Educational research today operates within the context of existing educational institutions, rarely breaking through conceptual and practical barriers to systemic change. But new educational needs, resources and technology demand change in organization and policy. In order to provide adequate educational services we need a new breed of researcher, comparable to the early operational research group, who will contribute multi‐disciplinary skills to systemic analysis and management of education as a whole. From this perspective they may formulate a metasystemic model of education containing a hierarchy of subsystems arranged according to where education occurs. An Educational Development Directorate, by providing continuous analysis of such a model, will feed back to all educational planners the probable effects of their decisions and provide them with alternatives. Such an information system should lead to optimization of resources and genuine alternatives in education.
In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of…
In this chapter, we update stakeholder salience research using the new lens of stakeholder work: the purposive processes of organization aimed at being aware of, identifying, understanding, prioritizing, and engaging stakeholders. Specifically, we focus on stakeholder prioritization work — primarily as represented by the stakeholder salience model — and discuss contributions, shortcomings, and possibilities for this literature. We suggest that future research focus on stakeholder inclusivity, the complexity of prioritization work within intra-corporate markets, the integration of stakeholder prioritization with other forms of stakeholder work, and the development of managerial tools for multiobjective decision making within the strategic management context.
Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process…
Purpose: This chapter proposes narrative allyship across ability as a practice in which nondisabled researchers work with disabled nonresearchers to co-construct a process that centers and acts on the knowledge contained in and expressed by the lived experience of the disabled nonresearchers. This chapter situates narrative allyship across ability in the landscape of other participatory research practices, with a particular focus on oral history as a social justice praxis.
Approach: In order to explore the potential of this practice, the author outlines and reflects on both the methodology of her oral history graduate thesis work, a narrative project with self-advocates with Down syndrome, and includes and analyzes reflections about narrative allyship from a self-advocate with Down syndrome.
Findings: The author proposes three guiding principles for research as narrative allyship across ability, namely that such research further the interests of narrators as the narrators define them, optimize the autonomy of narrators, and tell stories with, instead of about, narrators.
Implications: This chapter suggests the promise of research praxis as a form of allyship: redressing inequality by addressing power, acknowledging expertise in subjugated knowledges, and connecting research practices to desires for social change or political outcomes. The author models methods by which others might include in their research narrative work across ability and demonstrates the particular value of knowledge produced when researchers attend to the lived expertise of those with disabilities. The practice of narrative allyship across ability has the potential to bring a wide range of experiences and modes of expression into the domains of research, history, policy, and culture that would otherwise exclude them.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rhetorical framings that can be discerned by applying discourse analysis to a publicly available transcript of a Public…
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the rhetorical framings that can be discerned by applying discourse analysis to a publicly available transcript of a Public Accounts Committee (PAC) inquiry in the UK.
In particular, the authors examine the discursive tactics used during the 2013 investigation by the House of Commons PAC, “Tax Avoidance: The Role of Large Accountancy Firms”.
Two opposing rhetorical framings of “tax avoidance” are analysed which the authors see developing incrementally and directly opposing each other. Metaphors are used by the PAC to exemplify the dark side of professions, including potentially transgressing the boundaries of what constitutes “tax avoidance”. This is counteracted by the Big Four portraying an alternative market-oriented/neo-liberal view of professions pursuing a societal good through dedication to promoting market competition.
Whilst one rhetorical framing is predicated on being able to draw a clear distinction between tax evasion and tax avoidance, the alternative rhetorical framing contests this distinction and contributes to an existing cultural account that paints the dark side of some of the professions. Extending the work of Creed et al. (2002) and Alexander (2011), the authors demonstrate the bridging between micro-level discursive acts and broader cultural accounts, at the macro level. As such the authors discuss the pertinence of this multi-level discursive contest, within post-inquiry sensemaking, for understanding the “dark side” of professions.
Stakeholder thinking has contributed considerably to the organizational literature by demonstrating the significance of the environment in managing organizations…
Stakeholder thinking has contributed considerably to the organizational literature by demonstrating the significance of the environment in managing organizations. Stakeholders affect and are affected by organizations’ daily operations and decisions. They have varied and often conflicting interests, making it necessary for managers and organizations to know who they are as well as their attributes. Consequently, Mitchell et al. (1997) developed the stakeholder salience theory to help managers and organizations identify the power of certain stakeholders and their salience to the organization. With a few exceptions, the mainstream stakeholder salience theory is in many ways still largely static, short-term oriented, and firm-centered. The aim of this paper is to revisit certain conformist assumptions concerning the role of marginalized stakeholders, or “dormant” stakeholders, in stakeholder thinking. Overall, this chapter is a call to a new conceptualization of stakeholders that reintroduces stakeholder dynamics at the core of stakeholder thinking to overcome its restrictive shortcomings. We argue that managing stakeholder relationships is not simply meeting stakeholder demands but also involves taking into account the long-term dynamics of stakeholder interactions.
The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding of stakeholder attributes and attitudes towards privatisation. It examines the stakeholder attributes through the…
The purpose of this paper is to focus on understanding of stakeholder attributes and attitudes towards privatisation. It examines the stakeholder attributes through the framework provided by Mitchell et al. (1997). By combining it with the concept of issue salience proposed by Bundy et al. (2013), it addresses the current gap in research on how stakeholders influence the process of privatisation.
This research uses a process research approach to examine the privatisation process in New Zealand’s electricity industry in order to explore contexts, content and process of change. By collecting real-time data during the period of privatisation, utilising a process approach provided the authors a view of the historical path and associated events which lead to identification of stakeholder attributes and attitudes towards privatisation.
The research offers a unique insight into stakeholder attributes exhibited by different groups during privatisation. The authors identified that during privatisation the government is the ultimate stakeholder who sets the rules of the game of privatisation by exhibiting the attributes of power, legitimacy and urgency. The attributes exhibited by other stakeholders were transitory and were impacted by issue salience. The authors also identified that stakeholders exhibiting all three attributes (the government) chose a non-response approach to deal with any conflicting issues raised by other stakeholders.
The research examined the new public management emphasis on the privatisation of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) vis-à-vis stakeholder groups, utilising the complementary concepts of stakeholder salience and issue salience. This research makes a contribution to stakeholder management theory in the public sector by identifying how various stakeholders influence the process of privatisation of SOEs.