Search results

In 1981, W. Richard (Dick) Scott of Stanford's sociology department described a paradigmatic revolution in organizational sociology that had occurred in the preceding decade. In Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems (Scott, 1981), he depicted the first wave of organizational theory as based in rational models of human action that focused on the internal dynamics of the organization. He described the second wave, found in human relations theory and early institutional theory, as based in natural social system models of human action but still focused on the internal “closed system.” A sea change occurred in organizational theory in the 1970s as several camps began to explore environmental causes of organizational behavior. The open-systems approaches that Scott sketched in 1981 were still seedlings, but all would mature. What they shared was an emphasis on relations between the organization and the world outside of it. The roots of these new paradigms can be traced to innovations of the 1960s. Contingency theorists Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch (1967) had argued that firms add new practices and programs largely in response to external social demands and not simply to internal functional needs. James Thompson (1967) argued that organizations come to reflect the wider environment and particularly the regulatory environment.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.” When Sir Walter Scott penned these words, he probably did not have diversity or universities on his mind. Those of us that are genuinely engaged in diversity, inclusion, equity, social justice, and/or multicultural education work can ruminate on his words and think of how university campuses tout their diversity initiatives and sometimes brag about being the “most diverse” are in actuality deceiving themselves and the constituents they serve. Even though diversity awareness has become an important topic in academe in recent years, so many campuses have largely failed to address it in any substantive way, thus creating an environment where students and even employees sometimes become disengaged. Davies (2007) argues that “university leaders who claim openness to diversity do not acknowledge the presence or participation of Others in activities that are characteristic of a free and democratic society” (p. 154).

Many institutions of higher learning honestly believe that in showcasing a campus program based around food, festival, or fun, they can check the diversity box. Yet, when diversity practitioners push the campus in becoming multicultural competent by addressing diversity outside the proverbial realm of “race,” questions like, “Why are they doing this?” arise. The struggle to sustain a comprehensive and meaningful campus diversity program is real for many agents for change. In order for diversity advocates to have a seat at the table, the campus attitude and practice of “diversity need not apply” cannot continue to exist.

Leaders within academia must be cognizant of their campus culture, which governs the law of the land. More importantly, it is vital to understand that sometimes your campus culture may not be receptive to cultural differences, although university verbiage may state, “We will promote diversity and maintain an environment that celebrates and values the many perspectives, cultures, and […]” Institutions of higher learning in this new millennium (twenty-first century) are deeply entrenched in organizational culture that has become its cornerstone over time, and is resistant to change.

Campus culture is real. Stewart and Dottolo (2005) state that universities should strive to ensure that any groups that fall outside of the traditional culture do not encounter an unwelcoming and threatening institutional environment. However, not every university strives or desires to create a campus climate where diversity is welcomed, celebrated, and/or embraced. It is paramount that educational institutions that serve diverse populations strive to become proficient in multiculturalism (Roach, 2004). Institutions of higher education are socially obligated to provide a learning environment for students with varied backgrounds (Bridges et al., 2008). It is essential that universities take a very close look at how they can contribute to the greater good of society by instilling a sense of worth in all students, regardless of ethnicity and other features of student identities. Williams and Swail (2005) argue that “attending college can be a liberating, developmentally powerful experience with the potential to increase individual productivity and, to some degree, the quality of life of the larger society” (p. 222). This can only occur if or when all aspects of diversity can apply and become an integral part of the university.

The most commonly described components of customer experience include cognitive and affective aspects. However, the subjective self-reported methods traditionally applied in tourism research cannot fully represent the instant, dynamic, and affective nature of customer experience. Therefore, there is a need for moment-based approaches and longitudinal methods in tourism research. The chapter provides a selective review of measures that can be used to assess the affective aspects of customer experience. Taking into account the advantages and limitations of each method, the integration of self-reported scales, moment-based psychophysiological techniques, and longitudinal methods should be considered as the best approach to measuring affective components of customer experience in tourism. This holistic interdisciplinary approach will help researchers and tourism practitioners understand the relationship between affective and cognitive components of tourists' pre-visit, onsite, and post-visit experience, as well as evaluate the effectiveness of marketing campaigns, identify weak points of tourists' customer journey, and maximize total travel experience.

The memorial is an account of Smith's personality and work by a former and favored student. It is a sustained personal reminiscence backed by the reminiscences of others who admired Smith together with an account of Smith's working practices and of his main texts. It is in this sense subjective as well as objective. It is not a full-scale biography, rather a biographical sketch and it is necessarily limited by its very proximity to the subject. The principal and other informants knew Smith and liked him. However, given Stewart's own profession, the work is more than this. It was written in the context of the consequences for Smith's reputation in the light of the French Revolution. Stewart is anxious, given the sensitivities concerning the destructive radicalism in France and in the context of the conservative reaction in Britain, to distance Smith's ideas on liberty and on policy from those ideas as they were being expressed in revolutionary France. In this way, Stewart's biographical work is both an account of Smith's life and works and a politicized interpretation of his principle economic ideas.

Purpose – This chapter argues that graduate-level library science should develop a robust teaching curriculum.

Approach – This chapter is an argumentative paper relying on secondary research.

Findings – Teaching is a significant component of the modern library profession.

Originality – This chapter calls for librarians not only to acknowledge the centrality of teaching in their profession but also to anchor graduate-level library science curriculum to it.

The Scottish civil justice system is undergoing its most substantive transformation in over 150 years. This reformation will create new judicial bodies, alter the jurisdictional reach of courts, and drastically unsettle what has been, up to now, a highly stable institutional field. These changes have caused pronounced threats to the status of different groups of actors in the field. Our work examines the impact of these threats, and the varying responses among groups of professional actors. In so doing, we detail how intra-professional status differences and uncertainty hindered attempts to maintain threatened institutions.

The study explores the use of video to document police interaction with citizens and its role in the renaissance of a contemporary crisis focused on police use-of-force, race relations, and legitimacy in the United States. The saturation of communication technologies and network access have ushered an era of citizens watching the police, consolidating the new visibility of policing and potentially reorganizing to some degree the power dynamics of traditional police/community relations.

The argument is supported through a triangulated analysis that draws on several data sources about video technology use by both citizens and police, media coverage of police shootings, and public opinion on trends in police excessive force.

The institution of policing is experiencing a legitimacy crisis that is fueled by high-profile police shootings of African Americans by white police officers captured by video technology. The public increasingly expects access to video of police/citizen encounters, which redefines the public’s role in police accountability matters as well as the consequences for police legitimacy.

The theory illuminates the ways in which video has become central to public and official discourse in police use-of-force cases and the problems its presence and absence presents in police/community relations. The ability of citizens to record and widely share video of police encounters is a new development in the ability of citizens and police reform advocates to frame the discourse on police/community relations, accountability, and legitimacy.

This chapter makes a brief incursion through a trajectory of over three decades of activism by the Centre for the Study of Violence at the University of São Paulo (Núcleo de Estudos da Violência in Portuguese, NEV) in Brazil, recovering the legacy of its forms of activism and academic reflection while analysing the interfaces between violence and democracy in Brazil. The 1980s in Brazil were marked by expectations of profound political and social changes in the context of democratic transition. After 21 years of dictatorship (1964–1985), the military gradually withdrew from government, returning the state’s executive branch to civilian representatives. This was a moment of optimism for progressive groups and social movements, which had fought to dismantle the tradition of arbitrariness and violations of rights perpetrated by the state during the military dictatorship. In this context, NEV was founded as a research unit linked to the Faculty of Philosophy, Letters and Human Sciences. Its core academic objective was to analyse and scientifically denounce the conjuncture of violence and human rights violations that remained recurrent; consequently, it demonstrated the continuity of unequal power relations, social and cultural practices that fuel authoritarianism in times considered not authoritarian.