Dialectics and difference: against Harvey's dialectical post-Marxism

David Harvey`s recent book, Justice, nature and the geography of difference (JNGD), engages with a central philosophical debate that continues to dominate human geography: the tension between the radical Marxist project of recent decades and the apparently disempowering relativism and `play of difference' of postmodern thought. In this book, Harvey continues to argue for a revised `post-Marxist' approach in human geography which remains based on Hegelian-Marxian principles of dialectical thought. This article develops a critique of that stance, drawing on the work of Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari. I argue that dialectical thinking, as well as Harvey's version of `post-Marxism', has been undermined by the wide-ranging `post-' critique. I suggest that Harvey has failed to appreciate the full force of this critique and the implications it has for `post-Marxist' ontology and epistemology. I argue that `post-Marxism', along with much contemporary human geography, is constrained by an inflexible ontology which excessively prioritizes space in the theory produced, and which implements inflexible concepts. Instead, using the insights of several `post-' writers, I contend there is a need to develop an ontology of `context' leading to the production of `contextual theories'. Such theories utilize flexible concepts in a multilayered understanding of ontology and epistemology. I compare how an approach which produces a `contextual theory' might lead to more politically empowering theory than `post-Marxism' with reference to one of Harvey's case studies in JNGD

Looking for complication: The case of management education

This paper argues that in face of the changes occurring in the organizational world, management education should consider the need to rethink some of its premises and adapt to the new times. The need to complicate management learning due to increased complication in competitive landscapes, is analyzed. Four possibilities of addressing organizational topics in a complicated way are contrasted: the vertical, horizontal, hypertextual, and dialectical approaches. The promises of the dialectical approach are particularly stressed as a more demanding and potentially enriching path for the creation of knowledge about organizations. The test of the four approaches in a group of undergraduate students provides some preliminary data for analyzing the strenghts and weaknesses of our proposal.

A discussion game for the grounded semantics of abstract dialectical frameworks

Abstract dialectical frameworks (ADFs) have been introduced as formalism for the modeling and evaluating argumentation. However, the role of discussion in evaluating of arguments in ADFs has not been clarified well so far. We focus on the grounded semantics of ADFs and provide the grounded discussion game. We show that an argument is acceptable (deniable) in the grounded interpretation of an ADF without any redundant links if and only if the proponent of a claim has a winning strategy in the grounded discussion game

Myths of a Near Past: Envisioning Finance Capitalism anno 2007

This paper seeks to extend earlier work on particular features and manifestations of capitalism (De Cock et al., 2001). Our 2001 Myths of a Near Future paper offered ephemera readers a large depository of images concerning the New Economy. Eight years later our focus has shifted to Finance Capitalism. Over the course of the year 2007 we cut out and scanned 81 ads placed by financial institutions in the Financial Times. Our analysis of these aims to provide a sense of how the financial world ?showed up? in this pivotal year, whilst illustrating how its representations were interwoven with fantasy throughout. We also hope that the ensemble of images associated with the paper will be creatively reassembled by its readers and possibly provide a useful teaching aid

Evaluating the successful implementation of evidence into practice using the PARiHS framework : theoretical and practical challenges

Background The PARiHS framework (Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services) has proved to be a useful practical and conceptual heuristic for many researchers and practitioners in framing their research or knowledge translation endeavours. However, as a conceptual framework it still remains untested and therefore its contribution to the overall development and testing of theory in the field of implementation science is largely unquantified. Discussion This being the case, the paper provides an integrated summary of our conceptual and theoretical thinking so far and introduces a typology (derived from social policy analysis) used to distinguish between the terms conceptual framework, theory and model – important definitional and conceptual issues in trying to refine theoretical and methodological approaches to knowledge translation. Secondly, the paper describes the next phase of our work, in particular concentrating on the conceptual thinking and mapping that has led to the generation of the hypothesis that the PARiHS framework is best utilised as a two-stage process: as a preliminary (diagnostic and evaluative) measure of the elements and sub-elements of evidence (E) and context (C), and then using the aggregated data from these measures to determine the most appropriate facilitation method. The exact nature of the intervention is thus determined by the specific actors in the specific context at a specific time and place. In the process of refining this next phase of our work, we have had to consider the wider issues around the use of theories to inform and shape our research activity; the ongoing challenges of developing robust and sensitive measures; facilitation as an intervention for getting research into practice; and finally to note how the current debates around evidence into practice are adopting wider notions that fit innovations more generally. Summary The paper concludes by suggesting that the future direction of the work on the PARiHS framework is to develop a two-stage diagnostic and evaluative approach, where the intervention is shaped and moulded by the information gathered about the specific situation and from participating stakeholders. In order to expedite the generation of new evidence and testing of emerging theories, we suggest the formation of an international research implementation science collaborative that can systematically collect and analyse experiences of using and testing the PARiHS framework and similar conceptual and theoretical approaches. We also recommend further refinement of the definitions around conceptual framework, theory, and model, suggesting a wider discussion that embraces multiple epistemological and ontological perspectives

Integrating defeasible argumentation and machine learning techniques : Preliminary report

The field of machine learning (ML) is concerned with the question of how to construct algorithms that automatically improve with experience. In recent years many successful ML applications have been developed, such as datamining programs, information-filtering systems, etc. Although ML algorithms allow the detection and extraction of interesting patterns of data for several kinds of problems, most of these algorithms are based on quantitative reasoning, as they rely on training data in order to infer so-called target functions. In the last years defeasible argumentation has proven to be a sound setting to formalize common-sense qualitative reasoning. This approach can be combined with other inference techniques, such as those provided by machine learning theory. In this paper we outline different alternatives for combining defeasible argumentation and machine learning techniques. We suggest how different aspects of a generic argumentbased framework can be integrated with other ML-based approaches.Eje: Inteligencia artificialRed de Universidades con Carreras en Informática (RedUNCI