This study analyzed the behavioral characteristics of ICT users among postgraduate students leveraging the Latent Class Analysis (LCA). The study, anchored on the Planned Behavior Theory, followed the exploratory research design. It adopted the cluster random sampling technique in selecting 1,023 respondents from a population of 2,923 postgraduate students in four federal universities in South-South Nigeria. “Behavioural Characteristics and Job Creation Questionnaire (BCJCQ),” developed by the researchers, was used for data collection. Upon data collection and LCA analysis, the five-class solution (...) was accepted as the best-fitting model, based on statistical fit indicators (such as AIC, BIC, entropy, Gsq, and Chsq) and theoretical grounds. Consequently, five classes of behavioral ICT users were identified and named based on their item–response probability, conditional on class. The five classes were named Trendy, Outmoded, Pragmatic, Disciplined, and Social users of ICT, with their unique characteristics discussed. The study tested for job creation differences among the classes using a one-way ANOVA and found a significant difference. On average, pragmatic users of ICT created more jobs than social, disciplined, and outmoded users. Trendy users were, on average, the minor job-creating class of ICT users. The study compared the bivariate differences in job creation among the classes using the Tukey HSD test of multiple pairwise comparisons. Based on the results obtained, discussions were made with implications for further research in the evolving area of LCA. (shrink)

The idea that law claims authority (LCA) has recently been forcefully criticized by a number of authors. These authors present a new and intriguing objection, arguing that law cannot be said to claim authority if such a claim is not justified. That is, these authors argue that the view that law does not have authority viciously conflicts with the view that law claims authority. I will call this the normative critique of LCA. In this article, I assess the normative critique (...) of LCA, focusing predominantly on the arguments presented by its most incisive proponent Philip Soper. I defend a twofold conclusion. First, LCA, understood roughly along the lines put forward by Joseph Raz, is part of the most attractive analysis of law. Second, proponents of the normative critique, and in particular Soper, are committed to accepting LCA. (shrink)

The metaphysical “Law of Continuity of Alterations” says that whenever an object alters from one state to another, it passes through a continuum of intermediate states. Kant treated LCA as a transcendental law of understanding. The primary purpose of the paper is to reconstruct and evaluate Kant’s three arguments for LCA. All three are found to be inadequate. However, a secondary goal of the paper is to show that LCA would have more naturally been construed as a regulative principle of (...) reason. I conclude with some remarks about how this could work. (shrink)