Search results

This chapter approaches the topic of teaching the Western scholarly tradition in non-Western countries like the United Arab Emirates (UAE) from three perspectives employing the following metaphors: as a Public Servant motivated by public service to the goals and aims of the country’s development articulated by UAE rulers and its citizens; as Cultural Diplomat, representing the Western tradition and its scholarly achievements while respecting other traditions; and as Intellectual Imperialist, aiming at a colonising incorporation of the UAE into the Western academic world.

The main methodology adopted is the Weberian ideal type, located within a comparative and historical context that produces the metaphors as analytically possible perspectives as a western expatriate faculty member. Additional critique is drawn from Bourdieu, Said, Freire, Giroux, Foucault, Goffman and cross-cultural organisation studies.

The findings consist of an analytic framework consisting of public servant, cultural diplomat and intellectual imperialist as a set of conceptions for analysing possible orientations of Western expatriate academics in developing countries.

The implications are threefold: on a personal level, what experientially does each of the metaphors mean for one’s sense of identity, profession, values and relationships; on a pedagogical level, what principles and values distinguish the curriculum and teaching styles as well as orientation to Arab and Islamic scholarship; and politically, what is the potential impact and unintended consequences for the indigenous culture, sovereignty and societal survival of a country under the heavy influence of globalisation. The contention of this chapter is that one cannot avoid adopting one or more of these roles and may even perform in contradictory ways.

The originality is in establishing a new set of analytic categories drawing on post-colonial, diplomacy and critical studies.

How is moral legitimacy established in pluralist contexts where multiple moral frameworks co-exist and compete? Situations of moral multiplexity complicate not only whether an organization or practice is legitimate but also which criteria should be used to establish moral legitimacy. We argue that moral legitimacy can be thought of as the property of a dynamic dialogical process in which relations between moral schemes are constantly (re-)negotiated through dynamic exchange with audiences. Drawing on Boltanski and Thévenot’s ‘orders of worth’ framework, we propose a process model of how three types of truces may be negotiated: transcendence, compromise, antagonism. While each can create moral legitimacy in pluralistic contexts, legitimacy is not a binary variable but varying in degrees of scope and certainty.

This article assesses a rational-choice model of bureaucratic behaviour - the bureau-shaping model - as an explanation of budget-making in British local government. The bureau-shaping model is essentially a reconstructed rational-choice model of bureaucratic behaviour in liberal democratic states, which emerged from critiques of its rival budgetmaximising model. The explanatory power of the bureau-shaping model is significantly superior to the budget-maximising model. However, the explanatory power of the bureaushaping model is limited because, as a supply-side model, it cannot explain how budgets are demanded and controlled by political sponsors, who in turn are constrained politically. Budgetary decision-making takes place in a political arena where both supply and demand are mediated; a supply-side model, at best, can explain only half the budget-story.

Brokering and buffering represent two ways in which principals may respond to hyperrational elements of policy demands in the current era of accountability. The purpose of this paper is to examine how some principals broker more efficient, measurable, and predictable evaluation practices for teachers and others buffer their teachers from inefficient, immeasurable, and unpredictable aspects of policy.

Qualitative data were obtained from 37 school principals and 363 teachers across 12 districts participating in a new teacher evaluation policy in one state of the USA. Principal interviews and teacher focus groups were conducted at the beginning, middle, and end of 2012-2013. Transcripts were coded to identify hyperrational elements of the policy and principals’ brokering and buffering practices.

All principals described elements of the new evaluation policy as inefficient, incalculable, or unpredictable – hallmarks of hyperrationality. Principals brokered efficiency by designing schoolwide parent goals and centralizing procedures; brokered transparency of calculation methods and focused teacher attention on measuring effort, rather than outcomes; and encouraged collective sensemaking to facilitate predictable procedures and outcomes. Principals buffered teachers by de-emphasizing the parent-based component; minimizing the quantitative nature of the ratings; ceding responsibility over calculations to district leaders; and lowering expectations to make ratings controllable.

The paper provides new understanding of principals’ strategic leadership practices, which represented rational responses to hyperrational policy demands. Therefore, the paper includes recommendations for principal preparation, district support for policy implementation, and further research on principal practice.

Professions, as a special (privileged) category of service‐sector occupations, are nowadays perceived as under threat from organizational, economic and political changes. Many of these threats concern the medical profession (and sometimes the legal profession). The use of the discourse of professionalism in other occupational contexts is seldom addressed, however, yet it is this, which is providing a much more interesting challenge to social scientists. In this paper the increased deployment of the concept “professional” is critically discussed and the power of the discourse of professionalism is explored more closely. The increased use of “professionalism” in new and existing occupational contexts is considered as a mechanism for facilitating and promoting social and occupational change. Many of these occupations provide services and often women constitute the bulk of the practitioners in these occupational groups. It is time to look again then at professionalism as a set of persuasive ideas or an ideology and to examine the power of these ideas and this discourse in terms of social order and control of occupational groups and individual “professionalised” practitioners.

The administrative state is situated in a physical and ecological context that requires a conceptualisation of rationality broader than the instrumental rationality that characterizes most administrative theorising. Various scholars have contributed to clarifying some aspects of the needed broader conceptualisation, particularly with respect to focuses (system, substance, procedure) and form (social, legal, political, and ecological). But unlike the classical Aristotelian conception of rationality, the goal‐blindness of contemporary rationality still distinguishes it from reasonableness. Rawls and Habermas suggest the recoupling of reasonableness and rationality through political discourse and pursuit of social action that requires reasoning about ends as well as means. The opportunities for deliberative democracy and for furthering environmental justice provided by environmental impact assessment illustrate how rationality, justice, and ecological sustainability can be integrated by breaking down distinctions between decision‐making processes and the substance of decisions. Administration can thus move beyond proverbs to proceed on the realization that the only ecologically rational organization is a broadly reasonable one.