Search results

The question of the nature of the collar is pursued drawing on results generated in the field of social ontology as well as on observations from history. In this chapter, it can be tried to seek what the nature of collar is, this is a central question for social theory, not least economics and human resources. Tony Lawson (2019, p. 1, 2021) has recently developed a theory of social positioning “… which is the social phenomena are everywhere constituted by or within process through which social totalities are formed or emerge.” The central idea of the theory of social positioning is that social relations are ultimately power relationships, which structure how social phenomena are organized. This chapter further explores this idea by conceptualizing power drawing on the theory of social positioning. Collar is a social phenomenon and associated with certain kind of structure which is social classes in this chapter. This structure will be taken as a class relation in Marxist approach as it is known, this relation is about power. In this framework, the question of the nature of collar needs to be explained with social positioning theory.

In the light of a resurgence of “evolutionary” research, sets out to raise some of the philosophical issues associated with an evolutionary conception of economics. Considers Tony Lawson′s work on transcendental realism as a point of departure in the building of an argument which promotes the adoption of a pluralist and holistic conception of economics. Suggests that, while Lawson′s transcendental realism has largely been developed independently of evolutionary economics, with the modifications outlined it may provide a suitable starting point for the formulation of philosophical foundations of evolutionary economics. Augments Lawson′s argument by the suggested adoption of an organic framework and the notion of types as the means of providing a base for the pluralist outlook of evolutionary economics.

In 1982 my book Beyond Positivism: Economic Methodology in the Twentieth Century was published. At the 2017 History of Economics Society meeting, a session was held to mark the 35th anniversary of that event. Papers by Wade Hands, Kevin Hoover, Tony Lawson, and the trio Peter Boettke, Solomon Stein, and Virgil Storr were prepared. In this paper, I respond by reflecting on how I came to write Beyond Positivism and on the state of the field of economic methodology at the time, and then commenting briefly on each of the papers noted above.

The versions of positivism that are critically assessed in Bruce Caldwell’s Beyond Positivism bear two dominant sets of implications. One is that knowledge growth is monistic in nature; the other is that science has a specific deductivist structure. Caldwell focuses mainly on the former and its critics. I argue here that the second set of implications always did, and still does, perhaps more than ever, warrant critical attention.

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the school of thought known as Critical Realism and the thinkers involved in the current revival of interest in British Idealism would benefit from interacting with each other.

The paper proceeds by critically examining central tenets in the thought of each school, and exhibit their affinities and differences.

It is found that there are central themes and concerns shared by each school of thought, and that the recognition of such commonalities might prove mutually beneficial to the relevant parties in their goal of positively transforming social reality. Furthermore, the Critical Realist worry about Idealisms “irreality” is shown to be unfounded.

The close relationship of the ideas of these two “lines of thought” has not, to our knowledge, previously been highlighted. Having done so in the paper, a useful dialogue may ensue.

This chapter points out and tries to describe the (missing) link between corporate social responsibility (CSR) and social ontology/ontology of the firm. The author believes that this gap in the literature hinders the progress of CSR theoretical/empirical understanding and effectiveness; therefore, the following question is addressed: is a social theory-focused approach to the ontology of the firm relevant to CSR studies? While currently many disciplines are seeking to clarify CSR theory and practice, the role of social ontology has relatively been under-explored despite its foundational importance.

This chapter provides rationales for identifying a set of interrelated themes to be included in future research projects. A literature review is carried out, and further analysis and desk research can be drawn from the key notions identified.

This viewpoint conceptual chapter suggests that social ontology can be an important subject of inquiry in order to bridge the existing gaps in CSR/Business Ethics studies. A possible conceptual agreement for a realist and social theory-focused approach to CSR is illustrated.

While encouraging more effort and commitment in this emerging and fascinating field, this chapter concentrates on some selected key aspects such as the meaning of corporate moral agency and the ontological status of social collectives (e.g. firms).

This chapter lays the ground for future pilot exploratory research, and could be instructive for the construction of specific research methodologies/theoretical tools seeking to explore not so much the ways CSR is defined (indeed, there seems to be a broad consensus about it) but rather how CSR is socially constructed, implemented and carried out.

This chapter can potentially help grow knowledge about the nexus between CSR, social ontology and the underlying metaphysical issues, thus facilitating a comprehensive inter-/multi-/pluri-disciplinary understanding and giving a contribution to the relevant ongoing scientific and practical debates.

This chapter, while uncovering and exploring the aforementioned novel connections, can enrich the study of CSR with respect to the current mainstream approaches, for example, stakeholder management and engagement, social accounting and reporting, socially responsible investment (SRI).

The relationship between ontology, realism, and normativity is complex and contentious. While naturalist and realist stances have tended to ground questions of normativity in ontology and accounts of human nature, critical theories have been critical of the relationship between ontological and normative projects. Queer theory in particular has been critical of ontological endeavors. Exploring the problem of normativity and ontology, this paper will make the case that the critical realist ontology of open systems and complex, contingent, conjunctural causation deeply resonates with queer theory, generating a queer ontology that both allows for and undermines ontological and normative projects.

The aim of this paper is to contribute to the debate about the existence and nature of a “gap” between theory and practice in management.

The putative theory/practice “gap” in management is investigated by examining the theory/practice debate in three cognate fields–economics, nursing and marketing.

The relationship between theory and practice is actively debated in all three of the fields. In economics, criticism has been directed at the implicit ontological assumptions made in formal mathematical methods employed by orthodox neoclassical economists. In nursing the debate has centred on the practical issues associated with implementing evidence based practice; in particular identifying and seeking to overcome barriers to implementation. In marketing, managers find most academic theory difficult to read and irrelevant; this may be because the goals of academics and the goals of practitioners are different.

Potentially fruitful topics for further research are identified at the pragmatic, epistemological and ontological levels.

The paper identifies lessons for the field of management research from economics, nursing and marketing. Each of these three areas provides a unique lens through which to view the research/practice “gap” in management.

Describes the design and construction of TROWEL ‐ a test bed for experimental agricultural vehicles. The vehicle will be used to explore ways of increasing the productivity of expensive agricultural mobile machinery by taking over some of the tasks of the operator, allowing him to drive faster or for longer; and by allowing a single operator to control several machines simultaneously. In some cases machines may be able to operate entirely autonomously without operator intervention.