Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive classification of quid pro quo exchange transactions, so as to distinguish the different ways that desired exchange outcomes can be determined and that transactional processes can be conducted. This permits reflection on the generality of the theory of the individual embedded in neoclassical (orthodox) economics.

The approach adopted is to draw upon the contending dichotomies in epistemology (naturalism or hermeneutics) and ontology (agency or structure) to demarcate and depict a set of Weberian archetypal social actors, so as to explore their cognitions and behaviors in a transactional arena. These archetypal social actors are hypothetical role-playing actors – they do not describe real people.

These archetypal social actors, collectively, are suggestive of the profuseness of ways people can engage in exchange transactions. Each archetype’s credibility is contingent upon the veracity of its ontological and epistemological standpoints. Each, indeed, has blindspots that permit the denied standpoints to be ignored without analytical detriment. None can, therefore, claim the status of a general theory of exchange process.

The paper’s originality is that it explores exchange transactions from a variety of epistemological and ontological perspectives.

Recently in this Journal, Cutting and Kouzmin postulated a three‐phase group decision‐making process. This paper demarcates, within that framework, a set of contending corporate board decision‐making perceptions. It’s premise is that how directors determine how investigations should be conducted, evidence should be assessed, and the truth should be decided depends on their epistemological and ontological predisposition. The philosophy of the social sciences offers four contending epistemological and ontological lens used to describe, analyze, evaluate and judge their corporate world. Each is fundamentally flawed. What is needed, then, are reflexive and pluralized corporate governance structures and processes that can accommodate a variety of epistemological and ontological imperatives. The broad conclusion drawn is that good corporate governance requires directors to recognize the limitations of their understanding of corporate governance reality, to treat all truth claims skeptically, and never to resort to self‐deception or self‐delusion just to avoid unpleasant corporate governance truths.

This paper aims to provide a critical discussion and re-evaluation of the Personal Growth (PG) model of English, noting that the summer of 2016 marks 50 years since the Dartmouth Conference and the publication of John Dixon’s seminal response to the conference in Growth Through English (1967). The influence of the London School of English was reaching its height at the time with its emphasis on the development of the individual student, the importance of identity, the fundamental role of talk and the rejection of the importance of studying only the traditional literary canon. Dixon argued that PG needed to replace the previous “models” of English, one being “skills”, and the other “cultural heritage”. So strong was that influence that in 1988, the model of “Personal Growth” was one of the five identified by the authors of the first National Curriculum for English in England; it was placed first in the list, but the authors argued the five models were “equal” (the other four were “Adult Needs”, “Cultural Heritage”, “Cross-curricular” (CC) and “Cultural Analysis”.

Survey-style research begun in 1990, then throughout the next 25 years, mostly in England but also in the USA. It has investigated the views principally of the classroom teachers of English about their beliefs about the subject and also their views of official versions.

These investigations have demonstrated the importance of all the models (except CC, considered by English teachers to be a model for all teachers), but always the primacy of PG as the key model that matches English teachers’ beliefs about the purpose and value of English as a school subject and argues for the demonstrable, yet problematic, centrality of PG.

Any survey has limitations in terms of the sample, the number of returns and in the constraining nature of questionnaires. However, these surveys provide consistent results over nearly 30 years and have always encouraged respondents to offer qualitative comments. Surveys always have a value in providing an overview of attitudes and feelings.

English teachers remain convinced that student-centred progressive education offers the most valuable form of English for all students and they find themselves profoundly at odds with official prescriptions. This unquestionably has a damaging effect on teachers’ motivations and can lead them to leave their profession.

The paper provides a careful rereading of Growth Through English, so often simply taken for granted, and represents its key, neglected arguments in the more balanced 1975 edition. It provides research-based evidence of why the PG model remains central to English teachers and how the international discussions of the Dartmouth seminar still stimulate new thinking, for example, at the 2015 International Federation for the Teaching of English (IFTE) conference. The paper outlines why PG has been so resilient, and also, partly based on data from the 2015 IFTE conference, argues for a future model of English, which is based on PG but with a more critical and social dimension.

At the heart of any public‐sector reform discourse are the conflicting contentions about what constitutes good public leadership. The battles fought ‐ and to be fought ‐ over public‐sector reform are over the appropriate role of the state. These contending perspectives are the traditional hierarchical model and the neo‐liberal managerialist model of public administration. The aspiration to build a responsive and cost‐effective public sector that appropriately balances public and private interests inevitably confronts the challenge of how best to impose neo‐liberal managerialist values and practices onto a hierarchical politico‐administrative system, grounded on the premise that the state is best placed to determine, protect and promote the public interest, without inevitably creating a counter‐productive paradoxical public‐management environment. In this public‐sector reform scenario, it is necessary to foster a form of leadership ‐ both political and organisational ‐ that demands of itself that it be capable of perpetual adaption in the face of ambiguity and which change. That is a great deal to ask of both shrewd politicians and consummate bureaucrats.

I was fairly certain that I had explored most aspects of Whitehaven history. However this town of endless surprises had yet one more to spring on me. On his return my plumber friend unwrapped a parcel: it contained a ship's log — not the official one, but one kept by an apprentice on a voyage to the far east in the early nineteenth century — and the minute book of the Whitehaven Literary Society, 1820–1822. Of all the material things written about White‐haven very little has been said about its cultural activities. For the development of an interest in art it should be said by the way that the town owes a debt to William Gilpin of Scaleby Castle, the agent for Sir John Lowther of Whitehaven. Directly through his patronage of Matthias Read, and indirectly through his son and grandsons Gilpin contributed not a little to the promotion of painting in Cumberland and elsewhere.

The management of children′s literature is a search for value and suitability. Effective policies in library and educational work are based firmly on knowledge of materials, and on the bibliographical and critical frame within which the materials appear and might best be selected. Boundaries, like those between quality and popular books, and between children′s and adult materials, present important challenges for selection, and implicit in this process are professional acumen and judgement. Yet also there are attitudes and systems of values, which can powerfully influence selection on grounds of morality and good taste. To guard against undue subjectivity, the knowledge frame should acknowledge the relevance of social and experiential context for all reading materials, how readers think as well as how they read, and what explicit and implicit agendas the authors have. The good professional takes all these factors on board.