Search results

Decolonizing the curriculum is an important topic in education but what does it really mean to decolonize the curriculum? In this self-study, I reflected, with the help of a critical friend, on what decolonizing the curriculum could mean in the context of my biology education classroom using the Pedagogical Content Knowledge model by Davidowitz and Rollnick (2011) as the guiding framework. From these reflections, I came to the conclusion that decolonizing the curriculum is not about erasing the known facts and principles of science but rather, it is about contextualizing it by replacing the Eurocentric stories, texts, and examples among other things, with our own Afrocentric ones. Contextualizing our curriculum is, however, fraught with challenges which include underdeveloped indigenous languages available to be used as languages of instruction, lack of locally produced teaching and learning resources including textbooks, and lack of documented indigenous knowledge that curriculum implementers can use in their teaching in order to make it contextually relevant. In this chapter, I share insights from my reflections.

Political economies evolve institutionally and technologically over time. This means that to understand evolutionary political economy one must understand the nature of the evolutionary process in its full complexity. From the time of Darwin and Spencer natural selection has been seen as the foundation of evolution. This view has remained even as views of how evolution operates more broadly have changed. An issue that some have viewed as an aspect of evolution that natural selection may not fully explain is that of emergence of higher order structures, with this aspect having been associated with the idea of emergence. In recent decades it has been argued that self-organization dynamics may explain such emergence, with this being argued to be constrained, if not overshadowed, by natural selection. Just as the balance between these aspects is debated within organic evolutionary theory, it also arises in the evolution of political economy, as between such examples of self-organizing emergence as the Mengerian analysis of the appearance of commodity money in primitive societies and the natural selection that operates in the competition between firms in markets.

This chapter investigates the relationship between the composition of initial spinout teams and spinout survival. We develop a theory suggesting that spinout founders hiring from their prior firm versus hiring from the external labor market to assemble spinout teams will have differential effects on spinout survival. Using confidential employee–employer linked data in the legal services industry provided by the United States Census Bureau, we find evidence that inclusion of spinout team members from the founder's prior firm is positively related to spinout survival, a relationship which increases with included members' prior earnings. In contrast, we find that inclusion of spinout team members from firms outside the founder's prior firm is positively associated with spinout failure, a relationship which becomes statistically insignificant when included team members' prior earnings are high. Taken together, our results point to the potential hazards associated with using external markets to assemble spinout teams, thereby establishing an important boundary condition for extant theory which has focused on the benefits associated with spinout team size, but has often neglected the labor market strategy through which such teams are assembled.

This chapter seeks to explain how lesson study can contribute to the growth of teacher expertise, enabling the participants to work together to address the complexity of teaching and grow what we call ‘pedagogic literacy’, a holistic but incomplete glimpse of what it means to be a teacher. The model proposed is not complete and cannot be complete given the endless complexity of the classroom. Lesson study, we conclude, is a vehicle for enabling teachers to grow their understanding of teaching and learning, while drawing on a complex web of underpinning interconnected dimensions that teachers develop throughout the varied stages of their careers.

Traditional industry was initially built with kinship, cultural value, and unique characters representing a particular system of production. However, current industry challenges pressurized traditional industry bond of primordial system with the need of adaptations to survive. Some traditional industry may resist the twenty-first-century challenges and pressures, but many of them are transforming their cultural and production characters to adapt modern business competitions. Indonesian traditional furniture industry Jepara has their familial system of productions which constitute “flexible specialization” where particular kinship and work contract created from a very specialized household small-scale furniture producer. However, this production system in fact struggles and is contrasted with the community needs to survive in the industry. The likely occurring progress of traditional industry are then remaining on the senior members of the industry to preserve knowledge which has empowered over many generations, while the younger generations consider transforming their ability for survivability and better financial rewards.

This chapter is the further elaboration of how Indonesian rural traditional furniture industry in Jepara presents its survivability and whether it is sustainable. This chapter exemplifies participants’ quotes and statements which create anxiety toward their future, cultural value, bond of industry kinship, and doubting their ability to withhold global and local pressures.

Firm-specific human capital (FSHC) has been an integral part of the vocabulary in the strategy field. Many scholars argue that FSHC inhibits employee mobility and drives employee retention at a discount, value appropriation, and firms' competitive advantage. FSHC also plays a central role in the resource-based view of the firm. In recent years, however, a significant debate has emerged on the validity and usefulness of the construct. The purpose of the chapter is to revisit this debate and discuss both challenges and opportunities related to FSHC. In a form of conversation, we take aim at FSHC from different angles and discuss its role as a mobility friction, in value appropriation of established firms, in the context of transitions between paid employment and entrepreneurship, and in the views of practitioners. While we agree that our understanding of the concept of FSHC must evolve, we continue to see its value in our theoretical toolbox.

We consider how the commercialization of social ventures may result from their founders’ personal experiences of commercial organizing. Building on theories of individual imprinting, we theorize that the commercialization of social ventures is influenced by two types of commercial experience: parental imprinting from the commercial work experience of a founder’s parents, and work imprinting from a founder’s professional experience within for-profit organizations. We find support for our theory based on analysis of a novel dataset of over 2,000 nascent social ventures and their founders. We further find that the marginal effects of additional work imprinting from a founder’s commercial experience decline with the longevity of this experience. We discuss implications of our findings for literatures on social ventures, imprinting, and hybrid organizations.

The past few decades have witnessed a phenomenal progress in our understanding of employee mobility as a critical driver and consequence of various outcomes for individuals, organizations, industries, and economies. In the process, researchers have tackled several important issues in conducting empirical research on employee mobility. This chapter provides a critical discussion of the extant literature focusing on five broad areas: identification of mobility, timing of mobility, outcomes of mobility and their operationalization, model identification, and other related issues. In doing so, this article identifies some of the empirical choices and methodologies adopted in prior mobility studies, evaluates those practices, and suggests areas of improvements for the practice. It is hoped that future studies will benefit from this chapter's insight by building on the best practices from the literature while continuously and successfully tackling the issues that have been challenging the researchers on this increasingly important topic of scholarly inquiry.

We initiated a conversation between two prominent scholars in the field of employee mobility who come from different disciplinary backgrounds: Rajshree Agarwal (from the human capital research tradition) and Matthew Bidwell (from the human resource management research tradition). Their cumulative work leads to vastly different conclusions. In this chapter we had an opportunity to explore their differences and share the roots of their motivations, interests, and research philosophies. The discussion provides diverging, yet insightful, directions for future research.