Search results

The study of educational administration is narrowly conceived and becoming moribund. It has come to his condition because of an overreliance on, and an uncritical acceptance of, structural‐functionalism as its world view and value freedom, objectivity and nomothetic analysis as the guiding principles of its inquiries. The recent phenomenological critique has focussed attention on these matters and has stimulated some debate. This debate is much needed and to be welcomed, for it opens new avenues for pursuing the study of educational administration, avenues which may prove to be more productive than those travelled during the last twenty five years.

This article is devoted to conditions and examples of how theories may be applied as methods in the fields of management research and organization studies.

An introduction to minimum requirements for a successful refunctionalization of theory as method as well as to nine contributions to a special issue of the Journal of Organizational Change Management on “Theory as method” is provided.

The review of these nine cases suggests that the use of theories as methods is not necessarily harmful for the former, and particularly not for the more robust among them.

This article sheds new light on the value of theoretical monism or loyalty and calls for a reassessment of the relative value of expertise in a specific research field, method and or theory.

The last decade has seen much soul‐searching within the Marketing Academy as it struggles to address what Brown has described as the discipline’s “mid‐life crisis”. Magee terms this tendency “metanoia” and observes that no less a work than “Dante’s Inferno begins with lines that refer to it”. He notes how people reaching this point often “turn in on themselves, and perhaps turn towards religion”. It is with this “metanoid” perspective on marketing theory that the authors of this piece present two possible paths to epistemological paradise; one route representing an inward re‐evaluation and the other more of an outward exploration. Two of the authors combine to take an axiomatic approach to rediscovering the celestial citadel, whereas the third has forsaken the fundamentalist fortress. In his, the second, sermon Brother Nick implores you to reject the foregoing calls to get back to basics, and instead, to embrace a more contemporary, critical orientation to “dat ole time marketing religion”.

Economic pluralism proposes that economists and social planners should consider alternative theories to establish a range of policy actions. Neoclassical, Feminist and Marxian theories evaluate well-grounded causes of wage discrimination. However, a reluctance to consider less-dominant theories among different schools of economic thought restricts analysis and proposed policies, resulting in a monism method. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

The authors provide a brief review of the theoretical literature on wage discrimination. The significance of a pluralistic analysis is demonstrated by addressing correspondence test patterns of wage discrimination.

In considering Neoclassical, Feminist and Marxian theories, racist attitudes, uncertainties regarding minority workers’ productivity and power relations in lower-status sectors might generate discriminatory wages. Each cause deserves corresponding policy action.

Time is needed to provide a pluralistic evaluation of wage discrimination. In addition, pluralism requires rigorous investigations to avoid incoherencies. Pluralism might be jeopardised if there is a limited desire to engage with less-dominant theoretical frameworks. Also, pluralism might be misled with rejection of dominant theories.

Given pluralism, wage discrimination might be reduced by implementing equality campaigns, creating low-cost tests to predict workers’ productivity and abolishing power relations towards minority workers.

Little work has been on economic pluralism in the study of wage discrimination. The current study addresses the gap in the literature.

The current debate between two theoretical approaches in library and information science and knowledge organization (KO), the cognitive one and the sociological one, is addressed in view of their possible integration in a more general model. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

Personal knowledge of individual users, as focused in the cognitive approach, and social production and use of knowledge, as focused in the sociological approach, are reconnected to the theory of levels of reality, particularly in the versions of Nicolai Hartmann and Karl R. Popper (three worlds). The notions of artefact and mentefact, as proposed in anthropological literature and applied in some KO systems, are also examined as further contributions to the generalized framework. Some criticisms to these models are reviewed and discussed.

Both the cognitive approach and the sociological approach, if taken in isolation, prove to be cases of philosophical monism as they emphasize a single level over the others. On the other hand, each of them can be considered as a component of a pluralist ontology and epistemology, where individual minds and social communities are but two successive levels in knowledge production and use, and are followed by a further level of “objectivated spirit”; this can in turn be analyzed into artefacts and mentefacts. While all these levels are relevant to information science, mentefacts and their properties are its most peculiar objects of study, which make it distinct from such other disciplines as psychology and sociology.

This analysis shows how existing approaches can benefit from additional notions contributed by levels theory, to develop more complete and accurate models of information and knowledge phenomena.

The purpose of this paper is to make a critical analysis of the views put forward by Claudio Gnoli (2018) in this paper concerning philosophical problems in library and information science (LIS).

The paper presents the basic ideas in Gnoli (2018) and discusses the set of basic assumptions, concepts and conclusions put forward.

It is argued that the idea of the theory of levels is basically sound, but we do not need to consider the material world, the mental world (minds) and the world of mentefacts as three different worlds. They represent different levels with different kinds of emergent properties in the world. Further, although the concepts of artifacts and mentefacts are useful, there are other terms within LIS, such as document, work and object that have been influential and should be discussed in this context. It is also argued that subjective vs objective knowledge is often confused with private vs public knowledge, which is problematic. Finally, it is claimed that the cognitive view and the “sociological view” are not about two different levels of reality but are competing views about the same reality.

The paper clarifies some aspects of the analytical framework of domain analysis and adds to the developments of the philosophical dimensions of information within LIS.

We would learn that theological cerebration that is not conscious of its social base cannot be critical of it and therefore becomes a captive of unconscious social determinants.

Introduction Science and Technology vs. Holistic Wisdom There have been attempts to get rid of monism in the outlook on the world (die Weltanschauung) which includes human wisdom, in concert with decentralization and diversification in the power structure of politics and economy. It is certain that at least people in Western civilized nations have been enjoying a material life richer than before, thanks to the wisdom of “Cartesianism” and the subsequent experimental knowledge and technology. However, in the midst of a deadly impasse which is accompanied by the fear of nuclear warfare, environmental disruption, increase in entropy, racial prejudices, increasing disparity in wealth, alienation of human beings and so on, the Utopian idea that “technological innovations equal the progress of mankind” must now be thoroughly criticized. Science, which forms the very basis of technology is knowledge, not wisdom. So it is of vital importance to review such an idea thoroughly in the light of “holistic wisdom”, bearing in mind this aspect of modern civilization which was built on the basis of science and technology as tools. What is the most important with a tool is how to use it. The value of a tool is determined by how a man with established identity will use it.

The purpose of this paper is to report the findings of research which explores how the concept qualitative management research is variably constructed and defined by those who have a direct interest in, and influence upon, important aspects of qualitative management research.

Information was gathered through the use of semi‐structured interviews conducted with 44 individuals who were drawn from four observer‐identified types of “expert” informant who were taken to generally represent key groups of stakeholders in the conduct, evaluation and dissemination of qualitative management research. Interview data from these individuals were analysed though an iterative process using the NVivo software package to inductively generate definitional categories and explore aspects of their interrelationships.

From data analysis it was apparent that there are eight different, but often interrelated, ways in which interviewees define qualitative management research. The philosophical dimensions of each of these variable definitions are outlined and their relationships to the methodological literature are explored. The variety identified amongst informants, indicates how there is a potential dissensus possible regarding what qualitative management research might entail, as well as regarding its provenance and its academic status. This dissensus potentially can create problems with regard to its evaluation.

So whist there is little evidence to suggest any systematic relationship between the variable institutional backgrounds of informants and how they variably define and perceive qualitative management research, philosophical influences upon this contested terrain are explored and the implications of the identified dissensus for how qualitative management research is perceived and evaluated is discussed. The implications of this evidently contested terrain are discussed with particular reference to the future constitution of qualitative management research and its evaluation.