom than did traditional roles (in real estate a woman's initials were part of the deed) but also limited women's freedom would have made the discussion more germane to a transnational context.
On the other hand, Camden and Greely, draw broad conclusions in a transnational context, but their understanding of this context is limited by their narrow focus on the history of a specific country. Such a narrow view, unsurprisingly, leads them to impose certain metanarratives on these countries. For instance, in aiming to show that women in places under the colonial yoke acquired roles similar to women in Europe, and later America, Camden and Greely relied on small island nations in the Caribbean to make their case. In doing so, the two not only compromised the scope of their findings but also did not account for practices within these nations that might call into question the validity of their metanarratives. By overlooking the aspects of the culture of the countries they studied and by not including countries that were more representative of colonialism, Camden and Greely fail to concede that such metanarratives might themselves need some review to better account for more widespread practices. Thus, the few parallels they draw between these Caribbean nations and European powers are unconvincing. As both the approaches of Camden and Greely and those of Malley and Jemson show, historicity would be better served by scholars working in tandem to tease out general themes that apply to countries while also appreciating how a country's local culture informed and coexisted with such themes.