Search results

This chapter examines how people weigh and discuss opportunities for collective action to improve community health. Drawing from research on civic and social movement engagement, it focuses specifically on how cultural logics of pragmatism, activism, and cynicism are invoked in such debates.

Qualitative data come from four focus group discussions of strategies for reducing tobacco use in Atlanta’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities. Participants included 36 self-identified community members.

Pragmatic logics were used most often in evaluating the tobacco control strategies, with activist logics second and cynicism a distant third. This echoes prior research, but our participants used these logics in unexpected ways: they combined pragmatism and activism, downplaying the former’s emphasis on individual self-interest and the latter’s emphasis on contentious confrontation. In addition, use of the logics varied by focus group and strategy, but not with individual speaker’s identities.

Though limited by a narrow demographic focus and small convenience sample, our study suggests that public support for community health initiatives will likely depend on how they are framed and on the interactional dynamics and shared identities of the groups they are presented to.

Logics of pragmatism, activism, and cynicism inform debate over community health initiatives, as with other forms of civic action. However, use of these logics is not uniform but varies with the groups and issues at hand. Our study participants’ mutual LGBT identification gave them a sense of shared community and a familiarity with the politicization of personal life that led them to combine pragmatist and activist logics in novel ways.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the concept of “common sense” and to distinguish it from uncommon sense as it applies to managerial decision‐making under conditions of task uncertainty. The paper enunciates the definition of common sense decision‐making and develops the concept of “uncommon” sense making. A typology of common sense is put forth, and a case study is used to illustrate it in practice.

This is a conceptually developmental paper, which explores and develops the concept of uncommon sense through literature review and typology development. A mechanistic, or internally driven, decision approach is compared with an organic, externally driven one, and the question of how common sense is related to these approaches in varying task uncertainty conditions is explored. A short case study is used as an illustration of the practical managerial implications under low task certainty conditions.

The concepts of MCS (common sense) and MUS (uncommon sense) are established, as well as O and M errors. It is suggested that within a mechanistic approach MCS is most appropriate in conditions of high task certainty. Within an organic approach MUS is most appropriate in conditions of low task certainty. An O error occurs when a mechanistic approach is taken, using common sense, under low task certainty. Lack of appropriate resources deems such an approach unsuitable. An M error occurs when a more risky organic approach (MUS) is taken when resources exist to make a common sense decision.

Increasing globalization, work ambiguity, and task complexity, introduce a need for greater managerial adaptability and speed. MUS may therefore play an increasingly greater role in organizational decision‐making as managers seek answers to questions generated by new and unique situations where existing decision rules may not apply.

The theoretical framework offered in this paper looks at the increasingly common situations in which “thinking outside the box” is essential for sound decision making. It suggests a taxonomy that allows for exploration as well as application of “uncommon sense”‐based theory in situations that require such innovative thinking. It takes a significant step in the theoretical and practical understanding of the very relevant issues of inspiration, adventure and creativity in managerial decision making today.

How did gays in the military go from being characterized as dangerous perverts threatening to the state, to victims being persecuted by the state, to potential heroes fighting on behalf of the state? What implications does this shift have for understanding the means by which the liberal state uses law to include the previously excluded? Offering a critical account of the inclusion of gays in the military, I argue that while the lifting of the ban can be seen as an important step in a classic civil rights narrative in which the liberal state gradually accommodates the excluded, pop culture allows us also to see state and minority group interest convergence as well as divergence, revealing the costs of inclusion.

The objective of this paper is to investigate and compare the practices of knowledge management (KM) processes, which have been grounded in the KM literature, between public and private higher education institutions (HEIs).

Data were collected from 594 academics from three public and three private HEIs in Malaysia.

The analyses suggest that all the six KM processes (knowledge creation, capture, organisation, storage, dissemination, and application) are moderately practiced by the institutions surveyed and that there are significant differences in the overall practices of KM processes between the public and private HEIs.

This paper raises awareness and provides initial guidelines to the HEIs as knowledge‐intensive organisations in formulating strategies on how to properly implement and manage their KM processes.

This study has extended knowledge in KM for it is probably the first to provide a comparative analysis between public and private HEIs. It further opens up new lines of future research possibilities.

Academic and practitioner interpretations of knowledge management are captured through a comprehensive taxonomy of knowledge models. How knowledge is absorbed raises the question as to whether focus should be placed on knowledge transfer or knowledge management. It is concluded that the contextual demands for knowledge application dictate which pathway to pursue.

The paper aims to focus on a strategic approach for making trade-offs between knowledge and risk.

Knowledge and risk are viewed as organizational resources that have an inherent trade-off between them, so that optimal firm performance does not necessarily arise through greater accumulation of knowledge nor from reduced risk. This trade-off is represented as an efficient knowledge-risk frontier. The paper examines the dynamics of this frontier on organizational performance.

The concept of knowledge-risk strategy is presented which contends that non-probabilistic risk or uncertainty originates from gaps in knowledge.

The paper proposes a new line of research to understand decision-making in organizations, particularly those which focus on knowledge intensive products and services.

The paper proposes managerial approaches to improve organizational positioning relative to the efficient knowledge-risk frontier through greater awareness of contributors to knowledge gaps and risk in decision situations, as well as traditional strategic tools such as outsourcing.

The postulated link between risk and knowledge gaps establishes a knowledge-based view of firm risk and recognizes trade-offs for decisions regarding knowledge accumulation.

Long-standing traditions of long-distance collaboration and networking make scholars a good test case for differentiating hype and reality in distributed, networked organizations. Our study of Canadian scholars in the GRAND research networks finds that they function more as connected individuals and less as members of a single bounded work group, often meeting their needs by tapping into diversified, loosely knit networks. Their internet use interpenetrates with in-person contact: the more they use one, the more they use the other. Despite digital networking, local proximity is important for collaboration and seniority for inter-team and interdisciplinary boundary spanning.