Search results

The way in which management and related personnel practices contribute to the organisation and control of the labour process during a period of political change intended to move towards socialism is examined. Rhodesia's colonial history and the position of foreign and multinational corporations in the economy have been determining the changes taking place in employing organisations. Workplace democracy and black advancement are two examples of government policy that are used to understand this process. The state is mediating between the contradictory requirements of Zimbabwean workers and peasants on the one hand and foreign and multinational profits on the other. Along with a generalised policy of black advancement, emphasis on workplace democracy forms the central platform in this mediation. The role of some alternative knowledge in the potential for developing managerial forms not specifically based on Western capitalist assumptions concerning time, economy and rationality is discussed. The take‐up of knowledge and practices is not governed by neutral criteria of what works, but by the power of dominant knowledge, allied to other sources of power, to produce practice. Where Western research and practice has taken cultural differences into account at all, it has never questioned the superiority of its models to describe and prescribe its own practices.

Unfortunately, I am not the first to attempt to map out the narrative terrain of Others. In 1985, R. S. Perinbanayagam presented various social theorists’ conceptions of the Other in his book Signifying Acts: Structure and Meaning in Everyday Life. Basically, they comprise three Others: the Generalized Other, the Meiotic Other (my language), and the Significant Other. I will address three additional Others – the Unconscious Other, the Marginalized Other, and the Nonhuman Other – that I find in a broader and more recent literature. Although I group them into six main Others, the borders of these types are somewhat arbitrary, porous, and nondiscrete, as interaction and intersection exist among them. Two characteristics that distinguish one Other from another are whether the Other exists within or outside the Self and whether the Other is an individual or aggregate entity. The Unconscious Other and the Generalized Other both are constructed from symbolic material outside the individual but ultimately take up residence within the Self. The Meiotic Self is the self-divided; there may be multiple divisions but each Meiotic Self is usually presented as singly constituted. The Significant Other, an individual, and the Marginalized Other, often a status group or member of it, reside outside the Self but play supporting roles in relation to any particular Self, which may also be an individual or status group, such as men, Whites, and Americans. The Nonhuman Other may be individual, an aggregate of individuals, or the product of human behavior, all of which reside outside the Self.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect, personally, regarding work, politically and theoretically, on 40 years of involvement in organization studies, profeminism and intersectionality.

The paper uses autoethnography.

The paper shows the need for a broad notion of the field and fieldwork, the development of intersectional thinking, the complexity of men's relations to feminism and intersectionality and the need to both name and deconstruct men in the research field.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in doing research.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in equality practice.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in social, political and policy interventions.

The paper points to recent historical changes in the connections between feminism, gender, profeminism, organizations and intersectionality in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion.

The potential for a ‘narrative turn’ in victimology carries with it all kinds of possibilities and problems in adding nuanced understandings smoothed out and sometimes erased from the vision of victimhood provided by criminal victimisation data. In this chapter, we explore the methodological and theoretical questions posed by such a narrative turn by presenting the case of June: a mother bereaved by gun violence that unfolded in Manchester two decades ago. Excavated using in-depth biographical interviewing, June told the story of the loss of her son, the role of faith in dealing with the aftermath of violence and eventually, how this story became a source for change for the community in which it was read and heard. June's story provided an impetus for establishing a grassroots antiviolence organisation and continued to be the driver for that same group long after the issue it was formed to address had become less problematic. As a story it served different purposes for the individual concerned, for the group they were a part of and for the wider community in which the group emerged. However, this particular story also raises questions for victimology in its understanding of the role of voice in policy and concerning the nature of evidence for both policy and the discipline itself. This chapter considers what lessons narrative victimology might learn from narrative criminology, the overlaps that the stories of victims and offenders might share and what the implications these might have for understanding what it means to be harmed.

A longstanding quantitative finding from surveys of public perceptions of hazardous technologies is that women and men respondents tend to express different levels of concern when asked about environmental and technological hazards. Traditional psychometric risk perception research has provided extensive empirical descriptions of this “gender effect”, but is criticised for having less success in developing substantive theory linking observations to socio‐cultural explanations to explicate this effect. The purpose of this paper is to build a theoretical platform to account for the existing empirical findings on gender and perceptions of risk.

The paper presents a critical synthesis, drawing upon theory in contemporary risk research, gender theory, social studies of science and feminist studies of epistemology.

A theoretical platform is developed concerning the operation of gender as a regulatory process involving norms and discourse. The role is identified of moral discourses, hegemonic masculinities/gender authenticity, and epistemic subjectivities as plausible ways of understanding the gender–risk effect in risk perception.

A novel theoretical exploration is provided of the relationship between gender and risk perceptions. Conceptual development in the gender and risk arena could be further refined by applying the theoretical platform developed here to empirical analyses and, to investigate its relevance to understanding how people discuss, deliberate and reason about risk issues.

Much of the existing literature fails to offer adequately grounded theoretical explanations for the observed empirical finding on gender and risk. This paper is the first to utilise a non‐essentialist reading of the gender‐risk effect by developing the “effects made by gender” approach.