Search results

This remembrance discusses the intellectual climate and circumstances under which David Maines came to the Metro Detroit area in the early 1990s. It discusses his impact on graduate students at Wayne State University and how he met the historian Linda Benson whom he would marry. It chronicles his arrival to the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan in 1997, which provided him a well-deserved academic home after his long 25-year journey in academia. Maines was tenured there in 1998, promoted to full professor in 1999 and chaired the department from 2000–2006.

This chapter honors the opportunity I have had to learn with David Maines over the past 35 years. I connect my research on communication and disability, specifically among individuals who are blind and visually impaired, to Maines' discussion of narratives incorporating Rawlins' exploration of similarity and difference. I discuss narratives of disability as difference using three examples: A short story written by H. G. Wells; the American with Disabilities Act; and interviews conducted with elite blind goalball athletes. I conclude with 10 lessons learned about disability and difference including that the goal of my research is to help us all perceive disability as a difference that matters, but not as a difference that disables.

This paper aims to introduce the concept of Entrepreneurial Collective Intelligence (ECI) as a means of understanding how communities of entrepreneurial actors learn to act both collectively and knowingly. It explores how connections between processes of CI, agency and action can explain and enable the development entrepreneurial community organisations.

There is a selective literature review of prior works on the related fields of community and collective entrepreneurship; collectives and intelligence; agency and action. The review is used to propose a framework of collective entrepreneurial intelligence, agency and action. An interpretive approach is used to research four case studies of community organisations which use CI to generate entrepreneurial outcomes.

The cases are compared with themes from prior literature to develop a conceptual model of four ECI processes which enable intelligence, agency and action: collaborative processes; distributed working; intelligence representations and organisation of infrastructures. These are theorised to discuss ideas, challenges, methods and questions to enhance entrepreneurial actions, based on sharing knowledge and learning, in the context of collective agency, action and intelligence.

The four processes, both together and separately, represent a coherent framework useful for further studies on the role of collectives in enterprising communities.

The four processes each represent a central area of attention, not only for development, learning, decision-making and leadership within enterprising communities but also for entrepreneurship education in terms of alternative didactics, pedagogies and learning forms.

The improved knowledge on the role of collective agency and CI within entrepreneurial processes is useful for strengthening civil activism and other fruitful forms of entrepreneurial collective processes. This may help solve complicated societal problems where traditional conceptions of entrepreneurship fail.

The conceptual contribution is to explain the dynamic relationships between ECI and action, mediated by collective agency. The role of CI in informing entrepreneurial communities is explored and four enabling processes are proposed. This coherent framework is useful for further studies on the role of collectives in enterprising communities, whilst informing their learning, decision-making and leadership.

David R. Maines was a founder of the Society for the Study of Symbolic Interaction, a fierce defender and practitioner of interactionist sociology, and cross-disciplinary pioneer, bridging sociology and communication research in the study of narrative. He invariably gathered collaborative circles of colleagues and students around him wherever his intellectual travels took him. Here, I recall the collaborative circle that formed with him at its center at Penn State in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This was a time of both personal and professional turmoil for David, and also prolific scholarly achievement. I then introduce other contributions to this volume that feature others' remembrances and appreciations of David's life and work.

Much like their residential counterparts, commercial leases have a reputation problem. Although often derided as painfully dull and mundane documents, residential leases have begun to be interrogated by socio-legal scholarship with renewed interest. This paper aims to continue this line of work in the commercial context through a detailed examination of a widespread form of leasehold in the pub sector: the “tied lease”.

The paper draws on interviews with 14 publicans and archival research.

The author argues that the lease is a decisive actor in determining the balance of power between publicans and pub-owning companies and shaping the physical environment of pubs in the UK.

The author’s broader agenda is to argue that socio-legal scholars’ renewed interest in leases should not be confined to the residential context: commercial leases warrant far greater socio-legal scholarly attention.

The American agricultural economist Marion Clawson advised the Israeli government during 1953–1955. Clawson, a protégé of John D. Black and Mordecai Ezekiel, criticized the government for ignoring economic considerations, and stated that Israel’s national goals – defense, Negev Desert irrigation, immigrant absorption via new agricultural settlements, and economic independence – were mutually contradictory. His major recommendations were to improve the realism of Israel’s agricultural plan; end expensive Negev irrigation; enlarge irrigated farms eightfold; freeze new settlements until the number of semi-developed settlements falls from 300 to 100; and limit new Negev settlements to 10 over 5–7 years. Thus, Clawson ignored political feasibility and made value judgments. Minister of Finance Levi Eshkol and Minister of Agriculture Peretz Naphtali rejected Clawson’s recommendations because they ignored Israel’s national goals. By September 1954, Clawson shifted towards greater pragmatism: He acknowledged that foreign advisors should not question the national goals or make value judgments, and sought common ground with the Ministry of Agriculture. At his initiative, he wrote Israel Agriculture 1953/54 in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture. Israel Agriculture was a consensus document: Clawson eschewed recommendations and accepted that the government might prioritize non-economic goals. In proposing Israel Agriculture, Clawson made a pragmatic decision to relinquish some independence for (potentially) greater influence. Ultimately, Clawson was largely unsuccessful as an advisor. Clawson’s failure was part of a general pattern: Over 1950–1985, the Israeli government always rejected foreign advisors’ recommendations unless it was facing a severe crisis.