With rising unpredictability of the business environment, the strategy–structure–performance construct is being questioned afresh. But cutting edge research evidence is still difficult to come by. One of the possible reasons is that few researchers are adopting new and innovative methodologies. This paper carries out a paradigmatic and methodological review of research on the topic for the last 10 years after classifying published research into three broad categories of enquiry. The study finds that contrary to expectations, the logical positivistic/empiricist paradigm of enquiry into the one way linear causality in the strategy–structure–performance relationship was still the favorite among researchers and may explain the lack of breakthrough contribution of recent research. This paper makes a case for more research on the challenging two-way causality using innovative designs and archival data, and suggests some future directions for research.

Is there anything coherently ‘European’ about a European archaeology – or rather, about the ‘archaeology of Europe’ – or is it simply a modern political construct with no meaning in the ancient past? This paper analyses European archaeology through a historical perspective, tracing developments in the areas of archaeological conservation (heritage), thinking (theory/interpretations) and publication and teaching. It critically examines a perceived trend in archaeology from a national towards a European framework, and concludes instead that local and regional frameworks have become stronger in all three areas. To move forward, we should use our understanding of the relationship between ideology, politics and archaeology to promote a research agenda that actively contributes to the formation of critical knowledge about the conditions for heritage and research in contemporary society. There is scope for an archaeology that addresses fundamental historical problems and long-term histories of the various geographically and culturally interlinked regions of Europe.

There would be broad agreement with the need to address the issues put forward by Clements, Rapley and Cummins amongst service providers and researchers in learning disability. However, these authors' presentation of their arguments may well unnecessarily antagonize both groups. Additionally, it is suggested, the authors fail to identify the different paradigmatic bases of their proposals and thereby miss the opportunity to air genuine ethical dilemmas in learning disability research.