Critical management education typically assumes that management courses that emphasize critical reflection—that is, courses that critique problematic systems and structures, and ask students to dialogue about and actively reflect upon these critiques—will foster student transformation. In contrast, critical theory typically suggests that transformation requires praxis, that is, critical reflection plus practical action where students enact their new knowledge in their everyday lives. We empirically test these assumptions by measuring student transformation in management classes that emphasize critical reflection and in other (...) classes that emphasize praxis. We find no significant differences in three measures of student transformation in classes where only critical reflection is emphasized, but significant differences in all three measures when praxis is emphasized. In a content analysis of student praxis assignments, we find further evidence of the link between praxis and student transformation. Specifically, the majority of students value praxis, describe changes in their self-understanding/consciousness thanks to assignments that emphasize praxis, and plan to continue new behaviors that address concerns raised by critiques of problematic systems and structures. Finally, we find that the greater a student’s self-described effect of praxis, the greater that student’s transformation. Taken together, the results suggest that the practical application dimension of praxis is a key “missing ingredient” in the teaching of business ethics as students move from critically reflecting on ethical issues, to actually becoming transformed by their knowledge. (shrink)

In this paper James’s pluralism is examined in light of his critiques of ‘intellectualism’ and monistic idealism in order to elucidate his relationship to Hegel. Contrary to the strong anti-Hegelianism found throughout the writings of James, Hegel’s dialectic and speculative logic are able to give a rational account of the continuity of objects and relations within experience that James struggled to articulate in A Pluralistic Universe. Neither James nor Hegel is an absolute pluralist or monist due to the interdependence of (...) the concepts of unity and plurality, aptly described by Hegel in his Logic, and alluded to by James in various places throughout his work. Thus, the ambiguity of the nature of James’s pluralism previously noted by scholars is explained, and the relevance of Hegel and dialectic for pragmatist theory is elucidated. (shrink)

The role and ethics of professionals in business and economics have been questioned, especially after the financial crisis of 2008. Some suggest a reorientation using concepts such as craftsmanship. In this article, I will explore professional practices within the context of behavioural theory and business ethics. I suggest that scholars of behavioural theory need a strategy to deal with normative questions to meet their ambition of practical relevance. Evidence-based management, a recent behavioural approach, may assist business ethics scholars in understanding (...) how professionals infer ‘evidence’ to make decisions. For a professional, ethical issues are an integral part of decision-making at critical moments. As reflective practitioners, they develop insights related to ethical concerns when collecting and assessing evidence within decision-making processes. (shrink)

A central debate in the conspiracy theory research concerns how to understand conspiracy theories in a theoretically fruitful way given our research interest to study the nature of such theories and those who believe in them. However, far from settling on one account, this is still an on-going dispute in which researchers take widely different positions. For instance, while some argue for a purely descriptive understanding, others seem strongly committed to the view that conspiracy theories are, or can be shown (...) to be, inherently irrational. In an attempt to reconstruct this controversy, I argue that the disagreement arises because there are in fact two distinct motives underlying scholarly studies in the field: to attain objective knowledge of the phenomena in question versus to defend beliefs and norms that are part of the researcher’s own cultural context. This paper examines the epistemological and methodological challenges in the study of conspiracy theories, focusing on how competing frameworks—normative cultural biases versus objective scientific inquiry—shape our understanding of rational belief. I argue, finally, that if the motive is to attain objective knowledge, there is no serious alternative to the descriptive understanding of conspiracy theories. (shrink)