Search

Introduction While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions. Method We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2). Results Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated. Discussion This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

Although attitudes are often considered positive or negative evaluations, people often have both positive and negative associations with a target object or issue, and when people are ambivalent, they are typically presumed to find the experience aversive because they are motivated to hold clear, univalent attitudes. Cross-cultural research, however, has shown cultural variation in the propensity for dialectical thinking, which is characterized by a tolerance for contradiction. Two studies examined the role of dialectical thinking tendencies in the occurrence of attitudinal ambivalence and how much people subjectively experience their state of ambivalence. Study 1 measured individual differences in dialectical thinking within a culture, and Study 2 compared participants across two cultures (United States and Taiwan) that differ in dialecticism. Across studies, greater dialectical thinking was associated with holding both positive and negative evaluations of the same topic (objective ambivalence) and weaker correlations between objective ambivalence and subjective reports of being conflicted (subjective ambivalence).

Bias is an ambiguous term, defined in different ways. In conventional usage, it indicates unwarranted prejudice. However, in health research, the notion that bias is invariably bad is biased. Although research bias is an error that is always harmful, researcher bias is a tendency to think in a particular way that may obscure or illuminate attempts to address research questions. Researcher bias begins with pre-judgements whose continuing evaluation infuses the subjectivity of researchers as persons who are socially situated in health sciences focusing on human subjects. Two sets of conditions can make this bias in health researchers useful. The first is volume control. Researchers can vary the loudness of their own and other voices in different research environments. The second condition is smart working. It balances researcher bias against analytic thinking to work creatively with irregularity and uncertainty. Thus, health researchers need to bring their biases to consciousness. A dialectical approach can then engage the biases as conversational partners to innovate health policy that is informed by principles including transparency, good faith and tolerance. Less critical than whether researchers are biased is whose interests their bias serves given their positionality and role.

This study investigates the dialectical relationship between authenticity and alienation in intangible cultural heritage (ICH) tourism studies, based on an evaluation of the role cultural values play in the provision of tourism in China. Data were obtained via a multi-phase, mixed-method project derived from specific respondents. An examination of chorus tourism performances in the Zhaoxing Dong Villages allows for insight into the subjective authenticity of the practitioners of ICH performances. The study has implications for tourism marketing that seeks to understand the authenticity issues on the supply side of ICH tourism.

In challenging the 'validity' of the body mass index (BMI), the construct of metabolic syndrome has been used to comprehend how obesity affects Japanese people. This article is grounded in an adaptation of the 'sexual scripting theory' (Gagnon and Simon, 2005) and proposes the concept of 'ethno-essentialisms of the self' to explore the cultural scripts underpinning the development of metabolic syndrome. Ethno-essentialisms of the self indicate a dialectical relationship between a Japanese healthy self and a non-Japanese unhealthy Other, where ethno-racial susceptibilities might make a Japanese self prone to develop metabolic-related diseases. Despite these susceptibilities, Japanese 'biopedagogy' (Wright, 2009) to control bodyweight is oriented by a proper daily calculation of food consumption in relation to calorie-burning. Biopedagogy in the form of food and nutrition education has largely translated into unyielding efforts to (re)traditionalise eating habits to prevent the supposed Westernisation of Japanese food. Overall, medical knowledge serves to propagate ethno-essentialisms of the self, whose unintended consequence could be 'clinical iatrogenic disease' (Illich, 1976).

This essay reconstructs the place of Marx’s thought within Adorno’s writings from his 1931 inaugural lecture to his famous 1962 seminar on Marx. It focuses on three areas: the critique and transformation of philosophy; the sociology of the commodification of art; and the social ontology of the objectivity of illusions, derived from the critique of political economy. Adorno, it argues, ended his academic life significantly more of a Marxist than he had entered it, leaving a legacy that was distinctive both for its dialectical appropriation of Marx’s critique – and suspended supersession – of philosophy and for its philosophical interpretation of Marx’s critique of political economy.

Laudato Si’ contains a prophetic vision of what time is and is for. It challenges development organisations to think critically about the way they conceive ‘progress’, the way they measure their ‘success’. In doing so, it invites them to ask how they express in their activity a particular conception of the meaning of time. This paper argues that Laudato Si’ proposes a vision of time which is theological, teleological, dialectical and contemplative, and that it is this vision which underpins its contrast between true and false notions of progress. The paper seeks to articulate a foundation for the formulation of authentic ‘measures of success’ that are expressive of this understanding of time, and to imagine what the organisational implications of such measures might be.

The concept of powerful knowledge (PK) has central dichotomies and contradictions, which this article questions. The origins, meaning, purpose and reality of PK are considered. PK is based in social realism, and the article suggests how critical realism could inform more illuminating analyses of knowledge and power. The two versions of realism are compared for their different approaches to dichotomies and dialectic, and to types of knowledge as sacred or profane. The dichotomies assumed in PK theory, which will be reviewed, are: separating concepts from values; informal everyday experience versus formal academic education; separating disciplines versus interdisciplinarity; passive versus active learning and curriculum versus pedagogy; and policies versus theories of power and knowledge. The article concludes that these dichotomies are unrealistic and unhelpful. If teaching informed by PK theory is to benefit students and society, and if knowledge is to be associated with power, it will be helpful to overcome or revoke the dichotomies, which are better understood through dialectical analysis, as shown throughout the article.

Recent articles critical of the use of context in contextual intellectual history have identified contextual method with the post-1960s work of the “Cambridge School,” which is regarded as being grounded in a flawed theory of textual interpretation. Focusing on German cultural and political history, this article shows that a contextual historiography was already fully developed in seventeenth-century ecclesiastical history, and a parallel version of this approach had developed in the field of constitutional history. The modern critique of context emerged only with the appearance of dialectical philosophical history in the first decades of the nineteenth century. The article argues that rather than representing a scholarly engagement with contextual historiography, the central plank of the dialectical critique of contextualism—the notion that contextual explication of thought is insufficient because context itself has transcendental conditions—is actually a cultural-political attack on it launched on behalf of a hostile and incommensurable academic culture.

Drawing on papers from three different areas - evolutionary psychology, developmental psychology, sociolinguistics analysis - this commentary states that there is by now an empirically grounded and theoretically reflected memory research that has begun to break with the traditional individual-centric orientation of the memory sciences. This break, it is argued, is the consequence of a new interest in the dialectics between memory and language, between social (or collective or collaborative) remembering and narrative. On this view, memory is taken less as a substance and more as a set of practices, of intersubjective and interpretive acts of a remembering subject.

Biocultural anthropology has long represented an important approach in the study of human biology. However, despite demonstrated utility, its somewhat amorphous identity leaves some scholars questioning just what it means to be biocultural. In this article, rather than providing proscriptive doctrine, we contribute to these conversations about the nature of biocultural anthropology by considering what biocultural research does. We begin with a consideration of some of the foundational themes of biocultural work including recognition of the dialectical nature of sociocultural and biological forces, interest in inequality, and incorporation of both evolutionary and political economic perspectives. To emphasize the consistency of biocultural work over time, we also trace these themes from originating work to their appearance in current research. We then identify some of the key actions of the biocultural approach, noting that biocultural work can execute any number though rarely all of these actions simultaneously. We then offer brief introductions to the articles that make up this special issue, highlighting the ways in which each piece undertakes key biocultural actions. Following these introductions, we provide a discussion of some of the types of biocultural work that are not present in this special issue, recognizing the breadth of biocultural research across multiple subfields of anthropology. Finally, we point to some potentially fruitful directions for future biocultural research. In the end, we conclude that while biocultural anthropology may not have a cohesive or set agenda, it does have a clear and recognizable form of content and methodology illuminated by its actions.

Paradox theory enables management research to replace either/or thinking with more integrative both/and approaches. Despite this achievement, greater theoretical complexity is needed to account for paradoxical tensions’ intricacies. We use dialectics theory to unpack the learning processes through which organizational members and collectives build their capacity to understand and cope with complex tensions over time. Building on these insights, we develop a paradox process model that resembles a learning spiral, in which organizations move through stages of convergence and divergence. During the convergence stages, they learn about and refine their current worldviews by constantly moving between the tension’s poles. During the divergence stages, they move beyond dynamic equilibrium to reach a higher understanding of tensions and their management. While organizations caught in equilibrium are prone to stasis and demise, those that move beyond equilibrium can achieve sustainability.

This paper offers new theoretical contributions and practical knowledge to existing leadership theories. Through a detailed study of the major corporation SoftBank, a Japanese company achieving business innovation at a global level in recent years, and insights gained on the leadership for organizational adaptability of practitioners driving strategic innovation, this paper presents a framework for ‘holistic leadership’ with a fractal nature as a complex adaptive system. In the three ‘practice layers’ of the ‘formal organizational layer’, ‘psychological boundary layer (adaptive space)’ and the ‘informal organizational layer’, practitioners (in the three management layers of top management, middle management and staff) dynamically use ‘centralized leadership’, ‘dialectical leadership’ and ‘distributed leadership’ and combine them depending on the situation, to achieve a balance between various contradictory elements such as the ‘tug‐of‐war between efficiency and creativity’, and demonstrate organizational adaptability. Through an in‐depth case study, this paper illustrates that holistic leadership in modern companies is a source of business innovation. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.