Search results

Criticisms of naturalistic coherentism are suggested that are not raised by its critics in the literature. The rejection of traditional foundationalism does not necessarily entail the acceptance of coherentism. Coherentism can be seen as another version of foundationalism. Most interestingly, Evers and Lakomski’s stance on “strong vs weak” naturalism seems to be vague. Then, in closing, it is suggested that a recent theory in epistemology termed “foundherentism” might provide some avenues for the further development of naturalistic coherentism, such as by emphasising empirical input in coherentism and adopting a weak version of naturalism.

Examines the coherentist project for educational administration of professors Colin Evers and Gabriele Lakomski from a critical and pragmatic perspective. It is argued that Evers and Lakomski really have three projects going: the first project seeks to ground coherence as a solution to the problems of educational administration research upon the history of educational administration inquiry philosophies since the Second World War. The second project attempts to justify the worth of coherency as a research philosophy upon purely logical grounds. A third, and most recent, (practical) project draws upon evidence from leadership practice to prove coherentism’s usefulness for school administration. Concludes that, rather than supporting their post‐positivist philosophic underpinnings, Evers and Lakomski’s third project finds them moving toward a raw pragmatism. Also concludes that coherentism is best redescribed from a pragmatic aesthetic perspective, a point of view that provides a potentially more meaningful way of understanding the relationship of coherentist theorizing and leadership action in contemporary schooling.

While in agreement with the broad coherentist approach of Evers and Lakomski, the position taken here is that coherentism, in itself, does not provide a sufficiently developed normative framework to underpin an ethics of educational administration. The coherentist approach to ethics is that the requirements of survival and social problem solving ensure the development of neurally‐based moral prototypes. Following writers such as Clark and Flanagan, argues that the normative resources of coherentism should be enriched by sententially expressed normative standards, and that the approach to such standards taken by virtue ethicists is fruitful. Virtue ethicists reject a rule‐based approach to morality and embrace the idea of moral prototypes. This is consistent with a naturalised epistemology, including the learning of ethical administrative practice.

Offers a critical commentary on the Evers and Lakomski research programme as summarized in their article, “Theory in educational administration: naturalistic directions”. The origins of their naturalistic epistemology are reviewed and some of its limitations for understanding social action considered, especially the limitations it imposes on understanding social behaviour at the level of meaning. Brief attention is given to their coherence criteria, particularly to the manner in which these should be appropriately employed in theory choice. Concludes with a short consideration of the general problem of developing theory in educational administration and the appropriate role for modern science.

In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic philosophy as one of the major tools used for theorizing about organizations has had a major influence on the development of organization theory and largely explains the current state of affairs. At its core, we argue, is a fundamental methodological fissure in analytic philosophy itself: the distinction between descriptive and revisionary methods. The principal focus of descriptive analysis in organization theory is how agents use everyday language in organizational contexts, often by invoking language games. In contrast, revisionary approaches, concerned about the privileging of theories embedded in everyday language, as well as the complexity and ambiguity of ordinary-language use, aim for explicit theory evaluation and greater clarity by recasting ordinary language in formal systems, such as scientific, especially empiricist, theories, characteristic of the mainstream of theorizing about organizations from the 1940s onward. For a number of theoretical and epistemological reasons logical empiricism or positivism is no longer a widely held view either in the philosophy of science or in the organization theory. We examine some critical issues regarding logical empiricist epistemological foundations and propose a methodological naturalistic framework that supports the ongoing growth of knowledge in organization theory, naturalistic coherentism. In developing this new conception of science we thus opt for a revisionary methodology, but one that is beholden to neither the traditional logical empiricist/positivist conception of (organization) science nor the relativism and conservatism of postmodernist theory, widely considered to be the successor of positivist organization theory.

This paper aims to present a classification of approaches toward knowledge claim evaluation (KCE), which is the process of evaluating and testing knowledge claims in organizations, and to position KCE as a fundamental research issue for KM.

The paper draws from a range of KM theories in the academic literature and reviews the role of KCE. Concepts and principles from epistemology provide the basis for the analysis and classification of KCE approaches. The paper's particular focus is on KCE in innovation. Furthermore, practical examples illustrate the working of KCE.

KCE is a neglected process in KM theories. The conceptual underpinnings of KCE in KM theories are insufficient and empirical studies are lacking. The paper identifies three approaches towards KCE from the literature. The proposed classification shows that KCE can be dealt with in various ways, and that an understanding concerning the practical workings, the contextual factors and effects of KCE can yield fruitful advances in KM theory and organizational practice.

The literature review is based on a pre‐defined choice of KM theories in KM literature, whereas alternative selection criteria may be possible.

KCE is a topic that is under‐exposed in the KM literature. The authors show that multiple approaches toward KCE can be identified and that KCE can be very relevant for organizations and KM theory and practice.

The main purpose of this essay is to reflect on the nature of justification. To this end, the analysis draws on Luc Boltanski and Laurent Thévenot’s De la justification. Les économies de la grandeur ¹ [On Justification: Economies of Worth ² ]. More specifically, the article aims to examine the extent to which Boltanski and Thévenot’s conceptual framework, widely known as ‘the sociology of critical capacity’, ³ permits us to demonstrate that processes of justification ⁴ are vital to the symbolically mediated construction – that is, to both the conceptual and the empirical organization ⁵ – of social life. In order to prove the validity of this contention, the inquiry explores the meaning of ‘justification’ in relation to the following dimensions: (1) existence, (2) ethics, (3) justice, (4) perspective, (5) presuppositions, (6) agreement, (7) common worlds, (8) critique, (9) practice and (10) justification itself. By way of conclusion, the article maintains that processes of justification constitute an essential ingredient of human reality.

The purpose of the paper is to set out an evolutionary schema for organizational resilience using the established emergent autopoiesis coherence (EAC) framework, with empirical reference to the European Parliament’s development of institutional capacities since its foundation in 1952 as the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community (CA-ECSC).

The logic is categorical-synthetic and second-order cybernetic, implicitly underlain by a correspondence theory of truth united with a coherentism based in the epistemology of complex systems.

The European Parliament has constructed itself as a resilient organization, but the process has entailed over-learning of past lessons, creating behavioral syndromes of dysfunction in the face of new challenges.

The work contrasts antifragility with resilience and suggests a new approach to it.

The analytical framework and conclusions hold value for the practical design of resilient organizations.

The groundwork of the EAC’s conceptual framework is laid, and the basis for applying it to human and other naturally occurring societies is established.

K.W. Deutsch’s mid-twentieth century work on cybernetic-based learning in political systems is reconstructed, updated and applied to twenty-first century political phenomena. The insights are validated, and the analytical framework’s robustness is demonstrated.

The justification of punishment is an age-old debate which continues unresolved. In late twentieth century several attempts were made to reconcile the two opposing justifications: retributivism and consequentialism. But these attempts focused narrowly on merely one manifestation of punishment, i.e.: criminal punishment carried out by the state. To the extent that these mixed justifications are successful, they relate to only one (undoubtedly important) manifestation of punishment. But clearly punishment can occur in many different institutional contexts, and the institutions in each context vary dramatically in complexity and relevance. I recommend analyzing punishment in its manifold manifestations.