Search results

This paper traces how in Britain and Germany, for-profit and non-profit businesses coevolved with political-economic institutions. Starting in the late eighteenth century, Britain embraced the logic of liberal capitalism, although the path was not smooth. Over the same period, German states balanced both liberal and social-welfare ideals. Social-welfare ideals did not gain support in Britain until the start the twentieth century. The market logic embodied by for-profit businesses was more congruent with liberal capitalism than with social-welfare capitalism, so business corporations thrived more in Britain than in Germany. Yet in both countries, the growing number and power of for-profit businesses created problems for farmers, workers, and small producers. They sought to solve their problems by launching non-profit businesses – co-operatives, mutual-aid societies, and credit co-operatives – combining the ideals of community, enterprise, and self-help. British non-profits gained support from authorities by emphasizing their self-help and enterprise ideals, which were congruent with liberal capitalism, over the community idea, which was not. In contrast, German non-profits gained support by emphasizing all three ideals, as two were congruent with liberal capitalism and all three with social-welfare capitalism. Our analysis reveals how the success of different forms of business, embodying different institutional logics, depends on prevailing political-economic logics. It also shows how the existence and technical success of various organizational forms shapes elites’ perceptions and through them, societal-level logics of capitalism.

Purpose – This chapter examines the ways in which community has been discussed and pursued within American disability politics. It shows the various, often contradictory, understandings of community in play and examines the strengths and weaknesses of various strategies used to create community.

Methodology/approach – Using comparative historical techniques of analysis, this chapter compares different conceptualizations of community as they are used by activists and in policies.

Findings – While “community” is often an ideal embedded in activists' aspirations, historically it has meant very different things. The assumptions embedded in the idea of community affect the strategies and policies pursued by activists.

Practical and social implications – Each strategy to pursue community has advantages and disadvantages. Community as place leads to clear policy objectives, but often fails to achieve meaningful relational transformations. Community as social capital focuses on building social relationships, but leaves unaddressed membership in the national community and issues of citizenship. Ideals of community based on insider/outsider distinctions can be effective at unifying a group, but encourages the exclusion of others. Community as social citizenship demands the state uphold a commitment to support all citizens, but is often politically unpalatable. These ideas of community are often used together, sometimes to build upon one another, and other times in ways that are contradictory.

Originality/value of the chapter – Community is a lauded yet elusive goal. This chapter contributes to our understanding of disability politics and the tensions in creating “community.”

An approach to social responsibility in higher education will be proposed in this chapter and informed by a canon of literature and theorizing on critical pedagogy (Darder, Baltodano, & Torres, 2009; Freire, 1971; Giroux, 2011). Rooted in the work of education theorist Paulo Freire (1971, 1993) critical pedagogy embodies a set of critical dispositions about community, politics and education. Freire (1971, 1993) posited the nature of hope through transformative action in communities in which community empowerment arises from emerging critical consciousness and informed action. In common with the ideals of university–community partnerships critical pedagogy connects both to a community development mission and to an educational mission. However, though these principle philosophies of critical pedagogy may be inferred in the literature on civic universities, on higher education and public engagement and on wider aspects of social responsibility in higher education (Goddard & Kempton, 2016; UPP, 2019; Webster & Dyball, 2010), the chapter will explore how they may be more centrally located in analysis and in practice development.

The authors use a co-auto-ethnographic study of Hurricane Harvey where both authors were citizen responders and disaster researchers. In practice, large-scale disaster helps temporarily foster an ideal of community which is then appropriated by emergency management institutions. The advancement of disaster research must look to more radical perspectives on human response in disaster and what this means for the formation of communities and society itself. It is the collective task as those invested in the management of crises defer to the potentials of publics, rather than disdain and appropriate them. The authors present this work in the advancement of more empirically informed mitigation of societal ills that produce major causes of disaster. The authors’ work presents a departure from the more traditional disaster work into a critical and theoretical realm using novel research methods. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

This paper produces a co-auto-ethnographic study of Hurricane Harvey where both authors were citizen responders and disaster researchers.

The authors provide a critical, theoretical argument that citizen-based response fosters an ephemeral utopia not usually experienced in everyday life. Disasters present the possibility of an ideal of community. These phenomena, in part, allow us to live our better selves in the case of citizen response and provide a direct contrast to the modern experience. Modernity is a mostly fabricated, if not almost eradicated sense of community. Modern institutions, serve as sources of domination built on the backs of technology, continuity of infrastructures and self-sufficiency when disasters handicap society, unpredictability breaks illusions of modernity. There arises a need to re-engage with those around us in meaningful and exciting ways.

This work produces theory rather than engage in testing theory. It is subject to all the limitations of interpretive work that focuses on meaning and critique rather than advancing associations or causality.

The authors suggest large-scale disasters will persist to overwhelm management institutions no matter how much preparedness and planning occurs. The authors also offer an alternative suggestion to the institutional status quo system based on the research; let the citizenry do what they already do, whereas institutions focus more on mitigate of social ills that lead to disaster. This is particularly urgent given increasing risk of events exacerbated by anthropogenic causes.

The advancement of disaster research must look to more radical perspectives on human response in disaster and what this means for the formation of communities and society itself. It is the collective task as those invested in the management of crises to defer to the potentials of publics, rather than disdain and appropriate them. The authors also suggest that meaningful mitigation of social ills that recognize and emphasize difference will be the only way to manage future large-scale events.

The authors’ work presents a departure from the more practical utility of disaster work into a critical and highly theoretical realm using novel research methods.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between project-based organizing and the initiatives labelled as “development” by critically engaging with some unchallenged assumptions inherent in the notion of both projects as a means through which social change can be achieved and the wider possibility of delivering social good as an objective of development.

From a phenomenologically informed critical participatory perspective the authors focus on contradictions within the practices of community development (CD) by attending to the interplay between the dominant project form of organizing that frames those practices and the rhetoric of “development”.

Drawing on two CD examples, the authors illustrate and discuss the contradictions and damaging consequences of the developmentalism-projectification double-act. The position is that social good is local and contextual and draws expediently and contingently on the means through which it can be achieved by the collective action of those who co-define and co-create the social good.

The authors propose that there is a need to open the dialogue with development practitioners, funders, project managers, project workers, and the recipients and stimulate multiple participation.

The authors believe the critical participatory approach that the authors have taken to CD project management could be both novel and useful as it refocuses attention to non-performative aspects of CD, arguing for de-naturalization of project organizing logic and encouraging emancipation from dominant epistemic inequalities. With an uncompromising focus on embedded practices, the authors hope to spur further debate on the important issue of CD and the possibilities of creating “social good”.

The community can be considered as an empirical category of thought and hope. This is how various understandings of real, imagined, invented, local, and global communities are created. Sociological studies give meaning to this heuristic category and its historical representations and its values centered around a world of proximity, primordial loyalties, solidarity, face-to-face communication, production, reproduction, knowledge, and environmental preservation. Community equally expresses the existence of a territory where populations reproduce; a place for a convivial exchange among generations, traditions, and respect to cultural heritages and ethnic boundaries. The rural community is seen as the guardian of present and past histories of groups identified by struggles for subsistence, resistance, and celebration of memories from ancestors. Community provides the foundation for sociability and sustainability. In the context of a fluxional, risky, and individualized society, community members are becoming more vulnerable as their pleas for solidarity and safety are unheard. Although the rural community described here has been an object of speculation and violence that affect our world, the concept of community is still desired. Accordingly, its relevance is renewed for a prosperous rural future in a globalizing world.

Selznick’s theory of organizations offers a starting point to understand how organizations cohere as social actors. Each organization has a specific character that reflects its commitments to particular constituencies and that embodies certain values. Selznick’s theory explained how character evolves in relation to the formal structure of the organization, stamping an organization with a personality that guides its leaders’ future decision-making and deliberation. This paper traces Selznick’s development of this theory and suggests that his theory is useful for contemporary scholars who are interested in understanding how organizations relate and respond to and potentially shape their environments.

This paper aims to examine brand-generated communities from the community managers’ point of view and investigate how social media influences managerial perceptions, attitudes and practises around brand communities.

The literature review examines the most prominent constructs describing consumer groupings around brands. It then focuses on how the term “brand community” has evolved throughout the years and transformed in the social media environment. Research involving one survey and one focus group among agency-employed brand community managers was conducted to explore and interpret their views and their work.

Brand community managers aim to increase platform metrics. They encourage interaction between each user and the brand, but not between users. While they execute pre-planned content calendars handling comments, they do not have the experience and autonomy to foster a communal environment. Finally, managers rely on extrinsic incentives, and even antagonise users, regarding control over the community.

The sample covers the majority of agency-employed brand community managers in one country: Greece. The findings call for a re-examination of the construct of brand community, as well as for a new assessment of groupings consumers form around brands in social media.

For actual brand communities to emerge in social media, community managers should have more training, experience and initiative to tailor content and metrics, use intrinsic incentives and propose engaging activities. The quest for platform-imposed measurements inhibits this opportunity, and so do centralised processes that define global brand management.

The managerial aspect of brand-generated communities is understudied, especially when management is outsourced. This paper provides insight on how platform priorities and managerial practises dilute expectations that consumer-generated communities have created.

Consider two images of gender and power in Indonesia and much of Southeast Asia: the market seller and the king.¹ These images, stereotypical and contradictory, represent the pervasive antinomies that have served to organize analysis of male and female roles within the household and beyond in Java. Careful attention to the lives of women and their movements through the dense urban neighborhoods known as kampung on the central island of the Indonesian archipelago reveal both the limits of these characterizations and some of the interesting reversals that occur based on class and community, especially the community as organized by the Indonesian government.

The purpose of the article is to call upon educational leaders to consider the forces that hinder hope‐giving and to consider viewing their work as inspiring warranted hope among their constituents in situations of well‐defined reality.

The author argues that hope is an essential component of leader agency which when unhindered and defined in a multidimensional fashion may be used to transform the experiences of learning communities.

The author argues that leaders who foster warranted hope in constituents will gain transformational leverage to improve educational practice and the experiences of learners and their communities.

The author provides leaders with an overview of the utility of a reality‐based notion of hope that may serve to legitimate and focus constituent energies and make sense of key organizational challenges.

Provides a unique framing and synthesis of the multi‐dimensional concept of hope into the context of educational leadership, association with relevant allied constructs, and the challenges of education in the twenty‐first century.