Search results

This article describes one academic’s approach to creating a research community among a diverse group of higher degree students within an individualistic research culture. The approach is characterised by acceptance of a wide range of interests and methodologies, attention to the relational and emotional needs of students, the collaborative sharing of information, ideas and problems, and a recognition that imagination and intuition are essential elements of a meaningful scientific investigation. Particular techniques for facilitating this process are described.

We know a good deal today about how our brains construct emotions. The new fields of interpersonal neurobiology and affective neuroscience are challenging many of our conventional understandings, particularly the notion that thinking and feeling are separate operations and that it is the teacher's primary task to engage students in the former. This chapter addresses some of the findings of recent research on basic emotion command systems, emotional style, neural resonance and neuroplasticity, arguing that we can no longer ignore the evidence that our students’ cognition, emotion and bodily health are fundamentally connected. The arguments for a holistic approach to education are exceedingly robust and have neuropsychological research findings to support them.

As outlined in these chapters, pre-service teachers, beginning teachers, experienced teachers, teacher leaders and aspirant leaders all face the growing demands of emotional labour and are engaged in the emotional work that underpins learning environments. The ‘false apprenticeship’ (Bullock, 2013) highlights how teacher education remains historically problematic, with its focus on observation for replication, rather than the development of an individual's capability. Educators need to be enabled to refocus their attention on developing professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). According to Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) there are three elements that produce professional capital, these are human capital, social capital and decisional capital. The presence of all three is vital for a healthy productive education system. The education system is made up of people and education is for the people. Society and future societies rely on professional capital being promoted within education.

Douwe Beijaard, PhD, is full professor and director of the Eindhoven School of Education, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. His current research themes are the professional identity, quality and development of (beginning) teachers, as well as teachers’ roles in educational innovations.

Purpose – Trust and justice are generally considered distinct but closely related constructs. Individual perceptions of procedural justice and trustworthiness have been shown to reciprocally influence one another, each independently promoting trust (Colquitt & Mueller, 2007). We consider instances where these may instead diverge: how intentional efforts to build trust may unintentionally erode justice, and how the use of fair procedures may reduce trust.

Approach – We argue that the anomalous divergences between trust and justice are evident only when simultaneously considering judgments at two levels: the interpersonal level (i.e., within dyads inside the team) and the team level (i.e., shared perceptions of all team members).

Implications for research and practice – The unintended effects described in this chapter describe a “dark side” to a number of taken-for-granted practices in organizational life (favor-paying, punishment processes, and approaches to redress). We expect that this chapter should promote new research using the team context to bridge the trust and justice literatures, and provoke a careful reconsideration among practitioners of these approaches.

Originality – We propose three previously overlooked disjunctures between trust and justice. First, we show how procedurally unfair approaches to allocating favors may be beneficial in building dyadic trust between team members. Next, we describe how fair (open and transparent) group processes for punishing perpetrators may erode trust by skewing group members’ perceptions of the prevalence of trust violations. Finally, we describe how the most effective forms of redress at the interpersonal level may provoke perceptions of injustice at the team level.

The purpose of this paper is to trace the development of economic theory to the point where “economic rationalism” is a commonly used term.

The paper draws on earlier research and published works examining: the history of economics; economic rationalism; and the different influences in comprising basic economic concepts.

The analysis of writing indicates that rationalism has been a focus of discussion in economic writing since Classical times, through to the “rational” influence in economic policy making from neoclassical economic writing. But, the specific term “economic rationalism” gained wider usage after Pusey's book. From that time, the term was used outside academia as a disparaging means to criticise economic theorists and policy makers.

The research is limited by the ability to examine all the literature in the field in greater depth. However, this has been ameliorated by examining a sufficient sample of literature relevant to the concept of rationality in economic theory and policy.

This paper provides a useful critique – from the classics to the modern era – of the contribution made to economic theory and practice. It provides managers with a comprehensive historical overview.

This paper fulfils an identified need and gives support to executives and managers who have doubts about theological justification for some values and accountability procedures being employed in policymaking.

Whitehead's notion that if you say something for long enough, it will be believed, aptly describes the development of the latest corporate governance regimes. Curbing managerial opportunism is the current focus, but the regimes contain only more of what has failed in the past. Inexplicably, at a time when reformers are declaring their allegiance to principles over rules, long-standing principles are being by-passed and more rules imposed. Whereas much of what the rules address is contestable, the frequency with which it is proclaimed has been seductive – it is being accepted as if it were true, not by virtue of either convincing evidence or argument, but through the power of repetition. Stock options in executives remuneration packages are to be expensed, not because they satisfy expensing criteria, but because of the penetration of the mantra that they are expenses; independence is being accepted as the consequence of not being in particular relationships, not because that will change one's state of mind, so much as it will appear likely to have done so; and impairment calculations are being declared superior to conventional amortization techniques, not because of any demonstration that they better indicate the decrease in the market price of a physical asset, but because of the repetition of the impairment litany. Corporate governance is being perceived as a set of processes, rules to be complied with, rather than the desired outcome of them – that is, the authority exercised with probity and unquestionable integrity over corporations’ affairs, for the public good. There is a less than clear explanation of whether or how the separate governance processes mesh with one another. The governance miasma confuses rather than clarifies corporate activity. Underpinnings of the mechanisms in the governance regimes have achieved a false status of concreteness. Contrary to the universal indoctrination, the case is stronger for fewer, rather than more, governance rules.