Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore the utility of a pragmatist epistemology as a viable methodological avenue for addressing the challenges associated with the normative models of science that dominate organisational management. At the same time, theorisation of a paradigm grounded in a pragmatic epistemology is presented.

The paper seeks to explore the different assumptions guiding a pragmatist epistemology, based on the development of an alternative philosophic framework, such as an indigenous paradigm that draws its logic from a Māori worldview. In doing so, it counters the ideological tension created by the disjunction of applying an epistemological perspective that aligns with what we conceptualise as a mainstream Western view of knowledge creation and maintaining the integrity of taking an indigenous worldview.

In the paper, we argue that kaupapa Māori research, as an indigenous paradigm draws from a pragmatist epistemology, providing a platform for a culturally attuned response to mainstream organisational research.

The paper is of use to qualitative researchers, in and beyond indigenous contexts, as it grounded in a methodological approach that draws from a pragmatic epistemology offering insightful, more richly contextualised research avenues in organisation and management.

Attempts to prove, in this second chapter of the author’s monograph, that with a new research programme, it is possible to build a methodological bridge between economics and all other natural sciences and the scientists should address this challenge. Reviews basic principles that govern nature, including Einstein’s findings along with such luminaries as Copernicus, Newton, Galileo and Jeans. Concludes that the future is safe, as a new generation of scientists is now emerging in the East and the West, and that the new methodology should provide enough space for new roads, ideas and interpretations, which may occur in the future. Closes by saying a new spirit should be initiated in economics and transplanted into natural sciences.

There is a double crisis in modern science and in particular in physics and mechanics. Among others Einstein and Stephane Lupasco, in the 1930s, warned about this crisis. The Quantum Theory cannot be reconciled with the Relativity Theory. Specifically there is a gap (cleavage) between micro – and macro‐physics and mechanics. Parallel or beneath there is also a second crisis derived from a discontinuity (again a cleavage) between classical and modern science, that is between two previous revolutions. A new research programme of a simultaneous equilibrium versus disequilibrium approach, initially applied in economics has now been extended to include natural sciences. It is the question of a new, more comprehensive methodology which is actually a sui generis synthesis between classical and modern heritage. The rigorous application of the new research programme leads to the organisation of an Orientation Table, that is, a methodological map of all possible combinations (systems). The Table shows, without any exaggeration, a few revolutionary results. For instance, with the help of the Table, modern science or the second revolution (Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg) does not appear contradictory but rather complementary to classical science or the first revolution (Newton, Lavoisier). The Kuhnian thesis to the contrary is disproved and the second crisis is solved. With the help of the Universal Hypothesis of Duality (the basis of the Orientation Table), matter and energy, at the micro – and macro‐level, appear in a double form (the Principle of Duality): stable (equilibrium) particles and unstable (disequilibrium) waves. The strong interactions from modern physics are associated with the law of gravitation (attraction) or stable equilibrium which governs stable matter and energy. The weak interactions are associated with the law of disgravitation (dispersion or repulsion) including entropy or unstable equilibrium which governs unstable matter and energy. In this way the first crisis is also solved.

What do we mean by the term ‘megatrend’? A megatrend is a prominent feature of global politico‐economic change brought about by or against the recent thrust of capitalist globalization. A megatrend is also a pattern of thinking and action that is entrenched in a certain perception of historical change and capital‐worker ownership relationships. A megatrend is thus seen as a pattern of change that will profoundly impress the future of mankind in its relationship with others and with the full gamut of the ecological domain including markets and institutions (Heilbroner & Milberg, 1996). In this paper, the study of megatrends will also encompass the hidden forces that will powerfully influence, profoundly change and guide that momentum of change to an objective globalization in the future, even as the growthmanship agenda of global capitalism breathes its last in a post‐modern age.

One of the rallying cries of the blockchain community is that of immutability: the irreversibility of the past, the absolute truth which, once stored, remains there forever. The technology was designed with this foundational pillar in mind to ensure that changes to history are inordinately expensive and practically impossible to execute – and increasingly so, the further in the past the event which one intends to manipulate lies. This platonic view of absolute truth is in stark contrast with a world of manipulated truth, and it is not surprising that it is being revisited as a means of combating fake news. We argue that claims to the absolute nature of the blockchain are at best exaggerated, at worst misrepresented or even ‘fake news’. We discuss implicit centralised points of trust in blockchains, whether at a technological, social or governance level, and identify how these can be a threat to the ‘immutable truth’ stored within the blockchain itself. A global pandemic has unleashed an unprecedented wave of contradictory positions on anything from vaccines and face masks to ‘the new normal’. It is only natural that the pursuit of blockchain as a placebo for society's ‘truth’ problems continues.

The paper aims to discuss error detection and correction in Kashmiri carpet weaving (KCW), mediated by cryptographic code, Talim which is held to guarantee accurate information transference from designing to weaving, even after hundred years. Yet, carpets often show errors on completion.

Human factors analysis revealed error emergence, detection and correction in this practice whose task domains are distributed over large geographies (from in-premises to several kilometers) and timescales (from days to decades). Using prospective observation method, production process of two research carpets from their design, coding and weaving was observed while noting the errors made, identified and corrected by actors in each phase.

The errors were found to emerge, identified and corrected during different phases of designing, coding and weaving while giving rise to fresh errors in each phase, due to actors’ normal work routines.

In view of this, usual branding of “weaver-error” behind flawed carpet turns out to be misplaced value judgment passed in hindsight.

In the drama of the evidentiary process, it would hardly be thought exceptional that the judge’s intuition of the formal order of things – which is to say, their sufficient standing-to-reason – should falter when confronted with the sprawling and confused immediacy of stubborn matter-of-fact. The circumstantial given is a bewildering Gordian Knot of data; the analytic legerdemain of localising our attention and following one of its threads cannot reduce the tangle into which it soon recedes. And in comparison to the knot’s multiplicity, our scope for unifying abstraction, or “large-scale” comprehension, is limited and flickering. We possess fragments of intuition, and fragments of formal connection between these fragments. But the panorama is merely agglutinative – the fragments do not congeal into one perfect, self-evident totality. And an offhand remark amongst the lectures of Alfred North Whitehead suggests that this defect is of more than methodological significance – even when one takes one’s example from arithmetic: “the snippet of knowledge that the addition of 1 and 4 produces the same multiplicity as the addition of 2 and 3, seems to me self-evident” (Whitehead, 1968, p. 47). And yet we would disclaim any such self-evidence were larger numbers involved – only skeptically could we hazard a guess. So, he continues, we have recourse to “the indignity of proof,” securing our opinion through the rationality of calculation. Nor is it so much that proof and method are chastening of themselves – the nemesis, the sting of the creatural condition is rather having to prove, the imperfection of finite judgment and the infinite possibility of perfecting it. This predicament was already known to Sophocles; if humanity “holds out” against the overwhelming by its inventiveness, by finding a means in to mêchanoen technas, the machinations of technique, it is because our ultimate condition with regard to the overwhelming is amêchanôs, aporos, resourceless and without means.

What is truth and what are the conditions for its manifestation? We can induce from the evidence of the experience of all human subjects capable of communication and intersubjective behavior that we exist in a world that (1) we share and (2) is accessible to all of us. From this, we can infer that the experience of truth is not merely subjective, but depends upon objective referents to be meaningful. The interplay of subjectivity and objectivity in the meaning-making processes of human subjects is the condition of possibility for truth.

This essay proposes two ways of pursuing truth. One is a scientific project that requires generations of rigorous study and collective building. The other is a simple set of guidelines that can be used day to day by anyone. Both are important. Not everyone will be a professional scientist, but everyone can use simple scientific tools to bring their thinking and actions more in line with truth.

Like the quixotic character that never knew that he was speaking all through his life in pure and simple prose, Gandhi never realized that what he was preaching and practicing throughout his life was in fact the basic principles and theories that could be subsumed under the contemporary discipline of political economy (PE). Gandhian political economy (GPE) is replete with many of the characteristics of classical and Marxian political economy and these are mentioned at relevant places throughout this work. It also assimilates some of the major features of contemporary heterodox political economy, in particular, the class analysis of Neo‐Marxism; gender, ethnicity and class analysis of Feminist political economy; the analysis of justice, ethics and institutional trust of social political economy; the analysis of the significance of institutions and institutional change of the institutional‐evolutionary political economy; and the importance of the interdisciplinary focus on contemporary issues like development and international political economy.