Science fiction

Few science fiction films have been made in Australia by Australians for Australian audiences, with most of the handful of locally-produced films made since the mid-1990s. Yet there has always been a solid Australian audience for non-Australian science fiction films and a strong international niche audience for the genre. While Australia has provided below-the-line crews and heads of departments (cinematographers, production designers, and so on) for many non-Australian science fiction films produced domestically, few Australian film directors have specialised in the genre. This is somewhat surprising considering that Alex Proyas achieved a degree of international success for his gothic science fiction film Dark City (1998), and George Miller achieved international fame following the worldwide success of Mad Max II (1981). Although the science fiction element of Mad Max II is tenuous – and even more so in the case of the original Mad Max (George Miller, 1979) – Miller is credited with creating a new (sub)genre which incorporates science fiction elements and has been widely imitated internationally: the dystopian, post-apocalyptic movie. Nevertheless, Australia has only produced a small number of science fiction movies. In addition to the above films, key titles include: Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (George Miller, 1985), Shirley Thompson versus the Aliens (Jim Sharman, 1972), The Time Guardian (Brian Hannant, 1987), The Chain Reaction (Ian Barry, 1980) and, more recently, Knowing (Alex Proyas, 2009), Daybreakers (Michael and Peter Spierig, 2009), and Iron Sky (Timo Vuorensola, 2012).

Post-genomic science & society : Getting our fangs into omics science and its implications

Genomics and genetic findings have been hailed with promises of unlocked codes and new frontiers of personalized medicine. Despite cautions about gene hype, the strong cultural pull of genes and genomics has allowed consideration of genomic personhood. Populated by the complicated records of mass spectrometer, proteomics, which studies the human protein, has not achieved either the funding or the popular cultural appeal proteomics scientists had hoped it would. While proteomics, being focused on the proteins that actually indicate and create disease states, has a more direct potential for clinical applications than genomic risk predictions, culturally, it has not provided the material for identity creation. In our ethnographic research, we explore how proteomic scientists attempting to shape an appeal to personhood through which legitimacy may be defined.

BWW ontology as a lens on IS design theory: Extending the design science research roadmap

The Design Science Research Roadmap (DSR-Roadmap) [1] aims to give detailed methodological guidance to novice researchers in Information Systems (IS) DSR. Focus group evaluation, one phase of the overall study, of the evolving DSR-Roadmap revealed that a key difficulty faced by both novice and expert researchers in DSR, is abstracting design theory from design. This paper explores the extension of the DSR-Roadmap by employing IS deep structure ontology (BWW [2-4]) as a lens on IS design to firstly yield generalisable design theory, specifically 'IS Design Theory' (ISDT) elements [5]. Consideration is next given to the value of BWW in the application of the design theory by practitioners. Results of mapping BWW constructs to ISDT elements suggest that the BWW is promising as a common language between design researchers and practitioners, facilitating both design theory and design implementation

The design science research roadmap : in progress evaluation

Although Design Science Research (DSR) is now an accepted approach to research in the Information Systems (IS) discipline, consensus on the methodology of DSR has yet to be achieved. Lack of a comprehensive and detailed methodology for Design Science Research (DSR) in the Information System (IS) discipline is a main issue. Prior research (the parent-study) aimed to remedy this situation and resulted in the DSR-Roadmap (Alturki et al., 2011a). Continuing empirical validation and revision of the DSR-Roadmap strives towards a methodology with appropriate levels of detail, integration, and completeness for novice researchers to efficiently and effectively conduct and report DSR in IS. The sub-study reported herein contributes to this larger, ongoing effort. This paper reports results from a formative evaluation effort of the DSR-Roadmap conducted using focus group analysis. Generally, participants endorsed the utility and intuitiveness of the DSR-Roadmap, while also suggesting valuable refinements. Both parent-study and sub-study make methodological contributions. The parent-study is the first attempt of utilizing DSR to develop a research methodology showing an example of how to use DSR in research methodology construction. The sub-study demonstrates the value of the focus group method in DSR for formative product evaluation.

A discourse on the non-method

In spite of the activism of professional bodies and researchers, empirical evidence shows that project management still does not deliver the expected benefits and promises. Hence, many have questioned the validity of the hegemonic rationalist paradigm anchored in the Enlightenment and Natural Sciences tradition supporting project management research and practice for the last 60 years and the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management. In order to address these limitations many authors, taking a post-modernist stance in social sciences, build on ‘pre-modern’ philosophies such as the Aristotelian one, specially emphasizing the role of praxis (activity), and phronesis (practical wisdom, prudence). Indeed, ‘Praxis … is the central category of the philosophy which is not merely an interpretation of the world, but is also a guide to its transformation …’ (Vazquez, 1977:. 149). Therefore, praxis offers an important focus for practitioners and researchers in social sciences, one in which theory is integrated with practice at the point of intervention. Simply stated, praxis can serve as a common ground for those interested in basic and applied research by providing knowledge of the reality in which action, informed by theory, takes place. Consequently, I suggest a ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning (praxeology being defined as study or science of human actions and conduct, including praxis, practices and phronesis) and to go beyond the ‘Theory-Practice’ divide. Moreover, I argue that we need to move away from the current dichotomy between the two classes ‘scholars experts-researchers’ and ‘managers/workers-practitioners-participants’. Considering one single class of ‘PraXitioner’, becoming a phronimos, may contribute to create new perspectives and open up new ways of thinking and acting in project situations. Thus, I call for a Perestroika in researching and acting in project management situations. My intent is to suggest a balanced praxeological view of the apparent opposition between social and natural science approaches. I explore, in this chapter, three key questions, covering the ontological, epistemological and praxeological dimensions of project management in action. 1. Are the research approaches being currently used appropriate for generating contributions that matter to both theory and practice with regards to what a ‘project’ is or to what we do when we call a specific situation ‘a project’? 2. On the basis of which intellectual virtues is the knowledge generated and what is the impact for theory and practice? 3. Are the modes of action of the practitioners ‘prudent’ and are they differentiating or reconciling formal and abstract rationality from substantive rationality and situated reasoning with regards to the mode of action they adopt in particular project situations? The investigation of the above questions leads me to debate about ‘Project Management-as-Praxis’, and to suggest ‘A’ (not ‘THE’) ‘praxeological’ style of reasoning and mode of inquiry – acknowledging a non-paradigmatic, subjective and kaleidoscopic perspective – for ‘Knowing-as-Practicing’ in project management. In short, this is about making a ‘Projects Science’ that matters.

What is a good project manager? Reconceptualizing the “do” : an Aristotelian perspective

In Social Science (Organization Studies, Economics, Management Science, Strategy, International Relations, Political Science…) the quest for addressing the question “what is a good practitioner?” has been around for centuries, with the underlying assumptions that good practitioners should lead organizations to higher levels of performance. Hence to ask “what is a good “captain”?” is not a new question, we should add! (e.g. Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670; Söderlund, 2004, p. 190). This interrogation leads to consider problems such as the relations between dichotomies Theory and Practice, rigor and relevance of research, ways of knowing and knowledge forms. On the one hand we face the “Enlightenment” assumptions underlying modern positivist Social science, grounded in “unity-of-science dream of transforming and reducing all kinds of knowledge to one basic form and level” and cause-effects relationships (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20), and on the other, the postmodern interpretivist proposal, and its “tendency to make all kinds of knowing equivalent” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20). In the project management space, this aims at addressing one of the fundamental problems in the field: projects still do not deliver their expected benefits and promises and therefore the socio-economical good (Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007; Bredillet, 2010, Lalonde et al., 2012). The Cartesian tradition supporting projects research and practice for the last 60 years (Bredillet, 2010, p. 4) has led to the lack of relevance to practice of the current conceptual base of project management, despite the sum of research, development of standards, best & good practices and the related development of project management bodies of knowledge (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319-323; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 2–6, Hodgson & Cicmil, 2007, p. 436–7; Winter et al., 2006, p. 638). Referring to both Hodgson (2002) and Giddens (1993), we could say that “those who expect a “social-scientific Newton” to revolutionize this young field “are not only waiting for a train that will not arrive, but are in the wrong station altogether” (Hodgson, 2002, p. 809; Giddens, 1993, p. 18). While, in the postmodern stream mainly rooted in the “practice turn” (e.g. Hällgren & Lindahl, 2012), the shift from methodological individualism to social viscosity and the advocated pluralism lead to reinforce the “functional stupidity” (Alvesson & Spicer, 2012, p. 1194) this postmodern stream aims at overcoming. We suggest here that addressing the question “what is a good PM?” requires a philosophy of practice perspective to complement the “usual” philosophy of science perspective. The questioning of the modern Cartesian tradition mirrors a similar one made within Social science (Say, 1964; Koontz, 1961, 1980; Menger, 1985; Warry, 1992; Rothbard, 1997a; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Boisot & McKelvey, 2010), calling for new thinking. In order to get outside the rationalist ‘box’, Toulmin (1990, p. 11), along with Tsoukas & Cummings (1997, p. 655), suggests a possible path, summarizing the thoughts of many authors: “It can cling to the discredited research program of the purely theoretical (i.e. “modern”) philosophy, which will end up by driving it out of business: it can look for new and less exclusively theoretical ways of working, and develop the methods needed for a more practical (“post-modern”) agenda; or it can return to its pre-17th century traditions, and try to recover the lost (“pre-modern”) topics that were side-tracked by Descartes, but can be usefully taken up for the future” (Toulmin, 1990, p. 11). Thus, paradoxically and interestingly, in their quest for the so-called post-modernism, many authors build on “pre-modern” philosophies such as the Aristotelian one (e.g. MacIntyre, 1985, 2007; Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Blomquist et al., 2010; Lalonde et al., 2012). It is perhaps because the post-modern stream emphasizes a dialogic process restricted to reliance on voice and textual representation, it limits the meaning of communicative praxis, and weaking the practice because it turns away attention from more fundamental issues associated with problem-definition and knowledge-for-use in action (Tedlock, 1983, p. 332–4; Schrag, 1986, p. 30, 46–7; Warry, 1992, p. 157). Eikeland suggests that the Aristotelian “gnoseology allows for reconsidering and reintegrating ways of knowing: traditional, practical, tacit, emotional, experiential, intuitive, etc., marginalised and considered insufficient by modernist [and post-modernist] thinking” (Eikeland, 2012, p. 20—21). By contrast with the modernist one-dimensional thinking and relativist and pluralistic post-modernism, we suggest, in a turn to an Aristotelian pre-modern lens, to re-conceptualise (“re” involving here a “re”-turn to pre-modern thinking) the “do” and to shift the perspective from what a good PM is (philosophy of science lens) to what a good PM does (philosophy of practice lens) (Aristotle, 1926a). As Tsoukas & Cummings put it: “In the Aristotelian tradition to call something good is to make a factual statement. To ask, for example, ’what is a good captain’?’ is not to come up with a list of attributes that good captains share (as modem contingency theorists would have it), but to point out the things that those who are recognized as good captains do.” (Tsoukas & Cummings, 1997, p. 670) Thus, this conversation offers a dialogue and deliberation about a central question: What does a good project manager do? The conversation is organized around a critic of the underlying assumptions supporting the modern, post-modern and pre-modern relations to ways of knowing, forms of knowledge and “practice”.

Acting and knowing in temporary and project-based organizing : turning from the practice world to a liberation praxeology?

The purpose of this article is to offer a critical discussion about the “practice” lens and its weaknesses in addressing acting and knowledge & competence development in the context of temporary and project-based organizing. I demonstrate that “practice turn” and “phronetic proposal” are dual and opposite perspectives within the “practice” world, none of them being fully relevant to grasp project organizing and that each of them maintain the opposition between the “observer” and the “natives “of the practices. I suggest an alternate style of reasoning in order to address the dissatisfaction in face of problems, antinomies, perplexities and contradictions generated by the dichotomous thinking: a liberation praxeology rooted in Aristotle philosophy aiming, through praxis & phronesis and practical acquired experience & perfecting actualization, at reconciling facts & values and means & ends, and Ethics & Politics in the quest for human happiness and social good through project organizing.

Designing an innovative approach to engage students in learning science : the evolving case of hybridized writing

Innovations are usually attributed to ideas generated in the minds of individuals. As we reflect upon the evolving design of an online project to engage students in learning science through hybridized writing activities we propose a more distributed view of the process of innovative design. That is, our experience suggests ideas are generated in the activity of interacting with human and material resources that expand and constrain possibilities. This project is innovative in that it is a new educational response to the problem of disengagement of students in science, and has proven to be effective in changing classroom practice and improving students’ scientific literacy. In this chapter, we identify the antecedents and trace the evolution of the project. This account illuminates the innovative design process, presents a summary of the evidence for the effectiveness of the project, and identifies future directions for further development and research. Keywords: Science learning, hybridized writing, case study, innovative approach

Discovering how scientific literacy has been positioned in the new Australian curriculum : science

Through the use of critical discourse analysis, this thesis investigated the perceived importance of scientific literacy in the new Australian Curriculum: Science. It was found that scientific literacy was ambiguous, and that the document did not provide detailed scope for intentional teaching for scientific literacy. To overcome this, recommendations on how to intentionally teach for scientific literacy were provided, so that Australian Science teachers can focus on improving scientific literacy outcomes for all students within this new curriculum.

Supporting context-aware process design : learnings from a design science study

Recent studies have started to explore context-awareness as a driver in the design of adaptable business processes. The emerging challenge of identifying and considering contextual drivers in the environment of a business process are well understood, however, typical methods and models for business process design do not yet consider this context. In this paper, we describe our work on the design of a method framework and appropriate models to enable a context-aware process design approach. We report on our ongoing work with an Australian insurance provider and describe the design science we employed to develop innovative and useful artifacts as part of a context-aware method framework. We discuss the utility of these artifacts in an application in the claims handling process at the case organization.

Time and space in biogeography : response to Parenti & Ebach (2013)

A recent Guest Editorial by Parenti & Ebach (2013, Journal of Biogeography, 40, 813–820) disagrees with the methods or interpretations in two of our recent papers. In addition, the authors open a debate on biogeographical concepts, and present an alternative philosophy for biogeographical research in the context of their recently described biogeographical subregion called ‘Pandora’. We disagree with their approach and conclusions, and comment on several issues related to our differing conceptual approaches for biogeographical research; namely, our use of molecular phylogenetic analyses, including time estimates; and Parenti & Ebach's reliance on taxon/general area cladograms. Finally, we re-examine their ‘tests’ supporting the existence of ‘Pandora’.

Reimagining learning spaces : A research report for the Queensland Council for Social Science Innovation

The purpose of the Reimagining Learning Spaces project was to conduct an empirical study that would result in findings to inform the design and use of physical school facilities and examine the ways in which these constructions influence pedagogy. The study focused on newly-established school libraries in Queensland, many of which had been established with funding from the Federal Government’s Building the Education Revolution economic stimulus program. To explore the field, the study sought multiple perspectives that included those of school students as well as teacher-librarians and other key school staff, addressing the following focus question: - How does the physical environment of school libraries influence pedagogic practices and learning outcomes? Further research questions that guided the inquiry included: - What are the implications for teacher-librarians when transitioning into a new library learning space? - How do members of the school community (principals, teachers, teacher-librarians and students) experience the creation of a new school library learning space? - How do school students imagine the design and use of engaging library learning spaces? An extensive review explored Australian and international literature based on the research questions, focused on the following major areas: • School library renewal: trends in reimagining the place of libraries in virtual and real space • School libraries as learning spaces: the expanded role of school libraries in whole-school pedagogical support. • The role of teacher-librarians in new times • Built environments and the implications for learning • Learners and learning in newly established spaces • Learning space design: perspectives, research and principles • Pedagogical principles and voices of experience • Transitions to newly created learning spaces Approach Using an innovative qualitative research design, Reimagining Learning Spaces investigated learner and teacher perspectives across three intersecting domains exploring: - Imagined spaces: learners’ imaginative concepts of learning within engaging learning environments; - Emerging spaces: experiences of teacher-librarians in the transition into new spaces for learning, and - Established spaces: learners’ and teachers’ perceptions of ways in which the physical environment influences and shapes pedagogy. Seven schools that had recently benefitted from the BER program became the research sites at which data were collected from teacher-librarians, teachers, school leaders and students. With this range of participants, an appropriately diverse set of data collection tools was developed, including video interviews, drawings, and focus groups. Evocative narrative case studies (Simons 2009) were developed from the data, representing the voices of users of learning spaces. Key findings The study’s findings are presented in this report and complemented by an array of visual materials on the project web site http:// The report includes: • a set of seven cases studies that reveal nuanced experiences of designing and creating school libraries, based on the narrative of key stakeholders (teacher-librarians, teachers, students and principals) • thematic discussion of student imaginings of their ideal school library, based on drawings and narrative of students at the seven case study schools • critical analysis of the case study and student imaginings, focusing on implications for (re)designing school learning spaces and pedagogy, and responding to the study’s overarching research question - .17 recommendations to support: designing, transitioning and reimagining pedagogy; leadership; and policy development

Science and engineering for whole of life : integrating education, research and public engagement in a collaborative environment

Policy makers increasingly recognise that an educated workforce with a high proportion of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) graduates is a pre-requisite to a knowledge-based, innovative economy. Over the past ten years, the proportion of first university degrees awarded in Australia in STEM fields is below the global average and continues to decrease from 22.2% in 2002 to 18.8% in 2010 [1]. These trends are mirrored by declines between 20% and 30% in the proportions of high school students enrolled in science or maths. These trends are not unique to Australia but their impact is of concern throughout the policy-making community. To redress these demographic trends, QUT embarked upon a long-term investment strategy to integrate education and research into the physical and virtual infrastructure of the campus, recognising that expectations of students change as rapidly as technology and learning practices change. To implement this strategy, physical infrastructure refurbishment/re-building is accompanied by upgraded technologies not only for learning but also for research. QUT’s vision for its city-based campuses is to create vibrant and attractive places to learn and research and to link strongly to the wider surrounding community. Over a five year period, physical infrastructure at the Gardens Point campus was substantially reconfigured in two key stages: (a) a >$50m refurbishment of heritage-listed buildings to encompass public, retail and social spaces, learning and teaching “test beds” and research laboratories and (b) destruction of five buildings to be replaced by a $230m, >40,000m2 Science and Engineering Centre designed to accommodate retail, recreation, services, education and research in an integrated, coordinated precinct. This landmark project is characterised by (i) self-evident, collaborative spaces for learning, research and social engagement, (ii) sustainable building practices and sustainable ongoing operation and; (iii) dynamic and mobile re-configuration of spaces or staffing to meet demand. Innovative spaces allow for transformative, cohort-driven learning and the collaborative use of space to prosecute joint class projects. Research laboratories are aggregated, centralised and “on display” to the public, students and staff. A major visualisation space – the largest multi-touch, multi-user facility constructed to date – is a centrepiece feature that focuses on demonstrating scientific and engineering principles or science oriented scenes at large scale (e.g. the Great Barrier Reef). Content on this visualisation facility is integrated with the regional school curricula and supports an in-house schools program for student and teacher engagement. Researchers are accommodated in a combined open-plan and office floor-space (80% open plan) to encourage interdisciplinary engagement and cross-fertilisation of skills, ideas and projects. This combination of spaces re-invigorates the on-campus experience, extends educational engagement across all ages and rapidly enhances research collaboration.