Search results

The purpose of this paper is to review the Counterplay 2016 conference.

An account of the conference and thoughts on play.

This was an exciting interactive conference discussing play in theory and practice.

This was an original conference and review.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce applied improvisation (AI) as a tool for training humanitarian aid workers. AI incorporates principles and practices from improvisational theatre into facilitation and training. It is an excellent modality for training aid workers to deal with crisis and disaster scenarios where decision-making and collaboration under pressure are critical.

This paper provides a theoretical base for understanding skills needed in disaster response and provides a case for innovative training that goes beyond the current standard. AI principles, activities and case examples are provided. Interviews with development experts who have participated in AI training are excerpted to reveal the impact and promise of this methodology.

Different from typical training and games, which simulate potential crisis scenarios, AI works with participants in developing the skills necessary for success in disaster situations. The benefit is that workers are better prepared for the unexpected and unknown when they encounter it.

The current paper is based on author observation, experience and participant interviews. While AI is consistently transformative and successful, it would benefit from more rigorous and structured research to ground the findings more deeply in larger evidence based processes.

The authors offer specific activities, resources for many others and practical application of this modality for training purposes.

Its application has tremendous benefits in training for specific skills, in creating greater cohesion and satisfaction in work units and breaking down culture and language barriers.

This work is original in introducing these training methods to humanitarian aid contexts in general, and disaster preparedness and response in particular.

In this book it was proposed that autistic females and African American autistics are usually not participants in autistic research because they rarely receive an autism diagnosis. If diagnostic services were made more congenial for autistics from these groups, then the prospect of them being diagnosed as autistic and being available to be research participants would increase. To help achieve this outcome, this chapter begins by presenting some typical barriers that autistics encounter when trying to access autism diagnostic services. This is followed by an explanation of some consequences of this exclusion for autistics, their families and the research community. In an attempt to mitigate these consequences, and to increase the pool of potential autistic candidates for research, this chapter concludes with a series of suggestions to improve the public's accessibility to autism diagnostic services as well as suggestions for improving the autism diagnostic process for both children and adults.

The contribution that this chapter makes to the field of autism spectrum research is to provide clinicians with some important concepts that will help autistics feel valued and accepted during the diagnostic process. A potential flow-on effect of this knowledge is that more autistics who have experienced feeling valued and accepted by clinicians will be more inclined to be involved in research.

The aim of this study is to outline principles for the writing of management history. First, it is argued that if management history is to advance, pessimism of both purpose and intellect must be dispelled. Authors must bring with them a sense of how their research leads to better organisations, institutions, workplaces, economies and social relationships. Second, it holds that the utilisation of the scientific method, based around the testing of research theses, drawn from our existing knowledge and contributing to that knowledge, is management history’s methodological bedrock.

Much opposition to scientific methods in historical research, most notably from postmodernists and poststructuralists, is based on false premises. Drawing on Poincare’s La Science et L’Hypothese (1902), this paper notes that there are no fundamental differences between research in the natural and historical sciences. All studies are conditional.

This editorial recommends five steps in writing management history. First, know how your sources were put together, by whom, for what purposes, what they sought to record and what they did not. Second, use multiple sources. Third, keep your research questions in mind, modifying them as evidence demands. As E.H. Carr observed, research theses are “the indispensable tools of thought”. Fourth, understand the social, intellectual and economic contexts of the study. Context is the key to understanding change. The more severe the restraint on change, the more significant is any change that breaks these bonds. Finally, use numbers as numbers count in history. While statistics must be subordinate to the theses, they allow more complex stories, be they of a society or micro-events within a firm.

The growth of postmodernist and poststructuralist research paradigms has created uncertainty with regards to both methods and purpose among management and business historians. This editorial includes a defence of the values of empirically based scientific research.