Search results

This paper aims to bring to the fore some conditions of possibility surrounding the audit society thesis that might have contributed to construct a sense of distinctiveness around it, thereby facilitating its spread and travel in the accounting research community (and beyond) as a meaningful epistemological agenda.

My argument is that the aura of distinctiveness surrounding the audit society thesis as a noteworthy epistemological agenda relates to outsider influences, concept plasticity, and in-depth persuasiveness. I discuss these three features of distinctiveness through excerpts from the book and my own interpretations, the whole analytic process being circumscribed by a disciplined imagination exercise (Weick, 1989).

While the webs of unpredictability surrounding social life necessarily influenced the travel of the audit society thesis in academia, it seems to me that the thesis’ journey may have been helped by the author’s outsider status, the malleability of the thesis’ key concepts, and the medium (as a book) through which the thesis was articulated (which provided a persuasive platform to underline and demonstrate the depth of the argument).

In an age where journal rankings abound, the audit society thesis constitutes a telling demonstration that one can have a meaningful impact in setting an epistemological agenda and consolidate her/his scholarly reputation through the publication of a scholarly book.

Briefly outlines recent developments in the commercialization of the public sector at the federal level of government in Australia. After six years of planning and implementation, debate continues over whether the dramatic changes in practice are achieving the proclaimed ends of enhanced efficiency, economy and effectiveness or are merely subverting equity and the once considered essential traditions associated with Westminster‐derived public administration. The theoretical, ideological and epistemological problems associated with economics being the driving intellectual academic discipline for commercialization are confronted. Within the context of full privatization in Australia yet to occur, organizational development, change and management education and training associated with the commercialization of public agencies are addressed in detail. Discusses a human resource development agenda and a management educator′s cognitive map for facilitating change processes associated with widespread drives for commercialization. External tendering for management education and management training curriculum emerges as a novel development in Australian public managements′ search for quantifiable behavioural outcomes.

The purpose of this paper is to put the paper by Jay Ogilvy in the context of current debates around the philosophical foundations of future studies.

The paper takes the form of a review and analyzes the current literature on foresight and philosophy of the future.

The paper finds that the practical challenge of taking a “scenaric stance”, as articulated in “Facing the fold”, cannot be addressed without going beyond the typically epistemological solutions proposed by most futurists.

The challenge is not finding ways to “know” the future, rather to find ways to live and act with not‐knowing the future.

The “scenaric stance” points to a way of embracing what Henri Bergson calls “the continuous creation of unforeseeable novelty.”

The “scenaric stance” offers one way of addressing the difficult, often deeply painful challenge of reconciling the desire for certainty with the desire to “be free” – in the Senian sense of capacity – by providing a way to embrace ambiguity and spontaneity.

The emergence of new solutions to how people think about the future rather than what kind of future reflects a confluence of events in the realms of theory and practice. The reason why one needs to and can rethink how one thinks about the future is original to the present conjuncture.

Women‘s studies has emerged as a recognised academic specialty in recent years. We explored the social structure of the field by analysing bibliometrically all scholarly articles (n = 1,302) and acknowledgements (n = 595) appearing in three pioneering journals over a twenty year period. We analysed authors (n = 1,504) and acknowledgees (n = 3,252) in terms of gender. We also conducted a content analysis of all editorial statements (n = 135) published by the three journals. Our results demonstrate the highly gendered nature of the field and the incompatibility of its publicly stated objectives.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there is no study that investigates the historical roots of quantitative paradigm hegemony over the qualitative paradigm in marketing using a critical lens. The purpose of this paper is to stimulate thoughtful reflections among marketing scholars so that the dialog among paradigms expands, the stale paradigmatic debates disappear, and the marketing discipline evolves and contributes to the actual functioning of markets and the welfare of society.

This study is conducted in the light of foucauldian genealogy through the analysis of historical materials that Foucault called discourses, a set of languages, systems of thinking and governality techniques that determine how individuals or organizations come to be disciplined. In this paper, the concept of discourse mainly refers to visible rituals and practices by which marketing researchers have been psychologically and behaviorally shaped to reproduce and perpetuate a hypothetical-deductive mainstream within their discipline.

This paper intends to stimulate a dialog among marketing scholars about expanding paradigms so that stale debates disappear, and marketing disciplines proves their scientific status by better contributing to the functioning of markets and the welfare of society. As an evolving social science, marketing requires new theory, new concepts and new research methods.

The intellectual contribution of this paper lies in its intention to alert marketing researchers about the danger we are exposing our discipline to by promoting imperialist traditions and standardization of thinking.

The purpose of this paper is to review the philosophy of science debates in the marketing literature and describe the current situation in marketing with respect to philosophy of science issues.

As a viewpoint/conceptual paper, the approach is largely a review of the literature with interspersed personal commentary.

The paper summarises the key contentions of opposing academics and attempt to convey the futility and pointlessness of such argumentation and describe a novel (to marketing) “attitude” to conducting marketing research.

Rather than argue one particular perspective, it is this paper's central thesis that no one philosophical perspective does or should have a monopoly on what constitutes making a useful contribution to our understanding of marketing phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive analysis of methodological issues that accompany the articles reviewing past research in strategic management.

The topic of the philosophical underpinnings and implications of historicism in strategy reviews is examined by contrasting and explaining deterministic, indeterministic, and underdeterministic views of strategy's intellectual history.

Three diverse philosophical approaches to historicist interpretation are found to be embedded in key review articles in the field of strategic management.

This paper indicates the need to develop and teach an accepted methodology of systematically reviewing and interpreting available knowledge in strategic management.

The unique contribution of this paper is that it indicates new paths that are important not only for the development of an alternative way to construct a shared history of the subject but also for the development of common norms for review articles that could help to advance strategic management scholarship.