Divest Harvard: Climate justice, higher education, and fossil fuel divestment

On the 19 November 2014, seven Harvard students — the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition — have brought a legal action against Harvard University to compel it to withdraw its investments from fossil fuel companies. The plaintiffs include the Harvard Climate Justice Coalition; Alice Cherry, a law student; Benjamin Franta, a physics student interested in renewable energy; Sidni Frederick, a student of history and literature; Joseph Hamilton, a law student; Olivia Kivel, a biologist interested in sustainable farming; Talia Rothstein, a student of history and literature; and Kelsey Skaggs, a law student from Alaska interested in climate justice. The Harvard Climate Justice Coalition also bringing the lawsuit as ‘next friend of Plaintiffs Future Generations, individuals not yet born or too young to assert their rights but whose future health, safety, and welfare depends on current efforts to slow the pace of climate change.’ The case of Harvard Climate Justice Coalition v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, is being heard in the Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts. The dispute will be an important precedent on the ongoing policy and legal battles in respect of climate change, education, and fossil fuel divestment.

Gardens le grande

The gardens of Versailles are a prime example of the beauty that can be attained where art and horticulture meld on a truly grand scale. Carrying on that tradition in the former veggie garden of the French palace is one of the world's most prestigious landscape architecture schools. Julian Raxworthy, a senior lecturer in landscape architecture at Queensland University of Technology recently taught a workshop at the Versailles school. As he explains, the concepts that underlie the school's teaching and the formal grandeur of the gardens of Versailles continue to be as innovative and relevant today as they were in the 17th century.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Comparison of historic exploration with contemporary space policy suggests a retheorisation of settings

The 2008 NASA Astrobiology Roadmap provides one way of theorising this developing field, a way which has become the normative model for the discipline: science-and scholarship-driven funding for space. By contrast, a novel re-evaluation of funding policies is undertaken in this article to reframe astrobiology, terraforming and associated space travel and research. Textual visualisation, discourse and numeric analytical methods, and value theory are applied to historical data and contemporary sources to re-investigate significant drivers and constraints on the mechanisms of enabling space exploration. Two data sets are identified and compared: the business objectives and outcomes of major 15th-17th century European joint-stock exploration and trading companies and a case study of a current space industry entrepreneur company. Comparison of these analyses suggests that viable funding policy drivers can exist outside the normative science and scholarship-driven roadmap. The two drivers identified in this study are (1) the intrinsic value of space as a territory to be experienced and enjoyed, not just studied, and (2) the instrumental, commercial value of exploiting these experiences by developing infrastructure and retail revenues. Filtering of these results also offers an investment rationale for companies operating in, or about to enter, the space business marketplace.

Troubling dissemination : experimentations with the salon as conference event

Salons became popular in Europe in 17th Century as sites of philosophic and literary conversation. A group of female academics interested in Deleuzian theories experimented with the salon to challenge presentation and dissemination norms that hierarchize and centralize the human. For Deleuze and Guattari (1987), assemblages are shifting and decentering, so how might assemblages of chairs, tables, bodies, lights, space, help to trouble thinking about the methodological conventions around academic disseminations? The authors discuss the salon as a critical-cultural site: Cumming presents Deleuze and play-dough, an exploration of how the playful dissemination format of the salon prompted a re-reading of a methodological vignette from earlier research. Knight, an arts-based researcher, uses video art as a creative methodology to examine conceptualizations of rhizomes and assemblages at the salon as a dissemination site. The authors conclude that the salon, as a critical, cultural site disrupts hierarchized ways of approaching and presenting research.

Optimism : what it is and its relevance in the school context

"For myself, I am an optimist - it does not seem to be much use to be anything else". Winston Churchill Optimism has its modern roots in philosophy dating back to the 17th century in the writings of philosophers such as Descartes and Voltaire (Domino & Conway, 2001). Previous to these philosophical writings, the concept of optimism was revealed in the teaching of many of the great spiritual traditions such as Buddhism and Christianity (Miller, Richards, & Keller, 2001). In the 20th century, optimism became defined in juxtaposition to pessimism, sometimes conceptualized as a bipolar unidimensional construct and by others as two related but separate constructs (Garber, 2000). Contemporary models (Scheier & Carver, 1985; Seligman, 1991) have increasingly focused on distinguishing optimism-pessimism as a general dispositional orientation, as described by expectancy theory, and as an explanatory process, described by explanatory style theory.

Franklin Barley: Patent law and plant breeders’ rights

This paper considers the relationship between patent law and plant breeders' rights in light of modern developments in biotechnology. It examines how a number of superior courts have sought to manage the tensions and conflicts between these competing schemes of intellectual property protection. Part 1 considers the High Court of Australia case of Grain Pool of Western Australia v the Commonwealth dealing with Franklin barley. Part 2 examines the significance of the Supreme Court of the United States decision in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc with respect to utility patents and hybrid seed. Part 3 considers the Supreme Court of Canada case of Harvard College v the Commissioner of Patents dealing with the transgenic animal, oncomouse, and discusses its implications for the forthcoming appeal from the Federal Court case of Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto.