Search results

In this chapter, we first show how the concept of competency, and management of or by competency, can be a factor in helping more people find employment, improve employability and develop competency, thus contributing to increased diversity in the workforce at every level of an organisation. We then examine a different part of the literature, more closely related to organisational learning, which finds that deviance and diversity can potentially boost competency. Subsequently, we look at diversity management first as an organisational competency, then as an individual competency. Concerning the reasons for the spread of management by competency and diversity management, we shall see that their respective advocates employ the same rhetoric of economic rationality, with both types of practice being justified by an objective change in the environment and, for this reason, presented as unavoidable and to some extent as simply “moving with the times”. In opposition to this supposed rationality as seen by companies, we will show that, in France, the two concepts of competency and diversity interact closely with institutional processes of mimetism, normalisation and coercion. In the final section, we shall look more closely at critical views of management by competency and diversity, as the criticisms of the two concepts are very similar and question their (possible) claims to be propelling society towards a fairer society.

This chapter highlights a study showing that knowledge sharing and envisioning processes can have positive effects on human and social capital growth within a network. The chapter begins by arguing that a responsible development perspective can be more proactive approach than a sustainability perspective. Some actors (non-profit, public, and private) have achieved responsible development goals by integrating values, purposes, and visions. More specifically, we conducted a study testing a methodology that can guide a process of building a strategic vision within a network with the goal of improving their responsible development orientation. The chosen methodology is “Participatory Action Research.” The implementation of the envisioning process was studied via quantitative/qualitative research tools. The methodology was tested in an official cross-country project funded by the European Commission. The project was selected as a best practice by the same European Union Commission. The study highlights the importance of envisioning processes in building social and human capital at the inter-organizational level and, in particular, in highly complex sectors such as those oriented toward improving social responsibility. In fact, work on the envisioning process itself represents an essential instrument for developing strategic objectives to be shared among actors within networks that intend to promote responsible development and improve their human and social capital. This bottom-up process of envisioning can also facilitate cultural interaction among community members, even in a cross-country context. This relevant “learning-by-interacting” experience can create a growth process for the human and social capital of entire communities. The creation of social capital also promotes the development of shared knowledge and advances, leading to the general understanding of common core objectives and appropriate ways of acting within the social system. The chapter ends with recommendations for future research.

This chapter conceptualises a link between Industrial Revolution 4.0 (IR 4.0), big data, data science and sustainable tourism.

The author adopts a grounded theory and conceptual approach to endeavour in this exploratory research.

The outcome shows a significant rise of big data in the tourism sector under three major dimensions, i.e. business, governance and research. And, some exemplary evidence of institutions promoting the use of big data and data science for sustainable tourism has been discussed.

The conceptualised interlinkage of concepts like IR 4.0, big data, data science and sustainable development provides a valuable knowledge resource to policy-makers, researchers, businesses and students.

The pressure on higher education providers (HEPs) and national programme partnerships to evaluate the impact of widening participation (WP) interventions has intensified as a result of wider changes in higher education (HE) policy and regulation, including the imposition of market forces. This chapter describes how policy stakeholder assumptions about how evaluation works and the outcomes it delivers have evolved over the last two decades. It shows how regulatory emphasis has shifted from a focus on monitoring and tracking, through to a call for return-on-investment analysis, before falling back on a pragmatic theory-informed approach. This chapter goes on to locate WP evaluation in the middle of a paradigm war, caught between proponents of a medicalised trial-based conception of evaluation methodology, and a practitioner-led position, which points to the complex contextual character of WP activities. It continues by exploring some of the many practical challenges faced by WP evaluators and argues that these have contributed to the sector’s perceived failure to deliver robust evidence of the impact of fair access activity. This chapter concludes with a look at the expanding market for WP evaluation products and services, which emerged in response to new flows of WP investment created by the 2012 increase in tuition fees.

We address here how the U.S. neoliberal policy regime developed and how its reconstructed vision of modernization, which culminated, under the rubric of globalization, was neutralized by 9/11 and neoconservative geopolitics. We analyze the phases in the rise of neoliberalism, and provide a detailed map of its vision of global modernization at its high tide under Clinton. We also address how the Bush Doctrine's unilateral, preemptive polices and the consequent War on Terror and Iraq War eroded U.S. legitimacy as the globalization system's hegmon and shifted the discourse from globalization to empire. Cold War modernization theorists, neoliberal globalization advocates, and Bush doctrine neoconservatives all drew on an American exceptionalist tradition that portrays the U.S. as modernity's “lead society,” attaches universal significance to its values, policies, and institutions, and urges their worldwide diffusion. All three traditions ignore or diminish the importance of substantive equality and social justice. We suggest that consequent U.S. policy problems might be averted by recovery of a suppressed side of the American tradition that stresses social justice and holds that democracy must start at home and be spread by example rather than by exhortation or force. Overall, we explore the contradictory U.S. role in an emergent post-Cold War world.