European studies: Taking stock and looking ahead

This essay is an attempt to generalize experiences of Central and Eastern European universities in the field of European Studies over the past 20 years. The paper follows the logic of business analysis in order to come up with proposals for future action.

Theory and practice in the field of foresight

Purpose – The paper aims to explore the gap between theory and practice in foresight and to give some suggestions on how to reduce it. Design/methodology/approach – Analysis of practical foresight activities and suggestions are based on a literature review, the author's own research and practice in the field of foresight and futures studies, and her participation in the work of a European project (COST A22). Findings – Two different types of practical foresight activities have developed. One of them, the practice of foresight of critical futures studies (FCFS) is an application of a theory of futures studies. The other, termed here as praxis foresight (PF), has no theoretical basis and responds directly to practical needs. At present a gap can be perceived between theory and practice. PF distinguishes itself from the practice and theory of FCFS and narrows the construction space of futures. Neither FCFS nor PF deals with content issues of the outer world. Reducing the gap depends on renewal of joint discourses and research about experience of different practical foresight activities and manageability of complex dynamics in foresight. Production and feedback of self-reflective and reflective foresight knowledge could improve theory and practice. Originality/value – Contemporary practical foresight activities are analysed and suggestions to reduce the gap are developed in the context of the linkage between theory and practice. This paper is thought provoking for futurists, foresight managers and university researchers.

Mi a baj a modern szervezetekkel? – Kritikai menedzsmentelméletek (What is the problem in modern organisations? – Critical Management Studies)

A nemzetközi, elsősorban európai szervezettudományban mára meghatározóvá vált a kritikai megközelítés, a hazai szakirodalomban mégis elvétve találni rá utalásokat. A szerzők írásukban tárgyalják, hogy a kritikai menedzsmentelméletek (KME) szemszögéből miként bírálható a mindenkori szervezeti gyakorlat, és miért bírálandók a főáramú menedzsmentelméletek. A tanulmány fő részében elméleti megkülönböztetéseket tesznek: egyrészt elhatárolják a kritikai megközelítést a főáramú szervezetelméletektől, másrészt több szempontból is különbséget tesznek a különféle – de egyaránt a KME alá tartozó – kritikai megközelítések között. De a kritikai szemlélethez hűen nem csak a puszta elméletismertetés volt a céljuk: e bevezetés és problémafelvető tanulmány – s a későbbiekben tervezett cikksorozat – szándékuk szerint vitaindítóként is szolgál. Abban bíznak, hogy a felvetett kérdésekről valódi, lényegi párbeszédet generálhatnak a hazai menedzsmenttudományban (kutatók, oktatók és elméletalkalmazók körében), mely kihathat a szervezeti gyakorlatra is. _____ Critical Management Studies (CMS) as a field of organization studies (OS) has become central internationally, and especially in Europe. Yet, its appearance is still very rare in the Hungarian OS literature. In this study first the authors discuss how the nowadays dominant organizational practices along with the mainstream management and organization theories are to be criticized from a Critical Management perspective. In the main section, so as to define CMS, they make important theoretical distinctions, first between CMS and mainstream organization theories (in general), and then among the different critical approaches that nevertheless all fall under the broad CMS umbrella. But, in line with a truly critical attitude, they not only go into theoretical discussions but, at least to their intention, the purpose of this introductory paper is also to addresses important problems both in the theory and the practice of organization and management. Therefore, it could serve as an opening of an important debate or dialogue in the Hungarian academic community (researchers, educators and other professionals), a theoretical discussion that could have real influence on organizational practice too.

Action oriented futures studies in Hungary

The significant social changes and unstable social–economic processes we are undergoing require more participation and more future oriented grassroots activity both in designing the possible future alternatives and in the actions for the realization of them. Action oriented futures studies and participatory futures studies are in close connection, because orientation towards actions and participation of non-professionals can be strengthened by their mutual interdependence in futures work. This study gives—as examples—summaries of four Hungarian case studies using participatory futures methods: one case from the field of vocational training, two cases concerning regional development, and one about national social–economic development. Our experience shows that such selected groups have evaluated the present issues in their environments as well as the closer and broader regional issues in authentic ways. The future alternatives that were outlined regarding the future of vocational training, acceptable future alternatives of domestic social–economic development, and future living conditions of a smaller settlement and in a larger town, reflected obligation, responsibility and personal interest. That non-professionals lack sufficient future orientation, and do not see possibilities to take serious actions for the future is a read problem. Fortunately, it seems that the future and action oriented attitude of the individuals might be further developed by the use of partnership education.

Kritikai menedzsmentelméletek – irányzatok és törésvonalak (Critical Management Studies: Streams and Debates)

A tanulmány a kritikai menedzsmentelméletek (KME) területére nyújt bevezetést a Hidegh – Gelei – Primecz (2014) által a Vezetéstudomány hasábjain kezdeményezett cikksorozat részeként. A KME fogalmát a korábbi, szervezetelméleti paradigmákat ismertető tanulmányoktól eltérő módon, a mátrixokon át-/ túllépve lépcsőszerűen tárgyalja. Bemutatja, hogyan definiálhatjuk kritikai módon a menedzsmentet és a menedzsmentelméleteket, majd a KME meghatározása és három legfontosabb jellemzője (denaturalizáció, teljesítményelv-ellenesség, reflexivitás) következik. A cikk ismerteti a KME három legmarkánsabb irányzatát: a posztmodernizmust, a kritikai elméletet és a kritikai realizmust, valamint az irányzatok közötti főbb vitapontokba nyújt betekintést. ____ The article provides an introduction into Critical Management Studies (CMS) continuing the series of papers about CMS started by Hidegh – Gelei – Primecz (2014) on the pages of Budapest Management Review. CMS is defined here in a different way as in the previously published Hungarian articles which were based on the Burrell-Morgan matrix (1979). This study exceeds the boundaries of the matrix by introducing management and management studies as a critical field step by step. The definition of CMS is followed by the main features of the field: denaturalization, anti-performativity and reflexivity (Fournier – Grey, 2000). Finally, the paper discusses the three most prevailing streams of CMS: postmodernism, critical theory and critical realism by providing an insight into the main debates among them.