From laboratory to praxis: communities of philosophical inquiry as a model of (and for) social activism

This article discusses the conditions under which dialogical learner-researchers can move out of the philosophical laboratory of a community of philosophical inquiry into the field of social activism, engaging in a critical and creative examination of society and seeking to change it. Based on Matthew Lipman’s proposal that communities of philosophical inquiry can serve as a model of social activism in the present, it presents the community of philosophical inquiry as a model for social activism in the future. In other words, Lipman’s central ideas in his earlier and later thought—including meaning as a mode of action, relevance as a way of examining life and stimulating influence for change as a form of creating a democratic society—establish two parallel circle of influence: the present time, in the shape of the philosophical community of inquiry that allows activist skills to be honed, and a social space that extends into the future as a forum for applying principles and bettering society. Finally, this paper adduces several forms of social activism that may be anchored in philosophical awareness of real conditions and their contexts. Through them, the community of philosophical inquiry not only constitutes a place in which young people’s thought processes can be developed but also one in which they can aspire to become activists in various areas

The Widening and Deepening of Innovation Policy: What Conditions Provide for Effective Governance?

In relation to the gradual and steady introduction of the systemic perspective and of new public management techniques in innovation policy-making during the past decade, many countries in the developed and developing world have been substantially widening and deepening their innovation policies. The introduction of new and more sophisticated policy instruments (deepening) has been accompanied by an expansion of the realm of action for innovation policy (widening). The main argument of this paper is that this remarkable governmental activism and experimentalism raises important analytical questions about the conditions under which innovation policy contributes to an effective governance of the innovation system. Hence, this paper has two main purposes. Firstly, it characterises in an unambiguous way the widening and deepening trends in innovation policy, problematising their possible effects on governance. And, secondly, it develops an analytical toolbox based on a series of theoretical assumptions about the political conditions for effective governance of innovation systems.Innovation Policy; Innovation System; Governmental Activism; Governmental Experimentalism

A Primer On Collective Entrepreneurship: A Preliminary Taxonomy

We document an increasing prevalence of the term ―collective entrepreneurship‖ in scholarly research. By examining the context in which the term is utilized, we present a framework through which to understand motivations for research in collective entrepreneurship and the variety of entrepreneurial endeavors described as collective entrepreneurship. We identify five primary motivations for research: advancement of theory, intra-organizational efficiency, inter-organizational gains, economic growth and development, and socio-political change. We find preliminary evidence collective entrepreneurs may be able to generate rents inaccessible to the sole entrepreneur. In addition, we propose mechanisms which foster entrepreneurship may differ for sole and collective entrepreneurs.International Relations/Trade,

A Critical Review of Contemporary Practice in Internationalisation in the Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism (HLST) Subject Communities

This report identifies and critically reviews contemporary practice in the field of internationalisation within the HLST subject communities in order to inform curriculum development and pedagogy geared towards the development of international perspectives and global awareness. Drawing on current pedagogical literatures as well as staff and student consultations, it identifies a number of key points which reflect good practice in UK HLST curricula in the UK. Due to the broad disciplinary scope of the subject area in focus and the diversity of curricular activities across the UK, this critical review is selective rather than exhaustive and seeks to stimulate further discussion and research into this area

Undecidability and the urban: Feminist pathways through urban political economy

There is a well established body of feminist scholarship critiquing the methodological and epistemological limits of an “objective” view from nowhere in urban research and political economy frameworks. Recent developments, such as the planetary urbanization thesis, have reignited feminist efforts to counter patriarchal, colonial, and hegemonic ways of knowing. Here, we recount our frustrations with the reproduction of dominant political economic modes of “knowing” urban processes such as gentrification and culture-led regeneration in research that seeks to uncover the production of neoliberal spaces and subjectivities. We argue that this narrow approach forecloses the possibility of observing or working with radical world-making projects that stand outside of traditional understandings of the political. Thus, we heed our feminist colleagues’ call to foreground the undecidability of the urban, allowing ourselves and our subjects to express uncertainty about the causes, outcomes, and impacts of urban processes. In what follows, we share short research vignettes from our projects in Toronto and Glasgow and discuss the implications of forging unexpected solidarities, engaging in embodied, participatory knowledge production, and reading urban politics off of persistent, uncertain, under-the-radar projects. We maintain that working from a position of undecidability yields greater potential for renewing our political imaginations beyond neoliberalism

Bridging the activist-academic divide: feminist activism and the teaching of global politics

Our starting point in this article is the widespread belief that academia and activism are separate worlds, driven by contrasting aims and imperatives and governed by different rules. Such a view is based on a series of takenfor-granted and highly problematic ontological dichotomies, including mind/body, theory/practice, reason/emotion, abstract/concrete and ‘ivory tower’/ ‘real world’. Perhaps most fundamentally, these serve to set up thinking and reflecting in opposition to doing or acting. Thus in both activist and academic characterisations of what it is that they do, we find the frequent assumption that academics theorise and write, while for activists ‘action is the life of all and if thou dost not act, thou dost nothing’; academics exercise their cognitive skills, while activists are animated by passion; academics are impartial commentators on the world while activists are partisan, polemical advocates; academics work in elite institutions while activists are embedded in the everyday, ‘on the streets’ or at ‘the grassroots’

Taking great pains: critical theory, affective pedagogies and radical democracy

The consolidation of neoliberal capitalism over the past decade has been intense, as has the articulation of critical and creative responses to it. One of the most remarkable is the turn towards forms of political resistance that seek liberation from the logics of state and capital while – or through – simultaneously creating alternative, radically democratic modes of existence. Many of these draw on anarchistic and autonomist traditions of critical theory which assert the possibility of prefiguring alternative political projects as well as critiquing existing ones, thus appearing to transcend what Herbert Marcuse described as a ‘vicious circle’ of liberation (1964, 1967). We have thus seen a proliferation of work on problems of prefigurative politics, autonomy, co-operation and self-valorisation; significantly, there is renewed attention to pedagogy in critical theory and as a political practice. However, there is still little attention to the affective and social labour that this type of prefigurative theory and practice requires, or to the systemic critique of the conditions of possibility for it to constitute a challenge to neoliberalism. My concern is that these lacunae can lead to misinterpretations of the meaning of radical democracy and of its possibilities and limitations as a challenge to the logics of neoliberal capitalism and other forms of dehumanising power. In this paper, I draw on work with British-based cultural workers who are active in radical-democratic projects to illustrate how bringing practical work into conversation with critical theories of political subjectivity, on the one hand, and theories of affective pedagogy and politics, on the other, can contribute to strengthening both theories and practices of radical democracy

Performing New Worlds? policy, politics and creative labour in hard times

This paper addresses the theme of this special issue by offering critical reflections on public policy in the current period of cuts, austerity and retrenchment, while also offering pathways towards future possibilities. It explores current strategies of divestment, design and decentralisation, assessing the scope within each for creative enactments and alternative pathways. It then explores ‘public-making’ as a means of countering the affective consequences of austerity, and traces some of the numerous forms ‘border work’ at stake in attempts to mitigate its consequences. Finally the paper explores the troubled relationship between progressive policy enactments and neoliberal appropriations

Organizing otherwise: translating anarchism in a voluntary sector organization

Although foundational texts in Critical Management Studies (CMS) pointed to the empirical significance of anarchism as an inspiration for alternative ways of organizing (Burrell, 1992), relatively little work of substance has been undertaken within CMS to explore how anarchists organize or how anarchist principles of organization might fare in other contexts. This paper addresses this gap by reporting on the experiences of a UK Voluntary Sector Organization (VSO) seeking to adopt non-hierarchical working practices inspired by anarchism. The paper analyses this process of organizational change by examining how ideas and practices are translated and transformed as they travel from one context (direct action anarchism) to another (the voluntary sector). Whilst the onset of austerity and funding cuts created the conditions of possibility for this change, it was the discursive translation of 'anarchism' into 'non-hierarchical organizing' that enabled these ideas to take hold. The concept of 'non-hierarchical' organization constituted an open space that was defined by negation and therefore capable of containing a multiplicity of meanings. Rather than having to explicitly embrace anarchism, members were able to find common ground on what they did not want (hierarchy) and create a discursive space for democratically determining what might replace it

Co-designing for common values:creating hybrid spaces to nurture autonomous cooperation

This paper concerns the development of digitally-mediated technologies that value social cooperation as a common good rather than as a source of revenue and accumulation. The paper discusses the activities that shaped a European participatory design project which aims to develop a digital space that promotes and facilitates the ‘Commonfare’, a complementary approach to social welfare. The paper provides and discusses concrete examples of design artifacts to address a key question about the role of co- and participatory design in developing hybrid spaces that nurture sharing and autonomous cooperation: how can co-design practices promote alternatives to the commodification of digitally-mediated cooperation? The paper argues for a need to focus on relational, social, political and ethical values, and highlights the potential power of co- and participatory design processes to achieve this. In summary, the paper proposes that only by re-asserting the centrality of shared values and capacities, rather than individual needs or problems, co-design can reposition itself thereby encouraging autonomous cooperation