Search results

The purpose of this paper is to develop a conceptual model that uses dialectical inquiry (DI) to create cognitive conflict in strategic decision‐makers for the purpose of improving strategic decisions. Activation of the dialectical learning process using DI requires strategic decision‐makers to integrate conflicting information causing cognitive conflict. Cognitive conflict is the catalyst that stimulates the creation of new knowledge in strategic decision‐makers resulting in improved organizational performance.

A conceptual model is developed that explicitly links DI to the dialectical learning process of strategic decision‐makers. This model extends previous research on DI by identifying cognitive conflict as the critical component that links DI as a learning method to the process of dialectical learning in strategic decision‐making.

The major finding of the model of dialectical learning is that the model is an important resource that can be applied to create cognitive conflict in strategic decision‐makers for the purpose of expanding the strategic options of organizations.

Empirical research on DI that focuses on the role of cognitive conflict in the dialectical learning process is lacking. It is hoped that this conceptual paper will stimulate further interest on the topic and a greater appreciation of this method of learning. Strategic decision‐makers must consider alternative ways of generating new knowledge that is crucial for organizational performance.

It is important that the benefits of creating cognitive conflict in the dialectical learning process are understood by strategic decision‐makers. Training for participants in a DI learning intervention is essential to help minimize any dysfunctional behaviors that could result from affective conflict.

This conceptual model identifies the importance of cognitive conflict in the dialectical learning process of strategic decision‐makers and the critical role of cognitive conflict rather than affective conflict in the use of this learning method.

This chapter proposes using a dialectical approach infused with elements of dialogism to analyze polyphonic discourses of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in order to create more nuanced understandings of the contradictions, oppositions, tensions, and complexities that characterize the conceptualization, enactment, and communication of CSR.

This chapter draws upon the notion of dialectics discussed by scholars such as Hegel and Marx and infuses it with Bakhtinian notions of dialogism to create a dialectical framework for analyzing discourses of CSR.

This chapter illustrates the conceptual argument for a dialectical approach to examining discourses of CSR by using the example of the dualistic discussion of corporations as agents of empowerment or exploitation. When examined through a dialectical lens, the empowerment–exploitation debate reveals, among others, the dissolution of boundaries between the categories of empowerment and exploitation, the coexistence and interplay of a multitude of related oppositions, and raises questions on praxical patterns employed by social actors to manage the dialectical tensions inherent in everyday organizing.

A dialectical approach in communication studies could open possibilities for acknowledging the co-existence of and interplay among multiple voices in society, thus opening spaces for engaging with diverse perspectives and creating a more holistic understanding of complex social constructs such as CSR.

A dialectical approach that attends to tensions negotiated by social and organizational actors as they try to conceptualize, enact, and communicate CSR can enrich the study of polyphonic discourses of CSR by generating more textured and insightful understandings of CSR than those currently examined through mostly dualistic lenses.

While many inconsistencies can be found in Marx's theory if one chooses a view of reality in which time is absent, these inconsistencies disappear if the view is taken that time is an essential component of that theory. The debate is thus between the simultaneist and the temporalist camp. This article sides with the temporalist approach but at the same time it argues that both sides have focused mainly on quantitative and formal logic aspects. This is the limit of the debate. The debate should move on from being only a critique and counter-critique of each other applying only formal logic to the issue of consistency to showing how and whether the different postulates (a time-less versus a time-full reality) and the interpretations deriving from them are an instance of a wider theory of radical social change. From this angle, simultaneism implies equilibrium and thus a view of the economy tending toward its equilibrated reproduction. Capitalism is thus theorized as an inherently rational system and any attempt to supersede it is irrational. This is simultaneism's social content. Temporalism, if immersed in a dialectical context, reaches the opposite conclusions: the economy is in a constant state of nonequilibrium and tends cyclically toward its own supersession. Capitalism is inherently irrational and any attempt to supersede it is rational. Simultaneist authors should now show how their approach to the issue of consistency fits into a broader theory furthering the liberation of Labor.

To choose a dialectical view of temporalism is thus to take sides for Labor.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the core meaning of critical research.

It begins by noting the frequent divergence between “Real” history (which always marches to its own beat) and academic reflection that often fails to follow the beat of a progressive drum. Indeed, rather than facilitating a productive historical movement, scholarship may, at times, window‐dress brutality. These questions are examined by drawing on pertinent literature in social theory and cultural analysis. This work cautions that only continuous, unconditional, self‐reflective criticism provides a navigational path between barbarism and enlightenment. It proposes harnessing our full repository of critical scholarship to renew ever‐relevant forms of praxis (This is not the same notion of “practical” that involves berating workers in suits and white shirts.)

Unfortunately, an examination of contemporary progressive accounting literature exposes fundamental departures from these standards for criticism; that many fields have lapsed into a form relativism, enabling highly conservative political agendas. This degeneration is instigated at the outset of research, through an inappropriate choice of initial object for analysis (or “root metaphor”).

To address the predicament, this paper proposes a greater self‐awareness in framing the initial starting point, using a procedure drawn from Hegel and Marx's dialectics. To “test’ this methodology, the paper examines four streams of progressive accounting research: professional (e.g. Brilovian) analysis, Foucauldian (culturalist) studies, ethnographic studies, and epistemic contributions.

Each review offers suggestions for a dialectical reconstruction of the original, including a revised initial starting point (object) for the analysis.

In this paper, which was presented at the second Inter‐American Congress on Educational Administration, held July 29‐August 2, 1984 in Brasilia, DF, Brazil, the author sketches criteria for a philosophy that could contribute to advancement in educational administration. He then examines some positions and issues in the light of the criteria.

This chapter examines how darknet drug marketplaces operate within platform capitalism. While capitalist power relations remain underexplored in research on digital drug markets, the analysis shows that the basic foundation of cryptomarkets relies on the infrastructure of platform capitalism. The authors use the concept of platform capitalism to explore cryptomarkets in an ideology-critical way. Platforms are infrastructure for the mediation of buyers and vendors; however, they are designed to extract data on the activities of their users. Platform capitalism refers to the process by which the vast collection of user data feeds into the accumulation of capital. The authors use a dialectical method to examine the constellation of digital drug platforms by disclosing a threefold contradiction: state control and self-regulation; visibility and concealment; and legality and illegality. The analysis reveals that darknet drug platforms make a profit not only from the trade of illicit drugs and the collection of user data, but also based on the illegal status of drugs, the associated ideology, and the closed ecology of darknet platforms. Power relations in cryptomarkets thereby mimic those observed in platform capitalism in general. Finally, the authors discuss the implications of platform capitalism for online drug markets.

Kōzō Uno (1897–1977) was a unique Marxist economist in Japan. The Uno's three-stage theory of the capitalist economy, in a certain sense, was a typical framework in the system of Marxist economic theory. But the method in Uno's Principles of Political Economy (“Principles”) is different from Marx's method in “Capital” and systematic critique of political economy. Since Uno rejected a methodological character of “capital in general” in Marx, Uno's “Principles” was a closed system in a circle. The stage theory of capitalistic development, therefore, had no connection with his general theory (“Principles”). Sekisuke Mita (1906–1975) was a severe critic of Uno's methodology. Mita, a Hegelian philosopher, criticized Uno that the methodology of his “Principles” was Hegelism, and pointed out that the method of Uno's stage theory was positivism. Mita not only criticized Uno, but also criticized orthodox views of Marxian economists who had been influenced by Stalinist views. Mita asserted that the rational dialectic in the logic of “Capital” was founded on the analytical method. The central problem is a methodological meaning of the relationship between the universal and the particular. This article describes the points of rational dialectic in the methodology of Marxian political economy, overcoming Hegelism and positivism.

Zygmunt Bauman's work is a case study in the possibilities of postmodernism for sociology. Characterized on the one hand by a gloomy epistemology about knowledge and morality in a postmodern world and on the other, by provocative new concepts to empirically describe a postmodern world, Bauman's work evidences a key tension within postmodern thought. Is it possible to reconcile Bauman's pessimistic epistemology with his optimistic sociology? My argument is that if we recast Bauman as a critical theorist and his method as dialectical immanent critique, we can see how his positive empirical concepts are based on his negative epistemology. In this way we can make sense of the complexity of Bauman's work and appreciate his prophetic abilities. The complexities and possibilities of postmodern thought in general become clearer as well.

Considers some of the puzzles and inconsistencies associated with Maturana’s metaphysics. We argue that such puzzles and inconsistencies largely arise out of difficulties of method and that the clue to their resolution is to be found in Aristotle’s solution to the same problem. Maturana’s claims are reconstructed in this light and in a way which does not materially affect their underlying theoretical grounds, i.e. autopoiesis theory, and dissolves the puzzles and inconsistencies referred to.

This paper aims to argue that the current environment in which the Islamic banking system is situated is not ideal for the system’s pursuance of its socioeconomic ideals, thus necessitating the system’s shift from pursuing falah to maximizing profits.

The paper theorizes and conceptualizes this shift from falah to profit maximization using two complementary theories – systems theory and institutional theory – to prove that such a shift is not unexpected. The paper further adopts a dialectical analysis that is somewhat historical to analyse the shift.

The measure of the Islamic banks’ performance in terms of their social ideals is misplaced, as the environment in which they currently operate does not support such goals. Thus, stemming from the theoretical base, the Islamic banks’ pursuance of profit maximization instead of falah should not be unexpected. The paper concludes that despite the unfavorable environment, the social ideals of the Islamic banking system may still be met, to an extent, through investment in microfinance and awqaf.

The paper adopts document analysis for sourcing data majorly from prior studies. Hence, the authors do not conclude that the analysis herein is applicable to all Islamic banks. Secondly, as the authors could not get a complete historical account of the Islamic banking system’s development, some aspects of the dialectical analysis – contradiction and change – have been discussed in a general fashion.

The need for Islamic banks in the current environment, especially for the Muslim population, cannot be over emphasized; however, the achievement of falah given this current environment may be daunting.

The current analyses of the shift of Islamic banks from pursuing falah to pursuing profit maximization are not well-defined, as they lack a proper theorization of the challenges faced by Islamic banks. This paper fills this gap.