Search results

The title of this chapter was inspired by Martin, a prisoner the author met while conducting fieldwork. Martin remarked that, despite the common rhetoric around prisoners ‘maintaining’ their family ties, the reality was that during imprisonment it became more about trying to cling on to them. Imprisonment is perhaps one of the most brutal disruptions a family can undergo, leaving them little choice but to adapt to this enforced transition. Immediately, the spaces where family life can happen narrow severely and become dictated by the prison environment and the plethora of rules that regulate it. The immediate physical separation, onerous restrictions on physical contact and the heavily surveilled nature of family contact during imprisonment constricts space for emotional expression, often rendering romantic relationships clandestine and fatherhood attenuated. Further, the temporal space for family is reduced as limited opportunities for visits lead prisoners to eschew contact with wider family members and prioritise their ‘nuclear’ family. Drawing on empirical research conducted at two male prisons in England and Wales, this chapter then, will detail the complexities of how families navigate this transition and the limitations on what family can mean in the prison environment. The chapter will conclude with the implications of these restrictions for the ultimate transition when prisoners return ‘home’.

The case includes theoretical references to family business, organizational culture, resource-based value and leadership.

The case combines primary and secondary data. There is ample public information about Martin Guitar including histories of the company and its instruments. These were used for background. Primary data were provided by the company in the form of customized data and interviews.. The case writer has served Martin Guitar as a consultant and also plays Martin instruments. The case writer had numerous opportunities to interview Chris and his key lieutenants.

In 2019, C.F. Martin IV (Chris) was in his fourth decade leading one of the America’s oldest family-owned companies, C.F. Martin & Co., Inc. Martin Guitar is a globally known maker of fine guitars that are prized by collectors, working musicians and amateur musicians. Chris was raised in the family business and took on the CEO’s position at the age of 30. The case describes the company’s management practices and the culture that has emerged from them. In 2019, at age 64, Chris confronted issues faced by his predecessors over multiple generations: how to prepare the company for succession, and maintain its strong performance as a family-owned company in a dynamic industry environment.

The case is designed for a management course for upper-level undergraduates.

TWENTY‐ONE years devoted to the development of ejection seats, 24,000 seats built for more than forty nations and now one thousand lives saved—that is the proud record of the Martin‐Baker Aircraft Company. To coincide with these achievements, the following article describes the technical development of the range of seats—from the first swinging arm concept through the early manually‐operated seat to the rocket‐assisted completely automatic zero/zero ejection seats of today. From whatever standpoint Martin‐Baker's record is examined, the result is impressive. In terms of mechanical engineering, a series of ingenious features allied to robust design have resulted in ejection seats of unparalleled performance yet renowned for their simplicity and reliability. In terms of sales, this comparatively small firm has, in effect, conquered the world and won substantial export contracts—not least those for over 7,000 seats for the United States armed forces. In human terms, the company has won the grateful thanks of all those aircrew members—a long roll of highly‐skilled and dedicated young men whom some might call the cream of manhood—who but for Martin‐Baker ejection seats would have perished. Small wonder that the name Martin‐Baker has become synonymous with successful ejection.

To summarize and evaluate John Levi Marin’s recent book, The Explanation of Social Action (2011), the central thesis of which is that the actions of other people cannot be explained without first understanding those actions from the point of view of the actors themselves. Martin thus endeavors to reorient social science toward concrete experience and away from purportedly useless abstractions.

This review chapter employs close scrutiny of and applies immanent critique to Martin’s argumentative claims, warrants, and the polemical style in which these arguments are presented.

This chapter arrives at the following conclusions: (1) Martin unnecessarily truncates the scope of sociological investigation; (2) he fails to define the key concepts within his argument, including “explanation,” “social action,” and “understanding,” among others; (3) he overemphasizes the external or “environmental” causes of action; (4) rather than inducing actions, the so-called “action-fields” induce experiences, and are therefore incapable of explaining actions; (5) Martin rejects counterfactual definitions of causality while defining his own notion of causality in terms of counterfactuals; (6) most of his critiques of other philosophical accounts of causality are really critiques of their potential misapplication; (7) the separation of experience and language (i.e., propositions about experience) in order to secure the validity of the former does not secure the validity of sociological inquiry, since experiences are invariably reported in language; and, finally, (8) Martin’s argument that people are neurologically incapable of providing accurate, retrospective accounts of the motivations behind their own actions is based on the kind of third-person social science he elsewhere repudiates; that he acknowledges the veracity of these studies demonstrates the potential utility of the “third-person” perspectives and the implausibility of any social science that abandons them.

To date Martin’s book has received much praise but little critical attention. This review chapter seeks to fill this lacuna in the literature in order to better elucidate Martin’s central arguments and the conclusions that can be reasonably inferred from the logical and empirical evidence presented.

The ‘Terrible Mother’ traditionally connotes monstrous aspects of motherhood and devouring femininity, encompassing two stereotypical representation of women in myth, fairy tale and fantasy: The Seductress and the Wicked stepmother. The Seductress personifies female malevolence and is characterized as rebellious, manipulative and relentless. Furthermore, she often adopts male aggressiveness, especially sexual, thus usurping male prerogative. Ironically, the temptress is condemned for exhibiting traits which the male hero is lauded for, while also embodying a warning to other women regarding their fate should they rebel against male authority. These narrative strands converge in Cersei, who becomes an embodiment of male anxiety and stands as the chief moral foil and greatest sociopolitical threat to male hegemony.

Concomitantly, Cersei plays the part of the wicked stepmother to Sansa Stark, the series' archetypal damsel in distress. Like Sansa, Cersei began with starry-eyed dreams of womanhood, but quickly grew disillusioned. Despite this, Cersei subjects Sansa to the same injustices she suffered. This re-enactment of her own mistreatment situates Cersei as the female accomplice to the patriarchy. Yet, Cersei also attempts to educate Sansa about women's position vis-à-vis the patriarchy and the tools at their disposal, thus layering the role of the wicked stepmother. Furthermore, Cersei's narrative is complicated as she becomes a point of view character: her focalization becomes a fertile ground for myriad challenges to an androcentric culture, opening avenues for social criticism and possible reimagining of gender roles.

Stanford contributed significantly to the organizational culture movement that occurred in organization studies from 1970–2000. This chapter traces developments at Stanford and puts the contributions of its researchers and scholars in the context of the many influences that shaped the study of organizational culture during this period. In addition to the historical account, there is speculation about why the culture movement at Stanford more or less ended but might yet be revived, either by those studying institutionalization processes or by those who resist them.

“The issue we confront today is not primarily one concerning a special day for an individual. The issue is in reality whether our nation can summon the will and vision to recognize a great and historic period in its history by designating the birthdate of one who made major contributions to the period a national public holiday.”

This single case study design describes the process in the care and treatment of Martin, a 28‐year‐old man with a learning disability and a diagnosis of emotionally unstable personality disorder within a medium secure unit for people with learning disabilities and associated difficulties. The purpose of this project was to make clear the links between understanding the personal phenomenology through formulation and therapy and the usefulness of this ‘knowledge’ in helping to guide difficulties, impasse and nurture positive relationships. The central theory underpinning treatment was cognitive analytic therapy (CAT), with an emphasis on the relational components and shared formulation.

The purpose of this paper is to present an interview with professor and noted author Roger Martin discussing three major topics— the future of capitalism, better executive decision making and innovations that boost customer value – all at the heart of current executive concerns.

The paper presents Martin's view, – that modern capitalism has come through two major eras over the last century, managerial capitalism (1930s to 1970s) and shareholder capitalism (1980s to 2000s). He argues that the time has come to embark on a new era, the era of “customer capitalism” and explains why.

In answer to another set of questions, Martin provides his own insight into one of the management field's most elusive and intriguing questions: what is the essence of outstanding leadership, particularly at the CEO level? His research has led him to the finding that exceptional leaders are distinguished most by the way they think, by their capacity for what he calls “integrative thinking.”

To a third set of questions, Martin offers his own solution to one of the major challenges facing senior executives today, how to become more innovative, not only in products and process, but also in the area of business management itself. His answer – executives should look to the concept of “design thinking” and learn how to apply it more widely to processes like strategy development and business model innovation.

Roger Martin believes that the shareholder value system has been rigged to the detriment of stockholders, that great managers are distinguished by how they think before they decide what to do and that design thinking is a key competitive competency. Martin offers groundbreaking ways to think about leading and management.

This paper uses a historical case study, the controversy over the possibility of climatic extremes caused by hydrogen bomb tests on Pacific Ocean atolls during the 1950s, to show how, in a context of few scientific data and high uncertainty, political affiliations and public concerns shaped two types of argumentation, the “energy” and the “precautionary” arguments.

Systematic analysis of publications 1954–1956: scientific and semiscientific articles, publications of C.-N. Martin and contemporary newspaper articles, especially from the Asia–Pacific region.

First, epistemological and scientific reasoning about the likelihood of extreme natural events aligned to political convictions and pressure. Second, a geographical and social distribution of arguments: the relativizing “energy argument” prevailed in English-language scientific journals, while the “precautionary argument” dominated in popular journals and newspapers published worldwide. Third, while the “energy argument” attained general scientific consensus within two years, it lost out in the long run. The proponents of the “precautionary argument” raised relevant research questions that, though first rejected in the 1950s, later exposed the fallacies of the “energy argument” (shown for the case of the climatologist William W. Kellogg).

In contrast to the existing secondary literature, this paper presents a balanced view of the weaknesses and strengths of two lines of arguments in the 1950s. Further, this historical study sheds light on how once-discarded scientific theories may ultimately be reconsidered in a completely different political and scientific context, thus justifying the original precautionary argument.