Search results

Knowledge of how social movements move, diffuse, and expand collective action events is central to movement scholarship and activist practice. Our purpose is to extend sociological knowledge about how movements (sometimes) diffuse and amplify insurgent actions, that is, how movements move. We extend movement diffusion theory by drawing a conceptual analogue with military theory and practice applied to the case of the organized and highly disciplined nonviolent Nashville civil rights movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s. We emphasize emplacement in a base-mission extension model whereby a movement base is built in a community establishing a social movement school for inculcating discipline and performative training in cadre who engage in insurgent operations extended from that base to outlying events and campaigns. Our data are drawn from secondary sources and semi-structured interviews conducted with participants of the Nashville civil rights movement. The analytic strategy employs a variant of the “extended case method,” where extension is constituted by movement agents following paths from base to outlying campaigns or events. Evidence shows that the Nashville movement established an exemplary local movement base that led to important changes in that city but also spawned traveling movement cadre who moved movement actions in an extensive series of pathways linking the Nashville base to events and campaigns across the southern theater of the civil rights movement. We conclude with theoretical and practical implications.

Four reputed leaders for the coming years in the field of special education for individuals with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) each with a slightly different perspective on the field were asked to respond independently to a prompt asking what does special education mean for students with EBD and what is being done and how do we maintain tradition? The contributors' responses to the prompt are presented and then summarized across the essays. A remarkable consistency emerges across the independent essays. In addition to the tradition of providing a free and appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, the contributors identify needs to support teachers serving this population. Needs in teacher training and the expertise required to meet the needs of individuals with EBD are outlined as well as potential contributions of technology to carry out specific tasks. We conclude with a call for increased advocacy for use of the knowledge that we currently possess and that which will soon be discovered to support students with EBD as well as their teachers. We also note that the contributors' names are listed alphabetically to acknowledge the equality of each person to the final product.

There does not exist any precise definition of ‘development’. In view of the indispensability of an interpretation of this concept a degree of speculation seems to exist in a development process. This is the reason this chapter has been included in this work. No scholar has precisely defined ‘development’ and ‘developing’ countries. It is believed that indigenous people know best what would be most suitable for them for development of their country. However, any discussion of these topics becomes incomplete, controversial, etc. in the absence of any precise definition. This chapter is no exception to this although an attempt has been made to outline development.

How can managers reduce information asymmetry in dyadic manager-external stakeholder relationships in a complex and evolving environment? Addressing this question has significant implications for firm survival, growth, and competitive advantage.

We have adopted a multiparadigm approach to theory building, known as metatriangulation. We integrate the dynamic capabilities, sensemaking, and evolutionary theory literatures to theorize how managers can relate to stakeholders in a complex and evolving environment.

We propose, via a conceptual framework and three propositions, “evolutionary sensemaking” as the managerial metacognitive dynamic capability that helps managers hone their understanding based on the evolutionary changes in the stakeholder’s interpretations of information quality preferences. The framework unfolds across three evolutionary stages: sensing preferences' variation of the stakeholder, seizing preferences, and transforming for complexity alignment and retention. The propositions focus on managing complexity in stakeholder information quality preference, employing cognitive capabilities to simplify, interpret, and align interpretations for effective information asymmetry reduction.

To develop the metacognitive dynamic capability of evolutionary sensemaking, managers need to train for and foster the underlying complex cognitive capabilities by enhancing their (1) perception and attention skills, (2) problem-solving and reasoning skills, and (3) language, communication, and social cognition skills, focusing specifically on reducing the complexity embedded in stakeholder cognition and diverse stakeholder preferences for information quality. Contrary to the current advice to “keep things simple” and provide “more” information to the stakeholders for opportunism reduction, trust-building, and superior governance, our framework suggests that managers hone their cognitive capabilities by learning to deal with the underlying complexity.

The proposed framework and propositions address research gaps in reducing information asymmetry. It enriches the dynamic capabilities literature by recognizing complexity (as opposed to opportunism) as an alternative source of information asymmetry, which needs to be addressed in this stream of research. It extends the sensemaking literature by identifying the complexity sources – i.e. stakeholder preferences for diverse information quality attributes and the associated cognitive preference interpretation processes. The article enhances evolutionary theory by delving into microprocesses related to information asymmetry reduction, which the existing literature does not thoroughly investigate.

People donate to charities with the aim of improving society. Yet, many charities fail to use donations efficiently or have ineffective interventions. The authors explore the strategic operational priorities and processes that enable charities to efficiently implement their interventions and have a positive impact on society.

The authors first review the literature on charities to gain a deeper understanding of the current state of knowledge on charity operations. The authors then employ the lens of paradox theory and perform a qualitative investigation of six case studies to explore various aspects of the operations of charities that are known for being cost-effective.

The authors reveal how the strategic operational decisions of charities, as well as the processes they implement, help them resolve the tensions arising from the cost-effectiveness paradox. The authors show that cost-effective charities make strategic operational decisions that help maintain two diverging priorities: prioritizing the status quo and prioritizing change in how they deliver value. Another set of strategic decisions helps balance these two diverging priorities. The authors then show how these charities create and then maintain cost-effective operations.

The authors address recent calls for research on non-profit organizations in the field of operations management. To authors’ knowledge, it is the first in-depth study of exemplary charity operations. The results can be used by charity executives as a benchmarking tool when they develop and implement their charitable interventions and by government agencies and potential donors when they select charities for their donations. Finally, the results should have implications for other organizations trying to have a positive societal impact.

Sociologists have long thought of the integration of people in communities – social integration – and hierarchical social systems – systemic integration – as contradictory goals. What strategies allow organizations to reconcile social and systemic integration? We examine this question through 40 in-depth, longitudinal interviews with leaders of nonprofit organizations that engage in the dual pursuit of social and systemic integration. Two processes reveal how the internal structure of organizations often mirrors the ways in which organizations are embedded in their local environments. When organizations engage in loose demographic coupling, relegating those who “match” the community to the work of social integration, they produce internal inequalities and justify them by claiming community building as sacred work. When engaging in community anchoring, organizations challenge internal and external inequalities simultaneously, but this process comes with costs. Our findings contribute to a constructivist understanding of community, the mechanisms by which organizations produce inequalities, and a place-based conception of organizations as embedded in community.

Although trust and distrust as distinct phenomena are of increasing interest to operations and supply chain management (OSCM) scholars, they have been inconsistently conceptualized and there is a lack of evidence regarding the distinctiveness of their respective antecedents. This study, therefore, focuses on one of the most widely accepted dimensions of trust, benevolence, to help more fully analyse (supplier) trust and distrust (in a buyer) and explore the effects of relational norms and structural power as specific antecedents.

The study employed a scenario-based role-playing experimental method. The proposed hypotheses were tested using structural equation modelling.

The results that while relational norms increase supplier trust, power asymmetry can simultaneously generate supplier distrust, support the coexistence of supplier trust and distrust in a buyer–supplier relationship.

This study is one of the first to explore the antecedents of supplier trust and distrust in a buyer. It demonstrates that supplier trust and distrust can coexist when the relationship is characterized by relational norms and asymmetrical power. This opens important questions for future trust–distrust research.