Search results

Traditional Austrian cycle theory starts from general equilibrium and explains how an expansion of bank credit unmatched by an expansion of saving can create a cycle of boom-and-bust, and with the bust followed by restoration of normality. In contrast, this paper offers a non-equilibrium reformulation of those earlier Austrian insights, which expands and refocuses the analytical agenda of macro theory. Our key analytical feature is the conceptualization of a macro economy as constituted through an open-ended ecology of plans. Within this framework, macro variables are not primitives but are derivative from micro-level interaction. In turn, the computation of optimizing actions is beset with undecidability. The theory of entrepreneurial choice that is suitable for this analytical framework is based on rule-following or algorithmic choice and not on computational maximization. What results is a macro ecology, the internal operation of which entails natural volatility. What are called policy actions, moreover, operate inside and not outside the ecology, and can create induce volatility within the ecology.

This study demonstrates how individual paradigms implicate the questions asked, methods used and results drawn in association with a common object of study in human information behavior (HIB) research – the relationship between uncertainty and decision-making.

The author uses textual case studies to examine uncertainty and decision-making through the framework of four paradigms used in HIB research: positivism, cognitivism, collectivism and constructionism and suggests deconstructionism as a paradigm which raises new questions around this topic.

Positivistic approaches to uncertainty are often systems oriented; cognitive approaches are often user-oriented; collectivist approaches are intersubjective; and constructionist approaches blend a subjective and intersubjective research orientation. Deconstructionism raises new questions around ethics and responsibility in relation to decision-making, and the author therefore situates it as a new paradigmatic approach for this topic in HIB research.

Despite the presence of research aimed at recognizing and defining paradigms in HIB research, a comparative micro-examination of how individual paradigms implicate a specific research topic has yet to be conducted. Each paradigm uniquely shapes the ways in which uncertainty and decision-making are characterized, but the four central ones examined here have thus far left out questions of ethics and responsibility as being core elements of decision-making as tied to uncertainty. Therefore, this paper introduces deconstructionism as a paradigm new to HIB uncertainty research, arguing that it provides an important and novel complication of existent research questions and approaches.

This paper has two parts, namely, Part 1 and Part 2. The purpose of this paper (Part 1) is to explain an adaptive relational paradigm that can efficaciously respond to the complex issues in wicked problems. A relational paradigm can work across the disciplines and fields that characterise wicked problems. It is also methodologically plural – that is it uses various inquiry instruments together. It becomes a hybrid approach when involving narratives and structured processes enabling the adopted instruments to converge to a coherent (living) story. The purpose of Part 2 will be to provide a theoretical framework that with illustration responds to Part 1.

Wicked problems and their issues do not respect academic disciplines, and as they are multidisciplinary, they require a cross-disciplinary approach when seeking resolution. Autonomous agency theory is adopted capable of structuring cross-disciplinary inquiry processes and formulating a hybrid inquiry paradigm. The paper sets up a narrative agency approachable of delivering a structure that results in a general theory of hybrid inquiry.

The paradigm, which traditionally defines a field of study conceptualises and regulates approaches that enable inquiry into behavioural systems. Mono-disciplinary, they are not suitable for the resolution of issues that arise from cross-disciplinary wicked problems. To resolve this, a relational paradigm has been defined within which sits a cross-disciplinary hybrid inquiry system. A general theory of hybrid inquiry has been offered. It is shown that agency theory can successfully embrace a relational paradigm.

To determine the limitations of this theory there is a need to provide exemplars, which is currently premature. Another outcome is to centre on modes of practice in hybrid inquiry, but there is insufficient space for this here.

This paper makes an original contribution by formulating a structured approach on the creation of a relational paradigm capable of supporting hybrid inquiry. It also adopts cross-disciplinary theory to make its case for a relational paradigm, recognising that wicked problems are cross-disciplinary. As part of the regulatory process, it connects Rittel’s IBIS schema intended to resolve wicked problems issues and the Johari Window and explains how they would relate. A means is suggested for determining the degree of undecidability of wicked problems issues, and hence, that of the models that inquiry produces. This uses formative characteristics that define a modelling space. The paper also adopts Husserl’s concept or lifeworld, which acts as a channel for complex narrative theory through which regulative processes are enabled.

This chapter explores the connection between the philosophy of Jacques Derrida (i.e. deconstruction) and organizational analysis from an aporetic perspective. In the first part, I introduce Derrida's philosophy as a way to expose the aporetic nature of theorizing about organizations. I label this part of the discussion ‘Organizing Derrida’ as I attempt to organize parts of his philosophy. In the second part of the chapter, after reviewing the existing literature on Derrida and organization theory, I discuss three aporias – regarding environmental adaptation, decision-making and rule following – and show how Derridian philosophy can help us to better understand how the experience of the impossible acts as a necessary limit to our theorizing about the functioning of organizations. I argue that the recognition of aporias turns against well-established oppositions within organization theory and helps us to better understand the rich interplay between the formerly separated poles of these oppositions. This second part is labelled ‘Derrida Organizing’ as it shows what implications Derridian philosophy can have for organization theory.

Increased public awareness of clinical failure and rising levels of litigation are spurring health policy makers in industrialized countries to mandate that clinicians report and investigate clinical errors and near misses. This paper seeks to understand the value of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations for practice improvement purposes. The paper presents an analysis of interviews with nine senior health managers who were asked about their views on RCA as practice improvement method.

Interview data were collected as part of a multi‐method evaluation consultancy project investigating a local Health Safety Improvement Program. The interview data were discourse analysed and arranged into over‐arching themes.

The analysis reveals rather negative views of the improvement potential of RCA: RCA is subject to too many constraints to be able to produce valuable recommendations; RCA recommendations: are perceived to be of “variable quality”; generate considerable extra work for senior management to do with vetting RCA recommendations; are experienced as contributing in only a limited way to organizational and practice improvement.

This study focuses on nine interviewees only and presents an analysis of single (not multiple) interviews. However, these nine interviewees fulfil crucial roles in implementing clinical practice improvement initiatives in their respective geographic areas.

The findings suggest that RCA requires much time and negotiation, and that the recommendations produced may not live up to the philosophy of clinical practice improvement's expectations. It may be necessary to reorient the expectations of the power of RCA, or accept that RCA produces communication about clinical processes that would otherwise not have taken place, and whose effects may not be registering for some time to come.

Besides drawing out the implications for RCA as investigative practice, the analysis argues that interviewees' responses harbour indications to suggest that these officials are finding themselves engaged in increasing levels of communicative and emotional labour, in having to manage and compensate for the ambiguities, incommensurabilities and conflicting goals inscribed into “post‐bureaucratic” initiatives such as RCA.

Postmodernism presently enjoys some following in organizational studies. However, a close examination of some of the main postmodernist contributions to organizational studies shows that they suffer from many damaging problems. Accordingly, organizational studies should not utilize the postmodernist approach.

This commentary reflects upon the article entitled “Diversity and inclusion policies in publicly traded New Zealand companies: Inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities”.

This narrative commentary critically reflects upon the Global Reporting Initiative (hereafter, GRI) itself and what the numbers reported in Guruge’s (2023; this issue) article say, paying attention to what we might think and do about such standards and scenarios.

This commentary does not present a definitive assessment of the GRI. This is because it is marked by undecidability. Nevertheless, it reads some of the figures, or “data”, which register organisational uptake of GRI standards (or the lack thereof), together with other “data”, to contrive a more stable account.

This commentary strives to avoid presenting a reductive reading of “data” and, instead, highlights the complex multifaceted dimensions of societies, sustainability, social inclusion, disability and possibilities for inclusive practices.

The purpose of this paper is to expand upon prior debates on reconceptualising reflexivity in order to encompass research communities and prospective thinking, based upon an analysis of the development of a research question (RQ).

Ontologically, the author regards the development of a RQ as an inter-subjective process; epistemologically, the author regards investigating such processes as possible by identifying their relationality and dialogism “from within”; methodologically, the author constructed and abductively analysed data by performing an auto-ethnography as a PhD student.

The author suggests that developing an RQ evolves as relational learning and academic rationality. While the former concerns relations within a research community, the latter concerns prospective thinking. The author introduces the notion of an academically accepted RQ to suggest that this part of knowledge construction is shaped as much by research communities and prospective thinking as it is by the researcher.

The author introduces and discusses the notion of social reflexivity as a possible way forward in the debate on reconceptualising reflexivity. Such notion encourages the exploration of relational learning and academic rationality in the construction of knowledge. It implies exposing issues related both to processes of assimilating prevailing academic literature and to contextual pressures faced when writing new ones.

While introducing social reflexivity, the author suggests a possible way to overcome the challenges of reconceptualising reflexivity. Also, the author provides a detailed description of how the author crafted the analysis of an inter-subjective process.

The purpose of this paper is to develop the sustained argument that explication can contribute to the emergence and development of the philosopher‐manager who is appropriately sceptical of generalisations, and confident in their own abilities to develop local, valid and meaningful theories based on their wisdom and personal experience.

The idea and practice of explication as a source of (new) meaning and knowledge in a contested postmodern world is the main focus of this paper. Within the postmodern discourse which informs and shapes the paper, particular attention is given to the problematics of autobiography, fiction and “truth”, and the undecidability of meaning.

Explication offers managers the prospect of “new” explicit knowledge and skills based on their prior experience and, more importantly perhaps, explication helps people to develop a honed philosophical mindset which can recognise and deal with the empty arguments, flawed recipes and fictions that often characterise traditional management theory.

Future empirical research on the ways that explication is described and practised, is urgent and vital. This will yield interesting and valuable insights for those who practice explication, and for those who design and implement OD solutions including the corporate university.

The paper outlines the handful of related activities which make up the explication process.

This paper locates the idea of explication within a postmodern discourse. The paper benefits from previous work by the author which encourages managers to exploit their experiential learning so as to create and to share their own theories rather than rely on the dictums of others.

To explore possible innovations that constructivism and its epistemological participatory position offer to philosophy, in particular to the age‐old problem of grounding epistemological assumptions.

The paper follows von Foerster's account of the participatory position as an epistemological stance. It tries to explain why it is called a “position” rather than “insight” or “theory”. Constructivist (participatory) concepts are explored and related to “classical” philosophical debates such as the “Münchhausen trilemma”. In the conclusion the paper sketches possible ways of how to apply the answers of the participatory position to the philosophical discourse.

The paper points at the possibility to go beyond the insurmountable boundaries dividing different epistemological positions one continuously encounters when searching for the appropriate epistemological starting point. As a result, one cannot expect answers to be universally valid. The paper takes that into consideration. It argues that most philosophical attempts are first order changes (revolutions) as they seek truth and exclude alternative views at the same time. Following von Foerster, the paper suggests second order changes that lead from truth to trust. This transition allows a peaceful coexistence of all philosophical systems. Turning from truth (and belief in analytical clarity) to trust and, consequently, from objectivity to responsibility, it may become possible to transcend the epistemological barriers.

The paper contributes to finding a possible direction for the future of discourses in philosophy and many humanities in order to overcome the incompetence of philosophy of finding final answers.