Globalist Fallacies, Fictions and Facts: The MAI and Neo-classic Ideology

There is little evidence, historical or otherwise, to suggest that the needs of people and societies change greatly over time. Whilst acknowledging the benefits of the many recent technological innovations that are part of the contemporary milieu, I am reluctant to see such advances as sufficient rationale for the dismantling of the social contract between a government and its citizenry. The Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) highlights the move amongst developed countries to replace a national policy focus with a multilateral approach to global policy formulation that transcends the sovereignty of nation states. The purpose of this paper is to refute the assumptions underpinning multilateralist assertions that government has a diminishing role to play in the global society, and that national sovereignty, due to the increasingly important role of multilateral agreements and the global economy, is ‘a thing of the past’ (Arthur Asher, background briefing interview, Radio National, February 1, 1998). The basic premises that underpin the globalist argument1 for the diminishing role of government are that: • Economic growth increases jobs, prosperity, and freedom. • Free trade is an imperative for successful globalisation because financial sector performance - which depends on deregulation - is integral to global economic growth. • Information technology is revolutionising global trade and making globalisation inevitable. • Globalisation through deregulation, makes national boundaries meaningless, and therefore, national regulatory policies anachronistic. This paper compares the aforementioned axiomatic premises of globalisation to actual outcomes, events, and trends in the real world.

The centrality of teachers’ judgement practice in assessment : a study of standards in moderation

There is a strong quest in several countries including Australia for greater national consistency in education and intensifying interest in standards for reporting. Given this, it is important to make explicit the intended and unintended consequences of assessment reform strategies and the pressures to pervert and conform. In a policy context that values standardisation, the great danger is that the technical, rationalist approaches that generalise and make superficial assessment practices, will emerge. In this article, the authors contend that the centrality and complexity of teacher judgement practice in such a policy context need to be understood. To this end, we discuss and analyse recorded talk in teacher moderation meetings showing the processes that teachers use as they work with stated standards to award grades (A to E). We show how they move to and fro between (1) supplied textual artefacts, including stated standards and samples of student responses, (2) tacit knowledge of different types, drawing into the moderation, and (3) social processes of dialogue and negotiation. While the stated standards play a part in judgement processes, in and of themselves they are shown to be insufficient to account for how the teachers ascribe value and award a grade to student work in moderation. At issue is the nature of judgement as cognitive and social practice in moderation and the legitimacy (or otherwise) of the mix of factors that shape how judgement occurs.

Standing brave in the face of rapid curriculum change : EAL/D teachers speak about critical literacy and its place in senior English teaching

Critical literacy (CL) has been the subject of much debate in the Australian public and education arenas since 2002. Recently, this debate has dissipated as literacy education agendas and attendant policies shift to embrace more hybrid models and approaches to the teaching of senior English. This paper/presentation reports on the views expressed by four teachers of senior English about critical literacy and it’s relevance to students who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds who are learning English while undertaking senior studies in high school. Teachers’ understandings of critical literacy are important, esp. given the emphasis on Critical and Creative Thinking and Literacy as two of the General Capabilities underpinning the Australian national curriculum. Using critical discourse analysis, data from four specialist ESL teachers in two different schools were analysed for the ways in which these teachers construct critical literacy. While all four teachers indicated significant commitment to critical literacy as an approach to English language teaching, the understandings they articulated varied from providing forms of access to powerful genres, to rationalist approaches to interrogating text, to a type of ‘critical-aesthetic’ analysis of text construction. Implications are also discussed.

A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.

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”.

Mainstreaming climate change adaptation : An incremental approach to disaster risk management in Australia

In this paper we argue that rationalist ‘predict then act’ approaches to disaster risk management (DRM) policy promote unrealistic public expectations of DRM provisions, the avoidance of decision making by political elites, an over-reliance on technical expertise and engineering solutions to reducing exposure to natural events, and a reactive approach to DRM overall. We propose an alternative incrementalist approach that focuses on managing uncertainties rather than reducing them and building resilience not simply through the reduction of hazard exposure, but also through the ongoing reduction of community vulnerability, the explicit consideration of normative priorities, and more effective community engagement in climate risk debates.

Mobile phone use in Australian Indigenous communities : future pathways for HC14D

This paper collates recent research on mobile phone use in Indigenous communities in Australia. Its key finding is that mobile phones are heavily used in these communities, albeit in unique and unusual ways that may be difficult to comprehend beneath 'top-down' measurements. Rather than framing these uses as being compromises made in lieu of appropriate infrastructures or literacies, it is argued that HCI4D (Human-Computer Interaction for Development) would be better served by seriously plumbing into the information they reveal about how mobile phones are constructed and placed in these communities, and what these factors might reveal about local understandings of development and well-being. A consideration of these specific patterns of appropriation is necessary to push the field beyond top-down, rationalist approaches to development towards more flexible, creative solutions that build from local knowledge and competencies.

Start making sense: Applying a salutogenic model to architectural design for psychiatric care

Purpose This paper aims to look into the significance of architectural design in psychiatric care facilities. There is a strong correlation between perceptual dysfunction and psychiatric illness, and also between the patient and his environment. As such, even minor design choices can be of great consequence in a psychiatric facility. It is of critical importance, therefore, that a psychiatric milieu is sympathetic and does not exacerbate the psychosis. Design/methodology/approach This paper analyses the architectural elements that may influence mental health, using an architectural extrapolation of Antonovsky’s salutogenic theory, which states that better health results from a state of mind which has a fortified sense of coherence. According to the theory, a sense of coherence is fostered by a patient’s ability to comprehend the environment (comprehensibility), to be effective in his actions (manageability) and to find meaning (meaningfullness). Findings Salutogenic theory can be extrapolated in an architectural context to inform design choices when designing for a stress-sensitive client base. Research limitations/implications In the paper an architectural extrapolation of salutogenic theory is presented as a practical method for making design decisions (in praxis) when evidence is not available. As demonstrated, the results appear to reflect what evidence is available, but real evidence is always desirable over rationalist speculation. The method suggested here cannot prove the efficacy or appropriateness of design decisions and is not intended to do so. Practical implications The design of mental health facilities has long been dominated by unsubstantiated policy and normative opinions that do not always serve the client population. This method establishes a practical theoretical model for generating architectural design guidelines for mental health facilities. Originality/value The paper will prove to be helpful in several ways. First, salutogenic theory is a useful framework for improving health outcomes, but in the past the theory has never been applied in a methodological way. Second, there have been few insights into how the architecture itself can improve the functionality of a mental health facility other than improve the secondary functions of hospital services.

Orientations to Critical Literacy for English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) learners: A case study of four teachers of senior English

Recently, the debate around critical literacy has dissipated as literacy education agendas and attendant policies shift to embrace more hybrid approaches to the teaching of senior English. This paper reports on orientations towards critical literacy as expressed by four teachers of senior English who teach culturally and linguistically diverse learners. Teachers’ understandings of critical literacy are important given the emphasis on Critical and Creative Thinking as well as Literacy as General Capabilities underpinning the Australian Curriculum. Using critical discourse analysis and Janks' (2010) Synthesis Model of Critical Literacy, interview and classroom data from four teachers of English as an Additional Language or Dialect (EAL/D) learners in two high schools were analysed for the ways these teachers constructed critical literacy in their talk and practice. While all four teachers indicated significant commitment to critical literacy as an approach to English language teaching, their understandings varied. These ranged from providing access to powerful genres, to rationalist approaches to interrogating text, with less emphasis on multimodal design and drawing on learner diversity. This has significant implications for what kind of learning is being offered to EAL/D learners in the name of English teaching, for syllabus design, and for teacher professional development.