The Sedimentology, Ichnology and Hydrogeochemistry of the Late Miocene, Marginal Marine, Upper Pebas and Nauta Formations, Amazonian Foreland Basin, Peru

This thesis includes detailed sedimentological and ichnological studies on two geological units: the Pebas Formation, with a special focus in its informal upper member, and the Nauta Formation. Both formations were deposited during the Miocene in Northeastern Peruvian Amazonia, in the Amazon retroarc foreland basin. The Pebas and Nauta successions mainly consist of non-consolidated, clastic sedimentary deposits arranged into sand- to mud-dominated heterolithic successions, which can be upward-coarsening to upward-fining. Sediments in both the Pebas and Nauta successions range from mud to fine- to medium-grained sand. The main facies observed were 1) mud-dominated horizontal heterolithic couplets; 2) rooted brownish mud; 3) lenticular, mud-draped, cross-stratified sand; 4) mud- to sand-dominated, inclined heterolithic stratification; 5) sand-dominated horizontal heterolithic couplets; and 6) mud-draped, trough cross-stratified sand. Locally, tidal rhythmites were documented. The facies are interpreted as: 1) muddy, shallow, subaqueous flats/shoals; 2) palaeosols; 3) secondary tidal channels or run-off creeks; 4) tidally influenced point bars; 5) shoreface deposits; and 6) subtidal compound dunes. Thalassinoides-dominated Glossifungites ichnofacies, low-diversity expressions of the Skolithos ichnofacies and depauperate suites consisting of elements common to the Cruziana ichnofacies strongly indicate brackish-water conditions. However, continental trace fossil assemblages, with possible elements common to the Scoyenia ichnofacies, have also been identified. In addition to the palaeoenvironmental study, a local hydrogeochemical characterisation of the Pebas and Nauta formations was also conducted. The geochemistry of the groundwaters reflects the characteristics and the soil geochemistry of the geological formations studied. The Pebas formation has low hardness, acid to neutral waters, whereas the upper Pebas has high hardness, acid to neutral waters. In both units, the arsenic content is locally high. The Nauta formation has low hardness acid groundwaters. A regional review of the Pebas and Nauta formations placed the local observations into a continental perspective and suggests that the whole Pebas-Nauta system was a probably shallow (some tens of metres at maximum), brackish- to freshwater, tidally-influenced epicontinental embayment with a probable semi-diurnal to mixed tidal regime and a microtidal range, surrounded by continental environments such as forest floors, lagoons, rivers and their flood plains, and lakes.

Organizational creativity – Hegemonic and alternative discourses

SUMMARY Organizational creativity – hegemonic and alternative discourses Over the course of recent developments in the societal and business environment, the concept of creativity has been brought into new arenas. The rise of ‘creative industries’ and the idea of creativity as a form of capital have attracted the interests of business and management professionals – as well as academics. As the notion of creativity has been adopted in the organization studies literature, the concept of organizational creativity has been introduced to refer to creativity that takes place in an organizational context. This doctoral thesis focuses on organizational creativity, and its purpose is to explore and problematize the hegemonic organizational creativity discourse and to provide alternative viewpoints for theorizing about creativity in organizations. Taking a discourse theory approach, this thesis, first, provides an outline of the currently predominant, i.e. hegemonic, discourse on organizational creativity, which is explored regarding themes, perspectives, methods and paradigms. Second, this thesis consists of five studies that act as illustrations of certain alternative viewpoints. Through these exemplary studies, this thesis sheds light on the limitations and taken-for-granted aspects of the hegemonic discourse and discusses what these alternative viewpoints could offer for the understanding of and theorizing for organizational creativity. This study leans on an assumption that the development of organizational creativity knowledge and the related discourse is not inevitable or progressive but rather contingent. The organizational creativity discourse has developed in a certain direction, meaning that some themes, perspectives, and methods, as well as assumptions, values, and objectives, have gained a hegemonic position over others, and are therefore often taken for granted and considered valid and relevant. The hegemonization of certain aspects, however, contributes to the marginalization of others. The thesis concludes that the hegemonic discourse on organizational creativity is based on an extensive coverage of certain themes and perspectives, such as those focusing on individual cognitive processes, motivation, or organizational climate and their relation to creativity, to name a few. The limited focus on some themes and the confinement to certain prevalent perspectives, however, results in the marginalization of other themes and perspectives. The negative, often unintended, consequences, implications, and side effects of creativity, the factors that might hinder or prevent creativity, and a deeper inquiry into the ontology and epistemology of creativity have attracted relatively marginal interest. The material embeddedness of organizational creativity, in other words, the physical organizational environment as well as the human body and its non-cognitive resources, has largely been overlooked in the hegemonic discourse, although thereare studies in this area that give reason to believe that they might prove relevant for the understanding of creativity. The hegemonic discourse is based on an individual-centered understanding of creativity which overattributes creativity to an individual and his/her cognitive capabilities, while simultaneously neglecting how, for instance, the physical environment, artifacts, social dynamics and interactions condition organizational creativity. Due to historical reasons, quantitative as well as qualitative yet functionally- oriented studies have predominated the organizational creativity discourse, although studies falling into the interpretationist paradigm have gradually become more popular. The two radical paradigms, as well as methodological and analytical approaches typical of radical research, can be considered to hold a marginal position in the field of organizational creativity. The hegemonic organizational creativity discourse has provided extensive findings related to many aspects of organizational creativity, although the con- ceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity in the hegemonic discourse are also in many respects limited and one-sided. The hegemonic discourse is based on an assumption that creativity is desirable, good, necessary, or even obligatory, and should be encouraged and nourished. The conceptualiza- tions of creativity favor the kind of creativity which is useful, valuable and can be harnessed for productivity. The current conceptualization is limited to the type of creativity that is acceptable and fits the managerial ideology, and washes out any risky, seemingly useless, or negative aspects of creativity. It also limits the possible meanings and representations that ‘creativity’ has in the respective discourse, excluding many meanings of creativity encountered in other discourses. The excessive focus on creativity that is good, positive, productive and fits the managerial agenda while ignoring other forms and aspects of creativity, however, contributes to the dilution of the notion. Practices aimed at encouraging the kind of creativity may actually entail a risk of fostering moderate alterations rather than more radical novelty, as well as management and organizational practices which limit creative endeavors, rather than increase their likelihood. The thesis concludes that although not often given the space and attention they deserve, there are alternative conceptualizations and understandings of organizational creativity which embrace a broader notion of creativity. The inability to accommodate the ‘other’ understandings and viewpoints within the organizational creativity discourse runs a risk of misrepresenting the complex and many-sided phenomenon of creativity in organizational context. Keywords: Organizational creativity, creativity, organization studies, discourse theory, hegemony