Search results

This paper aims to bring to the fore the importance of feminist epistemologies in the history of the organization of management studies since the 1980s by following various intellectual moves in the development of feminist theorizing as they cross over to organization studies, including their analytical possibilities for reclaiming historically the voices of major women scholars, especially in doctoral seminars. The paper narrates these epistemological activities by mobilizing and reconsidering from the past to the present, the notions of “unmuting,” “mutating” and “mutiny.” It ends in a reflection addressing the state of business schools at present and why the field of organization and management studies needs “mutiny” now.

The paper adopts a narrative approach in which the voices of its authors appear to be central as they consider and reconsider over time their understanding of “unmuting,” “mutation” and “mutiny” as notions with analytical potential. This approach is influenced by Foucault’s “history of the present” but with contingencies brought about by feminist interpretations. The application of these notions is demonstrated by reclaiming and clarifying the epistemological underpinning in the works of three major women scholars as included in a doctoral seminar: Mary Parker Follett, Edith Penrose and Rosabeth Moss Kanter. These notions are further redeployed for their potential in institutional applications.

At present, the findings are discursive – if they can be called so, but the main motivation behind this writing is to go beyond discourse in the written sense, and to mobilize other activities, still in the realm of epistemological and scholarly work. These activities would legitimize actual interventions for changing business schools from their current situation as neoliberal entities, which mute understanding of major problems in the world, as well as the voices of most humans and non-humans paying for the foibles of neoliberalism.

The paper demonstrates the necessity of developing approaches for interventions in knowledge producing institutions increasingly limited by neoliberal premises in what can be said and done as legitimate knowledge. In doing this, the paper articulates the importance of keeping history alive to avoid the increasing “forgetfulness” neoliberalization brings about. The paper, in its present form, represents an active act of “remembering”.

Risk governance is being successfully inserted into scientific and political agendas as a way to understand and address complex problems, such as health problems that have both social and ecological dimensions. However, to date, the debate on risk governance has remained rather conceptual. This chapter addresses these lacunae through describing research that was conducted on the Flemish environmental health governance arrangement and draws on this empirical case study to suggest ways that risk governance can be put into practice.

The case study analysis was conducted through a mixed methods study that combined document analysis and data gathered through 22 in-depth interviews with environmental and health scientists as well as policymakers.

This research shows that the Flemish environmental health risk governance arrangement has succeeded in increasing the exchange of information between: (1) governments at a variety of levels; (2) scientists, policymakers and the general public and (3) environmental and public health civil servants. The analysis also provides insights into some shortcomings and makes recommendations for ameliorating this arrangement: (1) the integration of environmental health objectives into all relevant policy domains, (2) the need for additional research into environmental health indicators and (3) the facilitation of the co-production of knowledge and multi-actor governance.

Empirical contributions and analysis about risk governance and policy formation processes are not often conducted. The added value of this Flemish case study is that it presents an example of good practice from which lessons for future risk governance arrangements can be drawn.

The purpose of this paper is to propose styles of reasoning for the characterization of sustainable development and sustainability as quasi‐objects of study for management.

This proposition occurs in three primary dimensions: the first deals with ontological postures, the second with epistemological perspectives, and the third with supplementary conceptualizations (dominant paradigms, the meanings of sustainable development and sustainability, and the approaches to classifying sustainability).

After the theoretical‐analytical discussion the authors present a framework that classifies different possibilities for framing sustainable development and sustainability as interesting research themes for management studies.

The paper considers that discussions about sustainable development and sustainability as concerns management studies need a deeper conceptual and theoretical scrutiny. This deficiency is expressed in the difficulty in identifying ontological postures, epistemological perspectives, dominant paradigms, and conceptual approaches that might allow these themes to have a greater coherence so that they may be researched within the scope of management studies.

Sustainable development and sustainability are discussed using various analytical perspectives, a consequence of the fact that these phenomena are understood and discussed by various social collectives, which contributes to an interpretive and conceptual oscillation of these themes for management. The relationship between sustainable development, sustainability, and social factions justifies their characterization as quasi‐objects of study for management. Via this characterization the authors intend to create a space for discussion aimed at presenting statements that are candidates for truth, but not as absolute or unquestionable truths.

Based on journal articles that focused on epistemological issues in the field (e.g. the field's nature, purposes, borders, knowledge base, uniqueness, etc.), this paper seeks to outline the intellectual discussions in the field of educational administration (EA) since the foundation of its major journals and suggest some lessons for the state of the field at the present time.

The review is based on all papers, scholarly, historical or empirical, that observed philosophical, epistemological and methodological issues and concerns in this field. The papers were analyzed and coded by their purposes, arguments, epistemological questions, criticism, findings and insights.

The major concluding epistemological message of this historical account is of “recycling,” i.e. the field is typically embedded with debates over similar ideas, assumptions, and insights about EA as a field of study throughout the last five decades. Therefore, it is a time for radical changes in the understanding of the field's intellectual missions and boundaries.

The historical overview is likely both to acquaint one with the historical scholarly streams, trends and debates in knowledge development of EA as a field of study, and help international field members understand and mould their professional identity.

To explore possible innovations that constructivism and its epistemological participatory position offer to philosophy, in particular to the age‐old problem of grounding epistemological assumptions.

The paper follows von Foerster's account of the participatory position as an epistemological stance. It tries to explain why it is called a “position” rather than “insight” or “theory”. Constructivist (participatory) concepts are explored and related to “classical” philosophical debates such as the “Münchhausen trilemma”. In the conclusion the paper sketches possible ways of how to apply the answers of the participatory position to the philosophical discourse.

The paper points at the possibility to go beyond the insurmountable boundaries dividing different epistemological positions one continuously encounters when searching for the appropriate epistemological starting point. As a result, one cannot expect answers to be universally valid. The paper takes that into consideration. It argues that most philosophical attempts are first order changes (revolutions) as they seek truth and exclude alternative views at the same time. Following von Foerster, the paper suggests second order changes that lead from truth to trust. This transition allows a peaceful coexistence of all philosophical systems. Turning from truth (and belief in analytical clarity) to trust and, consequently, from objectivity to responsibility, it may become possible to transcend the epistemological barriers.

The paper contributes to finding a possible direction for the future of discourses in philosophy and many humanities in order to overcome the incompetence of philosophy of finding final answers.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the philosophical stances and related methodologies used within the last 15 years of project management research using The International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP) conference papers.

Utilizing a systematic sampling approach, IRNOP conference papers from 1994, 2000 and 2007 were analyzed for prevalent philosophical streams in project management research.

Results show a dominance of ontological subjectivism and epistemological interpretivism, with a preference for case studies and qualitative methods. Trends indicate a growth of positivist studies and, at the same time, an increase in multi‐case studies.

This paper's contribution to knowledge lies in the identification of predominant research paradigms for research reported at project management conferences using IRNOP as an example. The study shows trends, preferences, and potential differences between published research and conference papers.

Information on the quality, quantity and timely trends of underlying philosophies in project management research are lacking an insightful exploration of the project management research field. This is necessary for a better understanding of the past, present and possible future of research paradigms in project management. The paper's findings can be used to improve the interpretation of the state of knowledge in project management research.

Over recent years, public relations (PR) research has diversified in themes and theories. As a result, PR presents itself today as a multi-paradigmatic discipline with competing ideas of progress that mainly circle around questions of ontology and epistemology, i.e. around defining appropriate object and knowledge in PR research.

This conceptual article highlights a third crucial question underlying the debate drawing on a narrative approach: The question of axiology, hence, the normative question how PR research shall develop to contribute to societal progress.

The article presents a model, which describes how normative visions of progress in different PR paradigms – functional, co-creational, social-reflective and critical-cultural – manifest in each distinct combinations of four narrative plots – tragedy, romance, comedy and satire.

These findings complement the current debate on disciplinary progress in PR research by fostering reflection and debate on paradigm development and cross-paradigmatic tensions and exchange from an explicit axiological perspective.

Methodological pluralism in consumer research is usually confined to post‐positivist interpretive approaches. Argues, however, that a positivistic stance, radical behaviourism, can enrich epistemological debate among researchers with the recognition of radical behaviourism′s ultimate reliance on interpretation as well as science. Although radical behaviourist explanation was initially founded on Machian positivism, its account of complex social behaviours such as purchase and consumption is necessarily interpretive, inviting comparison with the hermeneutical approaches currently emerging in consumer research. Radical behaviourist interpretation attributes meaning to behaviour by identifying its environmental determinants, especially the learning history of the individual in relation to the consequences similar prior behaviour has effected. The nature of such interpretation is demonstrated for purchase and consumption responses by means of a critique of radical behaviourism as applied to complex human activity. In the process, develops and applies a framework for radical behaviourist interpretation of purchase and consumption to four operant equifinality classes of consumer behaviour: accomplishment, pleasure, accumulation and maintenance. Some epistemological implications of this framework, the behavioural perspective model (BPM) of purchase and consumption, are discussed in the context of the relativity and incommensurability of research paradigms. Finally, evaluates the interpretive approach, particularly in terms of its relevance to the nature and understanding of managerial marketing.

This chapter seeks to examine the ways in which university-based researchers can facilitate the understanding and awareness of public policy-makers and key decision-makers in the contribution to theory and complexity research can make to contemporary public policy.

The chapter provides a systematic literature review informed by reference to key urban regeneration strategies in the United Kingdom.

The chapter argues that it is through the promotion of inter-disciplinary approaches to understanding and learning that we might develop the reflective capacities of decision-makers.

The chapter is intentionally speculative and seeks to encourage critical self-reflection.

This chapter seeks to provide an overview of current directions in the areas of methodology, with a focus on examining the ways in which ontology and epistemology are being reframed within the context of international comparative education by established as well as new and emerging scholars. We highlight recent efforts to contest larger epistemological/paradigmatic issues including the importance of reflexivity and interrogating the role of the researcher (i.e., subjectivity and positionality), draw attention to epistemological issues of what can be known and how, and underline research that challenges dominant and hegemonic discourses and presents alternative perspectives/knowledge. The second half of the chapter documents scholarship that over the past five years has attempted to do what we highlight as contested in the first half. Finally, we will work to contextualize the intersections between theory and practice with a goal toward anticipating some potential directions for research methodologies in international comparative education and ways professional and academic centers might foster deeper and more nuanced dialogue on the topic in the future.