Search results

One of the central concerns of sociologists of science has been the significance attached to received scientific collectivities such as the `discipline' and `specialty'. This has ranged from implicit acceptance of their centrality in scientific practice, to a rejection based on the identification of such collectivities as constructs of minimal significance to scientific work. This paper investigates the significance of collectivities in respect to solar energy research in Australia. On the basis of this study it is argued that the significance of received collectivities has been exaggerated; they do influence the way the researcher's world is perceived and organized, but this contribution is made within a network of multiple, overlapping and often—at the margins—vaguely defined collectivities.

Abstract

We pick up a current challenge in the change management literature — whether change can be managed. The answer to this question depends upon the underlying image one has of both managing and change.


We develop a model based upon two images of managing (management as controlling; management as shaping) and three images of change outcomes (intended, partially intended and unintended).


From this we identify six views on managing change: directing, navigating, caretaking, coaching, interpreting and nurturing.


We outline different theories associated with each of these views.


Theorists and practitioners hold differing images of what 'managing change' actually means — which leads them to talk past each other when attempting to engage in dialogue around how change can be managed.

Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Sensegiving constitutes a key process in the management of strategic change. Often this takes the form of narratives that provide a portrayal of events surrounding the change. This article reports the findings of research into the strategic change narratives that emerged in three organizations in which the senior management were seeking to respond to deregulation of the economy in which they were operating. The results illustrate both the existence of such narratives and the variation in form that they can take.

The concept of `new organizational forms' has been with us for over 20 years, but little attention has been given to the diverse assumptions underlying various researchers' use of this term. We identify five areas where different assumptions are in use, underpinned by a variety of theoretical perspectives. We urge scholars to engage in a generative dialogue about new organizational forms across theoretical perspectives. The aim of a generative dialogue is to identify where areas of agreement about new organizational forms can be achieved and where differences can be accepted and respected.

Preface -- Groundwork : understanding and diagnosing change -- Managing change : stories and paradoxes -- Images of change management -- Why change? : contemporary drivers and pressures -- What to change? : a diagnostic approach -- Implementation : the substance and process of change -- What changes (and what doesn?t)? : current concerns and developments -- Learning objectives -- Vision and the direction of change -- Change communication strategies -- Resistance to change -- Organization development and sense-making approaches -- Change management, processual, and contingency approaches -- Running threads : sustainability, and the effective change manager -- Sustaining change versus initiative decay -- The effective change manager : what does it take? -- Index

This article examines economic and legal constraints that determine whose losses are included in natural resource damages as a result of an oil spill or hazardous‐substance release. For example, the article describes the circumstances under which use losses experienced by young children would not be included in natural resource damages. With respect to nonuse damages, the article advocates excluding the expressed losses of people who have no knowledge of the specific natural resources affected by a spill/release and who are unaware that the natural resources were injured. In the absence of such knowledge and awareness, these people could not have experienced a welfare loss. Finally, the article discusses legal constraints on whose losses count in natural resource damages with respect to statutory exclusions, public versus private uses of natural resources, uses of natural resources by foreigners, and damages in the absence of injuries.