Search results

This chapter offers an overview of the field of care ethics as it has developed over the past 40 years. It considers ways in which care and kindness align, are mutually reinforcing or perhaps diverge, in an effort to consider how both might be bolstered in management and organizational studies (MOS), and beyond, in workplace practice. While definitions of care usually focus on the meeting of needs, kindness is less well defined and explored. The chapter examines the possibilities of kindness as a pathway to care, as a component or stage of care, as congruent with care, as an enhancement to or deepening of care, and also how kindness and care might impede each other. Finally, the chapter considers warnings against half-measures when attempting to entrench care and kindness in the workplace of today.

The work of caring has assumed utmost importance during the devastation caused by the pandemic. We employ the feminist theory of care ethics within the context of food provisioning during the pandemic, and examine the work of Food for Chennai, a group of micro-volunteers in the city of Chennai, India who provide home-cooked meals, free of charge, to COVID-19 patients and households that are in quarantine. Using textual and visual data from social media posts (Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram), interviews with an organizer of the movement, and print – media articles, we trace the evolution of this movement, and argue that this network of care could not have developed or grown without the use of digital infrastructure and the affective campaigning that it enables. We add to the scholarship of three linked bodies of work – digital activism, food ethics, and the ethics of care – by grounding our analysis in the immediacy of the crisis and suggesting avenues for thinking about ethical issues and digital activism as crisis response in the future. We conclude by offering ways of reimagining food systems that could embrace values of care in the post-pandemic world.

The chapter reflects on the strengths and limitations of David Carpenter’s proposal to support the work of research ethics committees through consideration of the virtues required by their members. Carpenter’s approach has many strengths, responsibilising researchers and ethics committees, and increasing the scope for robust and active theoretical engagement with ethical issues. I bring two alternative perspectives on research ethics to bear on this discussion. First, I discuss work in care ethics and relational ethics, approaches to ethics that have some similarities with virtue ethics but also distinct differences. Bruce Macfarlane’s text, on which Carpenter draws, notes care ethics briefly. I offer a more detailed consideration of what this perspective can offer, both for research ethics and for the virtuous research ethics committee. This helps to identify the relationships that are missing from a virtue ethics focus. Further, a context sensitive relational approach suggests ways in which we can strengthen Carpenter’s proposals to help research ethics committees select between competing principles or virtues. Second, my research ethics expertise is in undergraduate teaching for a multidisciplinary course, and an enquiry-based learning programme, which allows students in mixed discipline groups to plan, conduct, report and present their own original social research. The research skills training provided includes an interactive introduction to research ethics, what they are for and why they matter. Since we aim to offer practical guidance to research ethics committees when they consider what they should do and how this should be done, such a first principles approach may be useful.

This chapter seeks to advance the neglected debate on the ethical issues between formal organization and practice arising from innovation in an organization. To that end, the chapter discusses the sources of possible moral dilemmas for practitioners who belong to a practice with a shared identity, values, and standards of excellence, and who need to conform to new rules of formal organization. While formal organization ideally strives for generalized fairness principles for all organizational members when introducing an innovation, the contextualized nature of practices may lead to particular needs and goals of the practice which can only be recognized as such by practitioners and not by formal management, and to which procedural justice cannot respond. The chapter proposes how practitioners may interpret moral dilemmas, aligned with their practice-based identity and ethical values, and what options for action they may seek. The discussion is illustrated with examples of innovation in the field of information systems design.

One of the themes that cut across most of the cases is the importance of spending time forging relationships with participants in the research setting. Whilst this can be a long process which under the drivers of the current ‘neoliberal academy’ may appear to yield few tangible outputs, we argue that dedicating effort to building relationships – and being willing to take a ‘slow’ approach – is an essential methodological aspect of researching non-formal education. In this chapter, we first outline the importance of developing relationships and embracing slowness in research, illustrating how these concepts play out in Case Study 2 – Youth Sports Programmes, Case Study 6 – Geographies of Youth Work, Case Study 7 – Parents' Everyday Maths, and Case Study 9 – Theories of Change. Finally, we distil two key recommendations from the four cases: trusting relationships can lead to richer data collection, and building relationships can lead to a more ethical and caring form of research.