weakness of interpretive approach

When it comes down to it, we all make our own decisions. We weigh the pros and cons to decide if the benefits outweigh the potential punishments. The idea of rational choice theory is that people choose their actions based on the options available and choose the one they most prefer. If their choice is to eat a donut or to not, when they really want to eat it, chances are they will eat it. Once you add in punishment, it gets more complicated. If the person were to be punished for eating it, they will most likely think it through more. Say, it’s a teenager who wants to eat the donut but he knows his father will ground him if he does. This donut is the teen’s favorite kind and he really really wants to eat the donut, but the risk of punishment is there, the teen will weigh the consequences against the benefits. Would he choose a few minutes of a tasty donut and risk being grounded for a week or would he choose to forgo the donut and not get in trouble? The act of having a choice to do something you want to do that also has consequences and causes you to rationally decide if it’s worth it or not is rational choice theory.

France and England created an alliance because they both feared Germany’s naval strength and supremacy. Despite claiming it was defensive in nature, it spread east and eventually, other countries were involved. Since Austria-Hungary and Germany were in dispute over the assassination, they became involved too. Therefore, alliance systems played a significant role in the outbreak of the war. Since these countries. became involved in

My example of the rational choice theory of today is the mexican drug controls of December 2011. The drug trafficking organization in Mexico was highly rational, self-interested actors seeked to maximize profit.

Even though they started as allies they both wanted different things and never had an agreement. The one thing that they both wanted was control and dominance in the Pacific. Japan was thirsty for power after the First World War. If they had power in the Pacific they would have ownership of raw materials, which means they would not have to pay anything to have access to them. The Japanese were determined to make this an accomplished goal. The beginning of Japans and Chinas problems can be traced back to the invasion of Manchuria. In 1931the Japanese invaded Manchuria which part of China and renamed it Manchukuo. This was the start of it all and the reason for the Sino-Japanese War. The Sino-Japanese was lasted until the end of the Second World War (Iriye 4). When China made the decision to take on Japan, other countries got involved, the United States being one of them, who took the Chinese side under Chiang Kai-shek. The Japanese had a slogan: “the Great East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere” which frightened the United States (Iriye 7). Just because the U.S. was known to be the

Rational choice theory is a criminology theory designed by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clark which states that before people commit a crime they think about what they are going to do (Snook, Dhami, & Kavanagh, 2011). They consider the pros and cons before performing the criminal action. The entire premise of the rational choice theory is that each individual, regardless of whether rich, poor, educated, or uneducated, all utilize rationality when making the decision to commit a crime (Taylor, 2013). The rational choice theory postulates that when a person weighs the costs and benefits of a crime, that person decides whether or not the benefits are worth the risk. It is about maximizing his or her own self-interest (Jacques & Wright, 2010). The

When one country got into a conflict with another , it led to them also having conflicts with their allied countries. For example, in the “Crime of the Ages” Germany was pointing the finger at Russia and since Russia, England, and France had an alliance they all were blaming Germany (Doc B). Countries like England that had no direct problem with other countries had to go to war due to their alliances. This controversy made alliances a main cause because since there was the Triple Entente (Russia,France, and Great Britain) and the Triple Alliance (Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary). If you went against anybody on either side you had to also fight their allies and they had to fight yours, causing everyone to fight. Being that this all took place in Europe, placement was also a big deal. It would have been a smarter move to not be fighting on two fronts. For example, Germany was stuck during the war because they had to fight off France on the western front and Russia on the eastern front (Doc A). It put them in between a rock and a hard space because their men were split and half was on one front while the other half was on the other front. Germany couldn’t put their full focus on one side like Russia and France could, causing them a

In 1984 the Sino-Japanese war happened. This war has significant influence for Chinese government, because this is the first time China were defeated by a non-western power, and Japan was consider as a weak “tiny” neighbor of China. China and the entire world was shocked by losing Sino-Japanese War. Losing Sino-Japanese War is a symbol that Qing Dynasty is going to perished, and the way that China lose is worth to study. Even though the westernization movement did not operated so well, but it still modernize and improve the Chinese military power. Especially Chinese marine has lots of modern warship and weapon, and China has more soldier than Japan. It is fair to say that China has enough army to fight with Japan. But, why Japanese win the Sino-Japanese War? Firstly, Chinese government did not realized that Japan dare to fight with China, so they did not prepare well. Secondly, Chinese government try to stop the war by diplomacy, they trying ask western countries for help, but, at the moment the western countries were stand for Japan. Last and most importantly, the old feudalism and bureaucracy made Chinese army lose the war. The commander of Chinese marine Li Hongzhang, who is also the leader of “westernization” party in the government. Because he is the commander of the marine, so he has authority in Qing government. He does not wants to fight with Japanese army, because if he lose his marine, he will also lose the

So what is the definition of a rational theory? “The rational choice theory adopts a utilitarian belief that man is a reasoning actor who weighs means and ends, costs and benefits, and makes a rational choice. This method was designed by Cornish and Clarke to assist in thinking about situational crime prevention”. In the book it basically explains it in a much easier way. The book defines it as the, “explanations of crime and delinquency held that human behavior was a matter of choice”.

During the time of World War II the most important thing to have was power. Countries did not care how they would achieve it they simply wanted it. The country of Japan was one of the many in seek of such control and power. That is when the Japanese decided to expand, and invade China. At the beginning the Chinese did not give in, they fought as much as they could to protect their land. This clearly angered the Japanese as they felt disrespected and did not like that they were being defied. They truly believe it was their right to expand. This was the main reason why they decided to increase their violence towards the Chinese once they arrived to Nanking (The Rape of Nanking). It is obvious that the Japanese felt as if they deserve to take over China. However, as time passed the Chinese fear the continuous violence against them and saw no other option than to give up. The people did not understand why this increase of violence was being directed at them. Unfortunately, this cause the Japanese to perceive the Chinese as weak. If you want to be in power, you cannot give up easily. Therefore, the surrender of the

The difference between the objective and interpretive theories is quite simple when first looked at. As one digs deeper, it is harder to grasp the more important concepts within each theory. The interpretive theory is driven more by self-interest and the surrounding environment. The objective theory on the other hand differs in the sense that it’s more scientific and evidence based. In order to be considered a “good” objective theory, it must go beyond the collection of data to predict future events. The objective theory is superior to its counterpart theory because it can predict some future events, remains simple within its theory, includes a testable hypothesis and is all about quantitative research.

Rational choice theory accepts that all individuals attempt to effectively expand their preference in any circumstance and in this way reliably attempt to minimize their misfortunes. The hypothesis depends on the possibility that all people construct their choices in light of sound figuring’s, act with discernment when picking, and intend to increment either delight or benefit. Rational choice theory likewise stipulates that all unpredictable social wonders are driven by individual human activities. Accordingly, if a business analyst needs to clarify social change or the activities of social organizations, he needs to take a look at the balanced choices of the people that make up the entirety.

Rational choice theory, also known simply as choice theory, is the assessment of a potential offender to commit a crime. Choice theory is the belief that committing a crime is a rational decision, based on cost benefit analysis. The would-be offender will weigh the costs of committing a particular crime: fines, jail time, and imprisonment versus the benefits: money, status, heightened adrenaline. Depending on which factors out-weigh the other, a criminal will decide to commit or forgo committing a crime. This decision making process makes committing a crime a rational choice. This theory can be used to explain why an offender will decide to commit burglary, robbery, aggravated assault, or murder.

Throughout the history of China, the civil strife in China had marked a significant event. With two parties established; the Nationalist known as Kuomintang (KMT) and the Communist known as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), conflicts between them began to erupt due to their difference in beliefs when CCP began to question to morality of democracy and capitalism. This led to the Chinese Civil War (1945-1949). Although many see that, “early in the civil war it looked as though the Nationalists might prevail. They controlled key cities, their well-equipped troops far outnumbered Communist troops, and they had support from the United States,” (Tamura 180) the outcome of the war was not what everyone thought to be due to many

Allies bound by treaty, as well as compelled by defensive nature, began to acquire mass weaponry. Once these countries entered the war, they had to keep gaining power; i.e. spending money, and building on to military, thus putting financial burden on their countries for the benefit of their alliance. Britain and Germany especially, began an arms race, acquiring submarines as well as conventional weaponry. Powers were participating in naval warfare. This force of action solidified alliances. Countries chose sides and entered into alliances for personal benefit and gain. They pledged their allegiance to stronger countries in a “gang like” mentality which stressed an ideology of work with me, or be destroyed by me. This describes an effort to create a balance of power. However, the security dilemma was in full effect as everyone accumulated weaponry. It was hard for any nation, especially Germany, to keep tabs on the power that everyone had gained.

The difficulties that were accompanied with this approach led to deviation from the rational model. Complexity of modern organizations and the limited cognitive ability of decision makers were most influencing factors in the deviation . The decision makers were unable to operate under perfect rationality conditions. The information about a decision was mostly unavailable or unclear, and open to different interpretations. Also, the criteria of evaluating alternative solutions were not agreed upon. It also required very long time and a lot of energy of the decision makers to pursue a maximizing outcome. These constrains led to a conclusion that the absolute rational model is unreachable.