Kierkegaardian intersubjectivity and the question of ethics and responsibility

Kierkegaardian Intersubjectivity and the Question of Ethics and Responsibility By Kevin Krumrei. Kierkegaard's contributions to philosophy are generally admitted and recognized as valuable in the history of Western philosophy, both as one of the great anti-Hegelians, as the founder (arguably) of existentialism, and as a religious thinker. However valid this may be, there is similarly a generally admitted critique of Kierkegaard in the Western tradition, that Kierkegaard's philosophy of the development of the self leads the individual into an isolated encounter with God, to the abandonment of the social context. In other words, a Kierkegaardian theory of intersubjectivity is a contradiction in terms. This is voiced eloquently by Emmanuel Levinas, among others. However, Levinas' own intersubjective ethics bears a striking resemblance to Kierkegaard's, with respect to the description and formulation of the basic problem for ethics: the problem of aesthetic egoism. Further, both Kierkegaard and Levinas follow similar paths in responding to the problem, from Kierkegaard's reduplication in Works of Love, to Levinas' notion of substitution in Otherwise than Being. In this comparison, it becomes evident that Levinas' reading of Kierkegaard is mistaken, for Kierkegaard's intersubjective ethics postulates, in fact, the inseparability and necessity of the self s responsible relation to others in the self s relation to God, found in the command, "you shall love your neighbour as yourself."

Leadership and its impact on the success of Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council funded collaborative research projects

This dissertation investigates the practice of leadership in collaboratively designed and funded research in a university setting. More specifically, this research explores the meaning of leadership as experienced by researchers who were, or still are, engaged on Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) funded collaborative research projects in a university setting. This qualitative study (Gay & Airasian, 2003) is situated within a social constructivist paradigm (Kezar, Carducci, & Contreras-McGavin, 2006) and involves an analysis of the responses from 12 researchers who answered 11questions related to my overarching research question: What is the impact of leadership on university based collaborative research projects funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council based on the experiences of researchers involved? The data that emerged supported and enhanced the existing literature related to leadership and collaborative groups in academia. The type of preferred leadership that emerged as a result of this research seemed to indicate that the type of leader that appeared to be optimal in this context might be described as a functional collaborative expert.