Discussion: View Thread

Steve Payne wrote:

> "are we and this medium mature enough to engage in a dialogue or even in
an informed debate on the >intellectual and pragmatic returns from critical
theory and poststructural paradigms (for example)"

I would really welcome a dialogue like this. What I find frustrating about
(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of saying
what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains down on the
critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is channelled
into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration. (I'll try and keep
away from military metaphor and use a sporting one instead). And the
argument or dialogue does not advance into the areas in which people with a
pragmatic interest in teaching would like to engage with it. In this sense
an academic ideal - of an examination of epistemological and paradigmatic
difference - is all too often acting as a form of gatekeeping. And
critically minded contributors fall back exhausted at the barbican, whereas
all others pass through untroubled.

Writers in the critical and radical pedagogy traditions are often their own
worst enemy in this respect with large amounts of their texts given to
constantly re-establishing their right to be considered part of the
educational scene, rather than on matters of practice. Important though
these arguments are perhaps we should consider whether they are not holding
back the development of a thriving, and widespread, practice of critical
management education. College basketball allegiances will always prove a
more interesting thread than a dialogue and debate that never gets out of
the starting blocks. In which case it is the responsibility of the critical
and radical pedagogy community, not those outside of the paradigm, to
forward our own debate past the 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt'
stage.

In response to Linda Perriton's concern:

"What I find frustrating about
(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of saying
what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains down on the
critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is channelled
into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration."

I must return to Hugh Wilmott's initial post:

"In any event, there remains the `wicked' problem of validating the
>knowledge
> that we rely upon to generate the predictions. Who is to decide what is
to
> count as `better evidence', an `adequate test' of a theory or, indeed what
> is `good' or `effective' management or how a `good' measure of such a
> `thing' might be constructed? Is this a
> problem that can be solved by examining the degree to which predictions
> from a theory are confirmed? Seems a bit like trying to taste one's own
> tongue. >>"

This post did not advance the discussion of management education. Rather, it
questioned the validity of the thread(s) to which Hugh responded. Where was
his contribution? What was his point? How does he resolve this "wicked"
problem? My follow-up post pressed for a something tangible to work with in
managerial decision-making.

"The problem most deconstructivists have with science is that
its
>processes do not enable social construction. The argument will no doubt be
>forwarded that the "system" of science can do nothing less than structure
>(construct) a given type of outcome. However, the outcomes we have depended
on
>for both mundane and critical decisions overwhelmingly favor structured
>decision-making. The outcome of one prediction does inform the next
>prediction.
>
>How do you know you cannot taste your own tongue?"

Hugh's follow-up offered no "substance" for management practice or education.
He simply reiterated his position. In fact, Hugh turned against his own
analogy (tongue-tasting).

Perhaps the reason our thread was not as constructive as it could have been is
because the natural result of deconstruction is intellectual anarchy.

Ken Bandy
KenBandy@aol.com

Linda,

Thank you for this post. I enjoyed both the eloquence of wording and
thought.

Best wishes for continued success.

Ed
Drive On!

<<< Linda Perriton <rooster@CABSAV.DEMON.CO.UK> 3/15 6:39p >>>
Steve Payne wrote:

> "are we and this medium mature enough to engage in a dialogue or even
in
an informed debate on the >intellectual and pragmatic returns from
critical
theory and poststructural paradigms (for example)"

I would really welcome a dialogue like this. What I find frustrating
about
(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of
saying
what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains down on
the
critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is
channelled
into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration. (I'll try and
keep
away from military metaphor and use a sporting one instead). And the
argument or dialogue does not advance into the areas in which people
with a
pragmatic interest in teaching would like to engage with it. In this
sense
an academic ideal - of an examination of epistemological and
paradigmatic
difference - is all too often acting as a form of gatekeeping. And
critically minded contributors fall back exhausted at the barbican,
whereas
all others pass through untroubled.

Writers in the critical and radical pedagogy traditions are often their
own
worst enemy in this respect with large amounts of their texts given to
constantly re-establishing their right to be considered part of the
educational scene, rather than on matters of practice. Important though
these arguments are perhaps we should consider whether they are not
holding
back the development of a thriving, and widespread, practice of critical
management education. College basketball allegiances will always prove a
more interesting thread than a dialogue and debate that never gets out
of
the starting blocks. In which case it is the responsibility of the
critical
and radical pedagogy community, not those outside of the paradigm, to
forward our own debate past the 'been there, done that, got the T-shirt'
stage.

Gee, Ken, are you equating critical management studies with deconstructionism; is
that what you got from Hugh's post? Deconstructionism seems to me a diverting
fad, but the critical approach is intrinsic to understanding and progress from
old to new paradigms, is fundamental to every kind of dialectic, from Burke to
Bork, from Mill to Chomsky. Those who attack critical management studies are
themselves engaging in critical thought and expression. And that is, I submit, as
it should be. I will be surprised if you disagree.
Best, Leon

Ken Bandy wrote:

> In response to Linda Perriton's concern:
>
> "What I find frustrating about
> (otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
> don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of saying
> what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains down on the
> critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is channelled
> into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration."
>
> I must return to Hugh Wilmott's initial post:
>
> "In any event, there remains the `wicked' problem of validating the
> >knowledge
> > that we rely upon to generate the predictions. Who is to decide what is
> to
> > count as `better evidence', an `adequate test' of a theory or, indeed what
> > is `good' or `effective' management or how a `good' measure of such a
> > `thing' might be constructed? Is this a
> > problem that can be solved by examining the degree to which predictions
> > from a theory are confirmed? Seems a bit like trying to taste one's own
> > tongue. >>"
>
> This post did not advance the discussion of management education. Rather, it
> questioned the validity of the thread(s) to which Hugh responded. Where was
> his contribution? What was his point? How does he resolve this "wicked"
> problem? My follow-up post pressed for a something tangible to work with in
> managerial decision-making.
>
> "The problem most deconstructivists have with science is that
> its
> >processes do not enable social construction. The argument will no doubt be
> >forwarded that the "system" of science can do nothing less than structure
> >(construct) a given type of outcome. However, the outcomes we have depended
> on
> >for both mundane and critical decisions overwhelmingly favor structured
> >decision-making. The outcome of one prediction does inform the next
> >prediction.
> >
> >How do you know you cannot taste your own tongue?"
>
> Hugh's follow-up offered no "substance" for management practice or education.
> He simply reiterated his position. In fact, Hugh turned against his own
> analogy (tongue-tasting).
>
> Perhaps the reason our thread was not as constructive as it could have been is
> because the natural result of deconstruction is intellectual anarchy.
>
> Ken Bandy
> KenBandy@aol.com

Ken Bandy wrote:

<<[Hugh Willmott's] post did not advance the discussion of management
education. >>

Naturally, I'm disappointed that my post was interpreted in this way. I was
simply making a case, rather clumsily I'll grant, for the reflexivity of
knowledge. This standpoint does not seem to me to be particularly
earth-shattering or contentious, except perhaps for those who are wedded to
what, in another recent posting, Kim Boal identified as a position of
`empirical realism', including Shelby Hunt.

The basic issue is whether or not we agree that (i) our body of knowledge of
management (and)education is an artefact of the theoretical assumptions and
presuppositions that are involved in generating this knowledge; or (ii)
knowledge can be cleansed of these value-based assumptions and
presuppositions.

I do not believe or pretend that my position is value-free, whereas I see
others engaged in what I regard as a pretence who in many cases (I guess)
are unaware of, or unconcerned about, the coercive, authoritarian
ramifications of this position. Of course, I accept that this `seeing' is a
product of a `critical' vision(see above).

I hope this makes clearer what I see as the relevance of my posting for
management education. I won't repeat my earlier points about the elective
affinity of these respective positions with closed/open engagement with
politics and ethics.

Hugh

Hugh Willmott

Home Page : http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome

Web site for Critical Management Studies Conference 1999:

http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/cmsconference

Web site for Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs:

http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/aaba.htm

Hugh Willmott
Professor of Organizational Analysis
Manchester School of Management
UMIST
Manchester M60 1QD
United Kingdom

Tel : 0161 200 3412
Fax : 0161 200 3505
email : Hugh.Willmott@umist.ac.uk

Linda Perriton wrote:

<< What I find frustrating about
(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of saying
what it is and why it is important.

Writers in the critical and radical pedagogy traditions are often their own
worst enemy in this respect with large amounts of their texts given to
constantly re-establishing their right to be considered part of the
educational scene, rather than on matters of practice.>>

Without, I hope, falling into the trap of being defensive about this, but
wanting to correct what is perhaps a widespread misapprehension, let's not
forget the many empirically-based studies that engage directly with central
issues of practice conducted in the labour process tradition (I have been
involved in editing a number of these - see details in the home page
below - ) and the annual Labour Process Conference regularly presents 60
papers per year, most of which are empirically based. To take one example,
my colleague, in recent years David Knights, has published many empirically
based critical studies , a number in the Journal of Management Studies, that
are informed by Foucauldian and post-structuralist thinking. There is a
substantial body of empirically based critical work conducted and published
in the UK and elsewhere (e.g. Australia and New Zealand), believe me!

Hugh

Hugh Willmott

Home Page : http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome

Web site for Critical Management Studies Conference 1999:

http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/cmsconference

Web site for Association for Accountancy and Business Affairs:

http://visar.csustan.edu/aaba/aaba.htm

Hugh Willmott
Professor of Organizational Analysis
Manchester School of Management
UMIST
Manchester M60 1QD
United Kingdom

Tel : 0161 200 3412
Fax : 0161 200 3505
email : Hugh.Willmott@umist.ac.uk

I've always found it curious that there is such a high value placed on
deconstruction and a comparatively low value placed on reconstruction.
This is akin to the consultant expecting to be paid for telling people
what is wrong with something (when often people know what is
wrong anyway) and having nothing to offer the client about how things
might be different ie answering the 'so what' question. The other aspect
of this is the way in which things that are fairly obvious are treated as
issues of great revelatory significance - so knowledge is socially
constructed - so what?. Anyway let a thousand flowers bloom we don't all
have to think and feel in the same way

John Willliams

KenBandy@AOL.COM writes:
>In response to Linda Perriton's concern:
>
>"What I find frustrating about
>(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is that they
>don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage of saying
>what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains down on the
>critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is channelled
>into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration."
>
>I must return to Hugh Wilmott's initial post:
>
>"In any event, there remains the `wicked' problem of validating the
>>knowledge
>> that we rely upon to generate the predictions. Who is to decide what is
>to
>> count as `better evidence', an `adequate test' of a theory or, indeed
>what
>> is `good' or `effective' management or how a `good' measure of such a
>> `thing' might be constructed? Is this a
>> problem that can be solved by examining the degree to which predictions
>> from a theory are confirmed? Seems a bit like trying to taste one's own
>> tongue. >>"
>
>This post did not advance the discussion of management education. Rather,
>it
>questioned the validity of the thread(s) to which Hugh responded. Where
>was
>his contribution? What was his point? How does he resolve this "wicked"
>problem? My follow-up post pressed for a something tangible to work with
>in
>managerial decision-making.
>
>"The problem most deconstructivists have with science is that
>its
>>processes do not enable social construction. The argument will no doubt
>be
>>forwarded that the "system" of science can do nothing less than structure
>>(construct) a given type of outcome. However, the outcomes we have
>depended
>on
>>for both mundane and critical decisions overwhelmingly favor structured
>>decision-making. The outcome of one prediction does inform the next
>>prediction.
>>
>>How do you know you cannot taste your own tongue?"
>
>Hugh's follow-up offered no "substance" for management practice or
>education.
>He simply reiterated his position. In fact, Hugh turned against his own
>analogy (tongue-tasting).
>
>Perhaps the reason our thread was not as constructive as it could have
>been is
>because the natural result of deconstruction is intellectual anarchy.
>
>Ken Bandy
>KenBandy@aol.com

I have followed (with much difficulty and a severely wilted thesaurus)
the convoluted constructionism and deconstructionism debate. I agree
with John's point below, and would like to add

"Any jackass can kick down a door - but it takes a carpenter to build
one"

Shane Hodgson
Central Africa


-----Original Message-----
From: John WILLIAMS [SMTP:J.N.Williams@SHU.AC.UK]
Sent: 16 March 1999 10:58
To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: Re: Critical Work and Relevance

I've always found it curious that there is such a high value
placed on
deconstruction and a comparatively low value placed on
reconstruction.
This is akin to the consultant expecting to be paid for telling
people
what is wrong with something (when often people know what is
wrong anyway) and having nothing to offer the client about how
things
might be different ie answering the 'so what' question. The
other aspect
of this is the way in which things that are fairly obvious are
treated as
issues of great revelatory significance - so knowledge is
socially
constructed - so what?. Anyway let a thousand flowers bloom we
don't all
have to think and feel in the same way

John Willliams

KenBandy@AOL.COM writes:
>In response to Linda Perriton's concern:
>
>"What I find frustrating about
>(otherwise feisty) debates across paradigmatic boundaries is
that they
>don't take critical theory or post-structuralism past the stage
of saying
>what it is and why it is important. At which point scorn rains
down on the
>critical practitioner or academic in question and all energy is
channelled
>into assuming a defensive stance of endless reiteration."
>
>I must return to Hugh Wilmott's initial post:
>
>"In any event, there remains the `wicked' problem of validating
the
>>knowledge
>> that we rely upon to generate the predictions. Who is to
decide what is
>to
>> count as `better evidence', an `adequate test' of a theory
or, indeed
>what
>> is `good' or `effective' management or how a `good' measure
of such a
>> `thing' might be constructed? Is this a
>> problem that can be solved by examining the degree to which
predictions
>> from a theory are confirmed? Seems a bit like trying to taste
one's own
>> tongue. >>"
>
>This post did not advance the discussion of management
education. Rather,
>it
>questioned the validity of the thread(s) to which Hugh
responded. Where
>was
>his contribution? What was his point? How does he resolve this
"wicked"
>problem? My follow-up post pressed for a something tangible to
work with
>in
>managerial decision-making.
>
>"The problem most deconstructivists have with science is that
>its
>>processes do not enable social construction. The argument will
no doubt
>be
>>forwarded that the "system" of science can do nothing less
than structure
>>(construct) a given type of outcome. However, the outcomes we
have
>depended
>on
>>for both mundane and critical decisions overwhelmingly favor
structured
>>decision-making. The outcome of one prediction does inform the
next
>>prediction.
>>
>>How do you know you cannot taste your own tongue?"
>
>Hugh's follow-up offered no "substance" for management practice
or
>education.
>He simply reiterated his position. In fact, Hugh turned
against his own
>analogy (tongue-tasting).
>
>Perhaps the reason our thread was not as constructive as it
could have
>been is
>because the natural result of deconstruction is intellectual
anarchy.
>
>Ken Bandy
>KenBandy@aol.com