Search results

Concern about the use of zero-tolerance policies for discipline has led to a search for alternatives such as training in early-warning signs of aggressive behavior and strategies for effective classroom management in schools. This chapter examines the effectiveness of the provision of alternatives to out-of-school suspensions (OSS) in reducing the use of exclusionary discipline for minor misbehavior and the school characteristics associated with these provisions.

This analysis uses the 2008 panel from the National School Survey on Crime and Safety to explore this question for approximately 1,000 high schools. The analysis is a probit regression analysis to examine the association between the provision of alternatives to OSS, school characteristics, and the use of OSS for low-level suspensions. This analytic approach provides wide generalizability for the findings, though it does also limit an ability to identify individual school- or student-level effects.

Findings based on probit regression analysis suggest that structural characteristics of schools – beyond student characteristics – are only somewhat related to variation in the use of OSS for low-level infractions and, on average, the availability of alternatives to OSS do not strongly decrease the frequency of OSS for lower-level infractions. These findings are important in the current era of discipline policy scrutiny where schools and policy-makers are searching for alternatives to traditional suspension practices in a limited empirical evidence base.

While these alternatives hold great promise, little is known about their effectiveness in addressing behavior problems and/or reducing OSS. More importantly, even less is known about the characteristics of schools likely to enact alternatives.

It’s been thirty years since the original articulation of “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article – first published in Research in Organization Development and Change – generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry, as well as well as the enormous impact and continuing reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary I am presenting the article by David Cooperrider (myself) and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with new horizon insights. In particular I write with excitement and anticipation of a new OD – what my colleagues and I are calling the next “IPOD” that is, innovation-inspired positive OD that brings AI’s gift of new eyes together in common cause with several other movements in the human sciences: the strengths revolution in management; the positive pscyhology and positive organizational scholarship movements; the design thinking explosion; and the biomimicry field which is all about an appreciative eye toward billions of years of nature’s wisdom and innovation inspired by life.

This article presents a conceptual refigurationy of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline’s steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the original articulation of Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry (AI), as well as well as the enormous impact and reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary we have decided to issue a reprint the early article by David L. Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with contemporary comments embedded. To be sure the comments offered are brief and serve principally to add points of emphasis to ideas we may have too hurriedly introduced. My comments – placed in indented format along the way – are focused on the content and themes of furthermost relevance to this volume on organizational generativity. In many ways I’ve begun to question today whether there can even be inquiry where there is no appreciation, valuing, or amazement – what the Greeks called thaumazein – the borderline between wonderment and admiration. One learning is that AI’s generativity is not about its methods or tools, but about our cooperative capacity to reunite seeming opposites such as theory as practice, the secular as sacred, and generativity as something beyond positivity or negativity. Appreciation is about valuing the life-giving in ways that serve to inspire our co-constructed future. Inquiry is the experience of mystery, moving beyond the edge of the known to the unknown, which then changes our lives. Taken together, where appreciation and inquiry are wonderfully entangled, we experience knowledge alive and an ever-expansive inauguration of our world to new possibilities.

This article presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

The authors contribute to scholarly understanding of the interplay between macro-level institutions and micro-level action by focusing attention on the ways the power of institutions works through mundane organizational spaces to constrain individuals as they interact with organizations. The authors explore these macro- and micro-connections between institutions and organizational spaces through a qualitative inductive study of an emergency department in a public hospital in Australia. Analyzing observational and interview data related to a waiting room and a corridor, their findings show how the systemic power of the state and the medical profession impacts micro-level action through organizational spaces. The authors find that the medical profession exerted power in a system of domination over marginalized patients through the waiting room as an exclusion space. At the same time, the state exerted discipline power over professional subjects through the corridor as a surveillance space. Individual resistance to institutional power over the ED was controlled by policing deviance in the surveillance space and ejecting resisters to the exclusion space. Their findings contribute to the literature by opening up new insight into how mundane organizational spaces convey institutional power by dominating and disciplining micro-level actions.

School disciplinary actions have numerous goals, including teaching social skills, promoting peer mediation, and increasing community involvement (Garnes & Menlove, 2003). Many school disciplinary actions are based upon behavior management principles, with consequences administered for behavior that is dangerous, disruptive, socially inappropriate, or incompatible with good academic deportment. Discipline often takes the form of punishment and is intended to quickly reduce undesirable behavior. Contingency management methods include detention, suspension, and expulsion (Turnbull, Wilcox, & Stowe, 2002).

The methodological individualism and subjectivism of the Austrian tradition in economics is often associated with a methodological dualism, i.e. the claim that the nature of its subject matter, namely purposeful and intentional human action, requires economics to adopt a methodology that is fundamentally different from the causal explanatory approach of the natural sciences. This paper critically examines this claim and advocates an alternative, explicitly naturalistic and empiricist outlook at human action, exemplified, in particular, by the research program of evolutionary psychology. It is argued that, within the Austrian tradition, a decidedly naturalistic approach to subjectivism can be found in F. A. Hayek’s work.

This chapter provides an interpretive account of how a large student cohort deals with a major inquiry-based learning (IBL) assessment task in a first-year Marketing Principles subject in undergraduate business studies. It offers a practical example of IBL in action in a discipline that has hitherto received little attention in the IBL literature, namely business, specifically marketing. The chapter positions IBL within the various contemporary pedagogies. The context of Hutchings and O’Rourke’s (2006) study of IBL in action is extended for first-year cohorts, technology-enhanced teaching and the marketing discipline. Further, Hutchings and O’Rourke’s four-part method for describing IBL in action is followed: (1) the enabling factors for the students’ work are described; (2) the process for which they decided on the task is discussed; (3) the method of work is considered, namely ongoing collaboration in a wiki and (4) the outcomes produced are discussed. The chapter reflects on the effects of the IBL task on student learning from both students’ and instructors’ points of view. Material from the students’ work and feedback after completion of the IBL task is used to illustrate the process and inform the interpretive account. The main lessons to be learnt for educators are summarised.