Search

Abstract: In this essay, we approach the question of what it means for something to be symbolic in a different way from the usual answers rooted in philosophy, sociology or anthropology: we argue that the symbolic is, first and foremost, rooted in human biology and human evolution. We discuss how the development of the capability to create and share symbols was a key moment in human evolution that underpins our capability to communicate and store knowledge through language, to think abstractly about problems, and to live and work together effectively in large groups. It also underpins the unique ecological niche – the cognitive niche – that Homo sapiens construct using our capability to create and share symbols. We go on to explore some of the implications of an evolutionary understanding of the symbolic for management and organization research.

The article explores the impact of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) on critical thinking in the business classroom. It acknowledges the potential benefits of GenAI for learning, but also highlights the challenges it poses to traditional teaching methods. The article emphasizes the importance of both individual and social critical thinking skills in response to GenAI, and calls for further research on the relationship between GenAI and critical thinking in management education. It concludes by emphasizing the increased importance of developing critical thinking skills in the era of artificial intelligence. [Extracted from the article]

This article explores the importance of adopting a social-ecological approach to management learning and education (MLE) in response to the ecological crisis and climate emergency. It acknowledges the severe consequences of these crises and emphasizes the interconnectedness between the environment, society, and business. The article argues that while MLE has contributed to exacerbating these issues in the past, it also has the potential to address them. It calls for a transformation of MLE to prioritize the well-being of both humans and the environment, and suggests areas of inquiry to foster the development of a social-ecological approach. Additionally, the article highlights the need for management educators and business school leaders to take action and incorporate social-ecological approaches into their teaching and research. [Extracted from the article]

The article presents a response to a study entitled "Competitive Advantages Through Artificial Intelligence: Toward a Theory of Situated AI," published by Ayenda Kemp. The author argues that Kemp's theory regarding the means through which artificial intelligence can promote competitive advantage does not take into account that pursuing AI could likewise have the opposite effect on competitive advantage. The article argues that Kemp's theory does not take into account certain factors, such as the impact AI has on social values, the impact AI has on the nature of the work process itself, and the potential for “algorithmic inertia” whereby the AI may lack the ability to adapt to environmental changes in a dynamic way.

With handwriting being limitedly taught in schools; high intensity, summer handwriting camps may resolve the numerous handwriting rehabilitation referrals of school-aged children. To improve handwriting, a 5-day (3-hr/daily session) summer camp was created for children (ages 5-9 years old). Thirty children (ages 5-9) were given manuscript instruction and 16 children (ages 7-9) were given cursive instruction. Handwriting was assessed via the Test of Handwriting Skills: Bus (letter recall) and Horse (letter formation) subtests. Participants' manuscript and cursive skills significantly improved (p < 0.05) and the subtests positively correlated post intervention (p < 0.05). Thus, a high intensity, 5-day handwriting camp may improve handwriting skills.

This article starts from the premise that human judgment is intrinsically linked with learning and adaptation in complex sociotechnological environments. Under the illusory veneer of retaining control over algorithmic reckoning, we are concerned that algorithmic reckoning may substitute human judgment in decision-making and thereby change morality in fundamental, perhaps irreversible ways. We present an ontological critique of artificially intelligent algorithms to show what is going on “under their hood,” especially in cases when human morality is already co-constituted with algorithmic reckoning. We advance a twofold call for (in)action. First, we offer a call for inaction as far as the substitution of judgment for reckoning through our teaching in business schools and beyond is concerned. Second, we advance a reinvigorated call for action—in particular, to teach more pragmatist judgment in our curricula across subjects to foster social life (rather than stifle it through algorithmic reckoning). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review argues that the role of technology in business and society debates has predominantly been examined from the limited, narrow perspective of technology as instrumental, and that two additional but relatively neglected perspectives are important: technology as value-laden and technology as relationally agentic. Technology has always been part of the relationship between business and society, for better and worse. However, as technological development is frequently advanced as a solution to many pressing societal problems and grand challenges, it is imperative that technology is understood and analyzed in a more nuanced, critical, and comprehensive way. The two additional perspectives invite a broader research agenda, one that includes questions, such as "Which values and whose interests has technology come to emulate?"; "How do these values and interests play out in stabilizing the status quo?"; and, importantly, "How can it be contested, disrupted, and changed?" Any research that endorses green, sustainable, environmental, or climate mitigating technologies potentially contributes to maintaining the very thing that it seeks to change if questions such as these are not being addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper looks at 21 years of data on doctoral degrees granted across the US and compares agricultural economics to economics and other fields. While the percentage of doctoral degrees awarded to Blacks is generally higher than that in economics, both the percent and the number of Blacks completing their degrees have decreased slightly over time in agricultural economics. The number and percent of doctoral degrees across all fields awarded to Black students increased over the same period. The paper also reviews studies related to diversity in the economics and agricultural economics professions and discusses possible reasons for the disparities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]