Islamic Political Thought: Reviving a Rationalist Tradition

This work develops the foundations of an Islamic argument for secular, liberal democracy from within the Islamic discursive tradition. First, it challenges the presentation of contemporary Islamic political thought as a unified, continuous development of the classical canon by showing the influence of the now marginalized medieval rationalists in the development of Islamic political thought. The classical rationalist concern with divine justice forced the founders of Sunni orthodoxy to state their epistemologies and their positions on ethical ontology. The orthodox positions, and their related methods of legal-juristic reasoning, are shown to be incapable of accommodating the modern Islamic positions on political representation, slavery, and just war. This leads to the second argument of the work, that the modern Islamic discourse is better understood as a reflection of the central concern with justice and its rationalist epistemology and ethical ontology we find in the writings of classical rationalists. This argument is made by examining the works of three classical rationalists, a theologian, a philosopher, and a historian. Their political positions, shaped by their rationalism and concern with justice, challenged their orthodox contemporaries, and provide substantive critiques of the classical political accommodations, methods of politico-legal reasoning, and hence, of modern Islamist political projects. The final chapter reveals how far the mainstream of Islamic political thought has deviated from the classical discourses, since the 19th century, by adopting the language and ideals of the European Enlightenment. This shift is presented as a triumph of classical rationalism over literalism, whose epistemological foundations and ontological implications have yet to be acknowledged and appreciated.

Women Leaders Resolving Conflict in Higher Education: A Feminist Epistemological Perspective

In an American postsecondary context, conflict is inherent (Gianneschi & Yanagiura, 2006; Valian, 1999). Successful navigation of conflict in the academy is vital for those who aspire to leadership positions (Nadler & Nadler, 1987; Walters, Stuhlmacher, & Meyer, 1998). Presently, however, women face significant barriers to achieving success in higher education administration, including gender expectations for conflict resolution behavior (Bartunek, 1992; Bowles, Babcock, & McGinn, 2005; Gayle, Preiss, & Allen, 2002). While a considerable body of literature exists for understanding gender negotiation, it remains rooted in a masculine paradigm (Kolb & Putnam, 2006; Shuter & Turner, 1997), and, as such, established theories lack a feminist epistemological perspective. Consequently, my primary research question is, How do women leaders experience and perceive conflict in the higher education work environment? I conduct a qualitative study that examines workplace conflict experiences of 15 women leaders from diverse personal and professional backgrounds. Hartsock's (1983) three-tiered gender-sensitive analysis of power, updated to include multicultural perspectives, serves as my theoretical framework. It is a lens through which I evaluate theories, finding multicultural organizational, higher education conflict, and gender negotiation theories most applicable to this study. The framework also creates the foundation upon which I build my study. Specifically, I determine that a feminist research method is most relevant to this investigation. To analyze data obtained through in depth interviews, I employ a highly structured form of grounded theory called dimensional analysis. Based on my findings, I co-construct with study participants a Feminist Conflict Process Theory and Flowchart in which initially the nature of the relationship, and subsequently the level of risk to the relationship, institution, or self, is evaluated. This study supports that which is observed in the conflict resolution practitioner literature, but is unique in its observation of factors that influence decisions within a dynamic conflict resolution process. My findings are significant to women who aspire to serve in leadership positions in higher education, as well as to the academy as a whole, for it expands our knowledge of women's ontological and epistemological perspectives on resolving conflict in postsecondary education.