Search results

The process of elaboration of the symbolic universe leads to important insights into the role of symbols in understanding human reasoning. Symbols become explanatory axes of universal global realities. Myths were constructed on these explanatory paths forming a superstructure of all belief systems with paraconsistent logic for the symbolism and a symbolic syntax. Myths and symbols are to be found in all cultures. Some of the most powerful and influential ones occur in popular culture since these often have the greatest immediate social impact.

Semiotic and logical development of the symbols is in mythical systems. The dissolution of the myth and the degradation of the myth's symbols constitute a long-drawn-out process in modern Western society and wherever s influence reaches. Myth is a story that may contain symbolic elements, but compared to the symbols or images of the exceptional, myth is characterized by a “story.”

Starting from a minimal definition to define myths and propose the following definition: Myth is a traditional tale that relates memorable and exemplary actions of extraordinary personages in prestigious and distant times, and myths have various forms and functions, perhaps some more clearly defined with a signifier than others, and different approaches can be combined for a better understanding of the myths. Dispensing with such simplistic assertions, and starting from a minimal definition to define myth, myth is a traditional tale that relates memorable and exemplary actions of extraordinary personages in prestigious and distant times.

Any symbol F originates in a unit that has two aspects and functions when the unit is restored. Thus, the symbol is rather “for something” than “of something” and the symbolic objects express the objects' correspondence in one unit or hendiadys. One semantic characteristic of symbols is “recognition”. The symbol F reveals a reality by means of the homogenous association of the signifier and significance in the symbol's constitution; although reality is separate, there is a homogeneous relation between the symbolizing and symbolized in symbolization.

Relations in university settings are becoming more heterogeneous in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, class, and gender. In South Africa, transformation imperatives have radically changed the complexion of the country’s university campuses but have also entrenched political imperatives in its universities. As a consequence, the university is a highly politicised space. This is not new. What is new is a communication environment characterised by real-time, global networked digital communication and the uptake of digital media platforms (including social media platforms). We explore the effects of politicisation and new modes of communication using the case of a controversial article published in a South Africa journal and the ensuing polemic. Drawing on both institutional theory and Castells’ description of the network society, we conceptualise collegiality along two dimensions: horizontal collegial relations which exist for the purpose of knowledge creation and transfer which, in turn, depends on self-governance according to a taken-for-granted code of conduct; and vertical collegiality which describes collegial relations between academic staff and university management, and which is necessary for the governance of the university as a complex organisation. We conclude that the highly personal nature of communication that is propelled by digital communication has a direct impact on collegial relations within the university. The motivations of both university academic staff and management, as well as the public, extend beyond stimulating collective debate in the service of knowledge production to serving individual and/or ideological agendas as the communication of science becomes politicised. While issues pertaining to collegiality in South Africa may at first glance appear to be unique to the country, we believe that in a globally transforming academy, the South African case may offer novel insights and useful lessons for other highly politicised university systems.

This paper examines the theoretical issues and research themes of business and management impact. Our empirical setting is the UK Research Excellence Framework 2014 (REF 2014) and the focus is on the nature of research impact. Stakeholders, including Governments, now expect academic outputs to translate to real world benefits beyond the narrow bibliometric type metrics.

Despite decades of academic literature devoted to business and management research impact, current theories cannot explain the apparent disconnect between academic, economic and societal practice. Adopting a UK Business and Management perspective to frame our investigation, we consider the highly contested rhetorical question – What are the current themes and impacts of Business and Management research?

We propose a definition for research impact and consider its measurement. Then, using the 410 Impact Case Studies submitted to REF 2014 #x2013; Unit of Assessment 19, business and management, we examine how high impact unfolds. The implications for business and management research impact from the perspectives of economic, knowledge and responsibility impacts are considered.