Teacher participation in school management : an analysis of some major issues, background factors, and the use of an attitude scale to study and compare teacher attitudes to participation

DUE TO COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS ONLY AVAILABLE FOR CONSULTATION AT ASTON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SERVICES WITH PRIOR ARRANGEMENT

When in Rome ... ?:Human resource management and the performance of foreign firms operating in India

Purpose: The purpose of the paper is to examine the kind of HRM practices being implemented by overseas firms in their Indian subsidiaries and also to analyze the linkage between HRM practices and organizational performance. Design/methodology/approach: The paper utilizes a mixture of both quantitative and qualitative techniques via personal interviews in 76 subsidiaries. Findings: The results show that while the introduction of HRM practices from the foreign parent organization is negatively associated with performance, local adaption of HRM practices is positively related with the performance of foreign firms operating in India. Research limitations/implications: The main limitations include data being collected by only one respondent from each firm, and the relatively small sample size. Practical implications: The key message for practitioners is that HRM systems do improve organizational performance in the Indian subsidiaries of foreign firms, and an emphasis on the localization of HRM practices can further contribute in this regard. Originality/value: This is perhaps the very first investigation of its kind in the Indian context. © Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

Organization studies as an applied science:the generation and use of academic knowledge about organizations : introduction to the special issue

The relationship between theory and practice has been discussed in the social sciences for generations. Academics from management and organization studies regularly lament the divide between theory and practice. They regret the insufficient academic knowledge of managerial problems and their solutions, and criticize the scholarly production of theories that are not relevant for organizational practice (Hambrick 1994). Despite the prevalence of this topic in academic discourse, we do not know much about what kind of academic knowledge would be useful to practice, how it would be produced and how the transfer of knowledge between theory and practice actually works. In short, we do not know how we can make academic work more relevant for practice or even whether this would be desirable. In this introduction to the Special Issue, we apply philosophical, theoretical and empirical perspectives to examine the challenges of studying the generation and use of academic knowledge. We then briefly describe the contribution of the seven papers that were selected for this Special Issue. Finally, we discuss issues that still need to be addressed, and make some proposals for future avenues of research.

Knowledge management and risk management

This article takes the perspective that risk knowledge and the activities related to RM practice can benefit from the implementation of KM processes and systems, to produce a better enterprise wide implementation of risk management. Both in the information systems discipline and elsewhere, there has been a trend towards greater integration and consolidation in the management of organizations. Some examples of this are: Enterprise Resource Planning (Stevens, 2003), Enterprise Architecture (Zachmann, 1996) and Enterprise Content Management (Smith & McKeen, 2003). Similarly, risk management is evolving into Enterprise Risk Management. KM’s importance in breaking down silos within an organization can help it to do so.

Research strategies for organizational history:a dialogue between historical theory and organization theory

If history matters for organization theory, then we need greater reflexivity regarding the epistemological problem of representing the past; otherwise, history might be seen as merely a repository of ready-made data. To facilitate this reflexivity, we set out three epistemological dualisms derived from historical theory to explain the relationship between history and organization theory: (1) in the dualism of explanation, historians are preoccupied with narrative construction, whereas organization theorists subordinate narrative to analysis; (2) in the dualism of evidence, historians use verifiable documentary sources, whereas organization theorists prefer constructed data; and (3) in the dualism of temporality, historians construct their own periodization, whereas organization theorists treat time as constant for chronology. These three dualisms underpin our explication of four alternative research strategies for organizational history: corporate history, consisting of a holistic, objectivist narrative of a corporate entity; analytically structured history, narrating theoretically conceptualized structures and events; serial history, using replicable techniques to analyze repeatable facts; and ethnographic history, reading documentary sources "against the grain." Ultimately, we argue that our epistemological dualisms will enable organization theorists to justify their theoretical stance in relation to a range of strategies in organizational history, including narratives constructed from documentary sources found in organizational archives. Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved.

Paradigms lost:integrating history and organization studies

This article reviews recent attempts at mapping research paradigms in Management and Organizational History and argues that the old distinctions between supplementarist, integrationist, and reorientationist approaches have been superseded by attempts at integrating historical research in organization studies. A typology of these integrationist approaches differentiates between pluralist and unitary integration, as well as between models based on either historical theory or organization theory. Each has distinct weaknesses and strengths, but essentially all limit their integration of historical research paradigms to only a few. As a result, there is a danger that history might become reduced to a methodology, an empirical endeavor, narrative representations, or indeed be considered the subject of research rather than a research approach in its own right. I argue that all of these present an impoverished picture of the rich research traditions available in the discipline of history, which has unique insights and approaches to offer to the study of organizations.