Although hundreds of measures of personal religiousness and spirituality exist, none are capable of reliably and validly assessing individuals who identify as nonreligious and nonspiritual. There is a need to develop a valid and reliable measure of (non)religiousness and (non)spirituality. This article discusses these problems, and presents the development and initial validation of a 17-item Nonreligious-Nonspiritual Scale (NRNSS) across three studies. The NRNSS exhibited high internal consistency (α > .94) and high test-retest reliability (r = .92). Two exploratory and one confirmatory factor analysis of the NRNSS supported the hypothesized two-factor solution: (a) institutional religiousness and (b) individualistic spirituality. The NRNSS also demonstrated convergent validity through theoretically-expected correlations with established measures of religiousness and spirituality (the Cross-Cultural Dimensions of Religiosity, Humanistic Morality, and Traditional Religious Morality scales). In summary, the NRNSS may work as an initial attempt to address the limitations of other scales for capturing how religious/nonreligious/nonspiritual individuals are.
In 1995—after more than two‐and‐a‐half years—a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning child labour in the Bangladeshi garment industry was signed by the Bangladesh Garment Manufacturers and Exporters Association (BGMEA), UNICEF (Bangladesh) and the International Labour Office (ILO), Bangladesh. The agreement and the process were uniquely important in a number of respects and this article explores a question that remains almost unasked, although paradoxically it has often been answered: why did the agreement come into existence and take that particular form? This article provides a detailed and documented analysis of the process leading up to the MOU offering not only new insight but also challenging some of the widely held views about it.
Most importantly, the analysis confirms the significance of the so‐called Harkin bill and the subsequent threat of boycott as the basic drivers of the entire process. It also points to the use of the Harkin bill by the Asian‐ American Free Labor Institute (AAFLI) on the ground and the way this was related to AAFLI's active engagement in labour organizing there, concluding that ‘protectionism in disguise’ was hardly the motive. Furthermore, by highlighting the drawn‐out nature of the process and uncovering the close links between AAFLI, the International Labor Rights Fund (ILRF) and the Child Labor Coalition (CLC), the analysis challenges claims that the industry critics were uninformed and misguided, and points out that statements warning against ‘rushing into boycotts’ ought not to be based on what occurred in Bangladesh. The article argues that taking into account the efforts it took to move the BGMEA in this case, the approval of softer tactics and the critique and/or rejection of tougher tactics, was as naive as trade sanctions are blunt. In conclusion, in the light of the reported negative consequences for the children becoming a dominant theme in the process, the analysis acknowledges the importance of awareness of the risk of such consequences. However, the article points out that not only were industry critics aware of this and tried from the outset to make the industry accept some kind of responsibility, but also that the negative consequences have their own results serving to redefine the problem, narrowing the agenda and/or transferring moral culpability from corporations to critics.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.