Search results

The current exploration and inclusion of spirituality across disciplines has, up to this point, focused largely on defining spirituality and creating practice and assessment tools. Little has been done in building the foundational structures at the level of paradigm, theory, methods, measures and research methodology. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper presents a section of findings resulting from a comprehensive qualitative research program using the process of meta-triangulation, which explored spiritual perspectives from paradigm to practice.

The results of this research begin to address gaps at these levels through the articulation of spiritual ways of knowing and the methods and measures that stem from them. Once articulated, it was possible to explore the parallels and differences between spiritual and physical ways of knowing, their methods and measures.

It is acknowledged that such research may be resisted by some factions as they attempt to maintain positions of power and privilege. Thus, this paper presents the research within this contested and turbulent landscape.

Bloomington scholars are critical of the rather wide-spread “Model Platonism” of both Austrian and Chicago economists. Their empirical, B, perspective avoids the more extreme views of both Austrian “mindful economics,” A, and Chicago “mindless economics,” C. Yet the B is not a mere convex combination of A and C. It is rather a psychologically grounded empirical evidence-oriented approach that keeps clear of the non-empirical spirit of von Mises’ and Selten’s methodological dualism on one hand and the instrumentalist and behaviorist spirit of much of neo-classical economics on the other hand.

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the coherence of Gulick's ideas on the nature of work roles and the implications for organisational theory.

An analysis is undertaken of Gulick's writings in the “Papers on the Science of Administration”, on different ways of organising (for which the author has used the term “systems of organisation”) and similar work by his contemporaries, including Chester Barnard. The subsequent critique of Gulick's ideas by Herbert Simon is evaluated. Gulick's ideas are then compared with a theoretical framework developed by the author, which covers similar ground to the systems of organisation.

The paper argues that Gulick's ideas on the nature of work roles in his systems of organisation were an important, but flawed contribution to organisational theory. Shortcomings in Gulick's theories on systems of organisation are identified, which, when rectified, improve the coherence of the theories and address legitimate criticisms made by Herbert Simon.

The article has important implications for contemporary interpretations of the intellectual clash between Gulick and Simon, and the relevance of Gulick's ideas for contemporary management research.

The article has implications for the theoretical perspectives which are brought to bear on how organisations conceptualise their work tasks and organise themselves accordingly.

The paper subjects one of the central elements of Gulick's principles of administration to in‐depth critique at a conceptual level in order to re‐evaluate its worth and contemporary relevance.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the sustained argument that explication can contribute to the emergence and development of the philosopher‐manager who is appropriately sceptical of generalisations, and confident in their own abilities to develop local, valid and meaningful theories based on their wisdom and personal experience.

The idea and practice of explication as a source of (new) meaning and knowledge in a contested postmodern world is the main focus of this paper. Within the postmodern discourse which informs and shapes the paper, particular attention is given to the problematics of autobiography, fiction and “truth”, and the undecidability of meaning.

Explication offers managers the prospect of “new” explicit knowledge and skills based on their prior experience and, more importantly perhaps, explication helps people to develop a honed philosophical mindset which can recognise and deal with the empty arguments, flawed recipes and fictions that often characterise traditional management theory.

Future empirical research on the ways that explication is described and practised, is urgent and vital. This will yield interesting and valuable insights for those who practice explication, and for those who design and implement OD solutions including the corporate university.

The paper outlines the handful of related activities which make up the explication process.

This paper locates the idea of explication within a postmodern discourse. The paper benefits from previous work by the author which encourages managers to exploit their experiential learning so as to create and to share their own theories rather than rely on the dictums of others.

Theories of computation related to the semantics of programming languages, like those of McCarthy and Scott, rely on non‐constructive mathematical “ideas.” Turing's theory does not assume any mathematical “ideas.” In the approaches of Floyd, McCarthy and Scott the attempt is to develop a general theory of “meaning of programs” and then to consider the problem of correctness and equivalence. From a constructive point of view, suggested in this paper, correctness is considered only from that of meaning of a particular program. A general theory of meaning is rejected because of its ontological assumptions. It is shown why for a constructive semantics of programming languages the distinction in ontology between a “mathematical algorithm” and the corresponding program is so fundamental.

Being the most powerful creatures on the planet, we humans should carefully consider our beliefs for the simple reason that the way in which we think influences our behaviors; this in turn can either transform the world or negatively affect the world. Our mores, paradigms, and worldviews translate into behaviors (e.g., factory farming for meat production and consumption) that in turn modify the environment. In general, much of our thinking system is backed up by some concept, theory, paradigm, or ideology. Our thinking systems generate our belief systems of goals and mission statements; our belief systems, in turn, determine our behavior systems (e.g., our strategies, choices, commissions, omissions as implementation systems); our behavior systems determine our impact systems (e.g., impact on us, our families and neighborhoods, our cities and villages, our state and our country, our globe and sometimes our cosmos). Thus, our behavior systems eventually impact our thinking systems, which we started with, thus completing a circular or spiral loop. This chapter examines the thinking–beliefs–behaviors–impact loop, exploring its internal and external dynamics and validities. Specifically, in Part I, we examine the structure of our belief systems in business; in Part II, we explore the power of our structured belief systems in business; in Part III, we apply critical thinking that systematically questions and seeks to redesign our presumed thinking and belief systems.

By reconstructing the meanings, contexts, interests, and topics of conversation held over the years with Kathy Charmaz, this short tribute conceptualizes the indigenization of the Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM) from a position of methodological innocence. The main question is about the existence of a global methodology useful for and applicable to all cultures regardless of local epistemologies, theoretical developments, conceptual histories, and methodological legacies existing in each nation. Acknowledging the development of American pragmatism and its effects on the construction of GTM, the way in which divergent epistemological perspectives can affect the research practice conducted by using this methodological approach is explored here. The originality of Charmaz's contribution on the internationalization of GTM is explored from our conversations imbued with my vision as a Spanish-speaking thinker. Arguing about cover-science was productive in opening paths toward the recognition of a virgin field that demanded our attention. This short tribute is an invitation to continue a journey of discovery on the geopolitics of science and on the local or global application of knowledge generated through specific research methodologies. Indigenous grounded theory research can still be a point of axial tension between different options that need to be explored soon to choose the most appropriate one for today's troubled times. During the years to come, the brilliant presence of Charmaz will illuminate the necessary critical reflection on the particularities of practicing GTM in different societies and cultures other than the American one.

Recent changes in university systems, debates on academic freedom, and changing roles of knowledge in society all point to questions regarding how higher education and research should be governed and the role of scientists and faculty in this. Rationalizations of systems of higher education and research have been accompanied by the questioning and erosion of faculty authority and challenges to academic collegiality. In light of these developments, we see a need for a more conceptually precise discussion about what academic collegiality is, how it is practiced, how collegial forms of governance may be supported or challenged by other forms of governance, and finally, why collegial governance of higher education and research is important.

We see collegiality as an institution of self-governance that includes formal rules and structures for decision-making, normative and cognitive underpinnings of identities and purposes, and specific practices. Studies of collegiality then, need to capture structures and rules as well as identities, norms, purposes and practices. Distinguishing between vertical and horizontal collegiality, we show how they balance and support each other.

Universities are subject to mixed modes of governance related to the many tasks and missions that higher education and research is expected to fulfill. Mixed modes of governance also stem from reforms based on widely held ideals of governance and organization. We examine university reforms and challenges to collegiality through the lenses of three ideal types of governance – collegiality, bureaucracy and enterprise – and combinations thereof.

The essay explores the profound nature and consequences of subjectivity struggles in everyday life. W. E. B. Du Bois's concept of double consciousness and its constituent concepts of the veil, twoness, and second sight illuminate the process of racialized self-formation. Racialized self-formation contributes to understanding the cultural reproduction of domination and subjugation, the two primary concerns of radical interactionists. Double consciousness, long ignored by symbolic interactionists, cannot be neglected by radical interactionists if they are to articulate a comprehensive account of self-formation in a white-supremacist culture. Reflections on racialization, meritocracy, and subjectivity struggles in contemporary everyday life conclude the essay.

This chapter offers a critique of the affirmative forms of thought that attempt to ground the ontology of social being through subjective-idealist terms. Some recent examples came in the form of notion of truth grounded in subjects' experience and in rationality of language and discourse. The first part of the chapter demonstrates the perilous implications of such an approach for social theory tasked with ontology and for the conception of truth necessary for its task. The second part scrutinizes the paradigm of society that stems from this subjective-idealist notion of truth and social ontology that adopts discourse, language, and literary metaphors to comprehend social being. As an alternative, the final part of the chapter offers a preliminary sketch of the relation of ontology, normativity, and mediation, as well as the notion of critique necessary for social theory tasked with ontology.