Toward a Constructivist Framework

“Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education.” Journal of Higher Education, Lueddeke, G.R., (1999), Vol. 70 Issue 3, pp. 235-260.

The Article

Higher education faces many challenges both domestic and international. Lueddeke (1999) notes the challenges that institutions will face within the next decade, where there “appear to be few useful models to help guide the process,” to discuss what the author suggests is a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education (pp. 239). The author defines from multiple perspectives academic culture and decision-making and some current models for higher educational organizational theory.  Among these models are the four different kinds of institutional cultures from Birnbaum’s How Colleges Work, four frames of organization from Bolman and Deal’s Reframing Organizations, and the four cultures of university organization from Bergquists’ The Four Cultures of the Academy. The author discusses related literature for each of the constructs for analyzing postsecondary organization and administration. The three major theoretical frames utilized in the literatures define and develop their models for understanding institutions accordingly:

Birnbaum	Bolman and Deal	Bergquist
Collegial Institution Bureaucratic Institution Political Institution Anarchical Institution	Structural Frame Human Resource Political Frame Symbolic Frame	Collegial Culture Managerial Culture Developmental Culture Negotiating Culture

After discussion of the literature, Luedekke (1999) defines the purpose of the article to provide a rationale for different types of change strategies, building upon the analytical models – or lack thereof – for theory development in organization and administration. Where institutions in the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada have promoted need for more efficient processes of change, the author defines the difference between adaptive and generative processes of change. Discussing the challenge to improving teaching and instruction, the article then provides perspective into identifying and selecting criterion for models of change. Making use of the literatures discussed, the author emphasizes the need to incorporate specific dimensions for effective and efficient change, including (1) the praxis of theory and practice, (2) collegial collaboration, (3) the capacity to adapt to contextual circumstances, (4) reflexivity, (5) credibility, (6) ability to adjust to the unknown, and (7) a framework for evaluation (Luedekke, 1999, p. 244-246).  Following detail on the influences that characterize the discussed factors for facilitating change as correlated to a “constructivist” school of organizational change, Lueddeke (1999) defines in discussion an Adaptive-Generative Development Model (A-GDM). The author maintains the model is an integrated model, whereby focusing on the dual nature of adaptation, the model for analysis provides the means to increase “the institution’s or individual’s capacity to create solutions to increasingly complex problems” (pp. 239-240, 247). A-GDM thus emphasizes and is itself defined by (1) needs based analysis, (2) research and development, (3) strategy formation and development, (4) research support, (5) implementation and dissemination, and finally (6) evaluation.

Offering reflective questions to guide the selection and implementation of an efficient model for change and innovation through A-GDM, the author discusses the use of the model in practice by providing examples of the reframing of organization and management with institutions in Canada and the United Kingdom. According to the author, research undertaken at a university in Australia provides valuable results and a foundation for continued research, though it is “too early to tell whether the policy will have a long-term impact on the overall quality of teaching” (Lueddeke, 1999, pp. 256). The author concludes by suggesting that higher education faces a climate of uncertainty and reiterates preparation for change. While there is some skepticism over the theoretical models as discussed, there remains a real gap between theory and practice.  The conclusive point of the article is that there is the need to bridge the gap in order to provide a means by which to guide policy and decision-making in the governance and organization of institutions of higher education.

Reflection

The article is one that really piqued my interests in studying the area of higher education while working on my degree in political science. I recognized the need to develop theory to improve upon industrial age and classical assumptions of science in political theory were also true of other areas of study, including – and perhaps even more so – with the organization and management of higher education. An approach to change for higher education cannot risk basis on trends and in-vogue popular management. There is not necessarily so much the need to view the ideas and theory of the past as obsolete as there is a need to develop them for a contemporary context and allow them to evolve. The author provides a valuable article for developing research in the area of higher educational organization and administration. It is a good theoretical framework upon which to build applied research.

Many of the ideas provided by the author are agreeable, particularly the need for theory development and the lack of a guide by which higher education can efficiently adapt. My articles on theory development might seem repetitive.  Nonetheless, the necessity of such theory to manage complex systems in a rapidly changing world cannot be underestimated where we continue to fail to attain the wisdom of the old cliché and actually “learn from history.”  The article accomplishes a lot. Further work would benefit from perspectives in organizational psychology. It would help to define what the author means by a “constructivist” organizational theory (as organizational theory does not entirely think in terms of the constructivist/behaviorist dichotomy - though it's a good idea and sounds good to me as I've tried to do the same). How another school of thought might approach change would develop awareness of the interdependence between frames, including how external forces might contribute to the potential need for, and determine the selection of models. So much more could be said about this article, its promise and the valuable directions it provides. But, I do not anticipate beginning my dissertation on a website at the present moment.

Uncovering the Levels of Culture

Schein, E. “Uncovering the Levels of Culture.” Chapter Two, Organizational Culture and Leadership (1992), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Book Chapter

In chapter three of Organizational Culture and Leadership, Schein (1992) analyzes organizational culture at three levels, including (1) the surface level of organizational artifacts as they provide insights into (2) a second level of espoused organizational values and ultimately (3) the basic assumptions from which an organization operates. The chapter defines organizational artifacts as physical artifacts such as the architecture, the general items and objects that “lead to an identification of major images and root metaphors that reflect the deepest level of the culture” (as cited in Schein, 1992, p. 18). Artifacts include everything belonging to the physical environment from technology to stories about the organization, the same as with the artifacts that one might encounter in experiencing an unfamiliar culture.  From which, as with the author's example of Egyptian and Mayan arhaeology, the artifacts are not readily deciphered and interpreted by themselves. Where Schein (1992) suggests that it is in fact “especially dangerous to try to infer the deeper assumptions from the artifacts alone,” the author maintains understanding the espoused values of an organization is necessary (p. 17-18). Accordingly, the chapter expands knowledge for interpreting the espoused values of an organization alongside its artifacts to understand the assumptions and organizational principles underlying the culture of the organization itself.

Reflection

Though I am short on summarizing it, this book chapter by Schein (1992) genuinely interested me. The idea of a sort of an organizational anthropology was very introspective.  However, while Schein is respectable in my mind as an influential organizational psychologist, it does not seem to me that the author develops the three-level analytical construct very well. I remember coming across other authors that directly discuss a concept of organizational anthropology, but I cannot recall them at this point – maybe I am mistaken.  The chapter was my initial introspection into the idea. And, the idea is significant where some suggest the need to develop and understand organizational histories. 

International Conflict Resolution

Kelman, H.C. “The Role of the Scholar-Practitioner in International Conflict Resolution.” International Studies Perspectives (2000), No. 1, pp. 273-288.  Available online.

The Article

The area of conflict resolution and peace studies in international relations originates following the world wars among a small group of scholars. The area became an emergent area of study throughout the 1970s and particularly following the Cold War, though it fails to gain much momentum and have much influence. The article provides a glimpse of the area of international conflict resolution in the post-Cold War era by detailing the work of a scholar practitioner facing the challenge of finding “ways of preventing and resolving conflicts and building new relationships conducive to stable peace and mutually enhancing cooperation” (Kelman 2000, p. 273). The author details an approach to resolving protracted conflicts through what has become known as interactive problem solving and track two diplomacy, introducing the work undertaken in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict with note on the work done in other areas of the world through Harvard’s Program on International Conflict Analysis and Resolution (PICAR) at the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs.

Kelman (2000) details the processes involved in track two diplomatic problem solving workshops as a microcosm for interactive conflict resolution, specifically influenced by the work of John Burton, where participants include individuals “politically involved and often politically influential . . . parliamentarians, leaders and activists of political parties or political movements, journalists, editors, directors of think tanks, or politically involved academicians” (pp. 274-275). The author summarizes the “ground rules” for interactive problem solving, including the importance of privacy and confidentiality, the need for an environment where third parties and constituencies do not intervene, analytical discussion, and the need for workshop coordinators that assume a facilitative role, etc. The article also provides detail on the goals and objectives with the agenda for workshops and brief insights into some of the recent efforts undertaken in Palestinian and Israeli relations. The claim is that the workshops produce a learning environment for those that influence diplomatic outcomes, wherefrom change can be achieved without the loss of political credibility for leaders directly within the sphere of influence of their communities.

The article then offers qualitative analysis of how the micro processes of track two diplomacy serve to develop understandings of the macro processes of the conflict and diplomatic relations. The fundamental goal of the workshops is thus to promote change “through face-to-face interaction in small groups – as a vehicle for change in larger social systems; in national policy, and in the conflict system at large” (Kelman 2000, p. 279). Kelman (2000) maintains that the workshops aim to generate change with diplomatic relations in four fundamental ways, including through input into the larger processes of problem solving, to serve as a metaphor for understanding the social-psychological processes, to shape ideas and meet the goals of a shared agenda, and to create a supportive political environment for negotiations. The author then addresses the need for unofficial track two diplomacy to accomplish what official diplomacy and track one cannot achieve alone as well as the relationship between scholarship and practice in diplomatic problem solving. The article concludes with discussion of the role of the university system in providing for an academic setting to advance research and the need to institutionalize methods.

Reflection

This was my first introduction to the work of Herbert Kelman as well as my introduction to the area of conflict resolution. While the article initially provided inspiration and optimism, the research seemed to me to do little to legitimize the methods. However, Kelman’s work is more extensive than I had known when first introduced to the area. The author provides yet another way of understanding how relations between states and diplomacy can be improved to meet agreeable outcomes through peaceful means of conflict resolution. While Kelman’s work provided a valuable window into understanding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it also set a framework for my study of the conflict in Northern Ireland where similar methods were utilized to produce the 1998 Belfast Agreement (just as track two diplomacy has been credited for influencing the success of the 1993 Olso Accord). While equivalent methods for conflict resolution within actual communities directly involved in the conflict have been undertaken in Palestine and Israel, the case of Northern Ireland provides for a more extensive example of how methods can be institutionalized and bridged with the community. Much work still needs to be done to legitimize the methods. Successes have proven to be beneficial to the area, but the failure to harmonize macro and micro processes might prove to be detrimental to its acceptance as a necessary and critical area of study for solving conflicts and international relations in general.  The need to pursue such solutions in a post-Cold War environment deserves a lot of attention. 

Kashmir and Tibet: Comparing Conflicts, States, and Solutions

“Kashmir and Tibet: Comparing Conflicts, States, and Solutions.” McGranahan, C., India Review (2003), Vol. 2, Issue 3.

The Article

The conflict over the area of Kashmir is a significant case for those interested in understanding issues related to protracted conflicts and transnational relations. McGranahan (2003) offers a poignant analysis of the case with an interdisciplinary approach to answering questions over collective rights and sovereign national identities through a “merger of political scholarship on conflict, human rights, and state sovereignty with that on the anthropology of the state” (p. 145). The anthropological approach to expanding knowledge of the conflict between India and Pakistan over Kashmir involves analysis of the way in which diplomatic relations are complicated through regional relationships, with specific focus on the regional history of conflict and relations between Tibet and China. The author begins with the “history of the present” state of affairs regarding the conflict, including the complications that surfaced with the U.S. War on Terror and recent globalizing trends. Following, the article orients the conflict analysis with perspective on the anthropology of the state. The author states purpose for conceptualizing an anthropological analysis in order to “bring together the local and the national, the ethnographic and the political, and the vernacular with the formal in terms of understanding and analyzing the Kashmir and Tibet conflicts as internal and international challenges to the state” (McGranahan 2003, p. 153).

After defining the framework of analysis, McGranahan (2003) then provides a historical anthropology of the region’s development into sovereign state structures. The author maintains that in Kashmir, “issues of sovereignty exist at a plurality of levels – local claims, historical and religiously based claims, and the state-level claims of India and Pakistan” (McGranahan 2003, p. 155). With the claim that the border conflict in Kashmir cannot be understood in isolation from the conflict over Tibet a major premise of the article, the analysis provides a detailed history of the tensions and conflicts between China and Tibet. The histories together “provide an empirical and analytical base for comparing the situations in Tibet and Kashmir and for thinking about aspects of the modern state system that cut across ideological difference” (McGranahan 2003, p. 160). The article gives perspective on the subjectivity of the concept of state sovereignty in regional relations and the need to understand the conflicts in terms of cultural rights and national identity. With additional history to support and substantiate the argument for collective cultural sovereign rights, at difference to the legitimizing forces through “discursive power” of conventional political disciplines and theories of relations, the author discusses right to referendum and self-determination with analysis of equivalent border conflicts.

Understanding the challenges with these conflicts at a time of increased global activity where political climates face challenges with terrorism, McGranahan (2003) emphasizes building upon the ethnographic, historic, and political details outlined for non-violent conflict resolution. In providing directions to achieve these ends, the author examines possible solutions including (1) maintaining the status quo; (2) providing more state autonomy in the case of both Kashmir and Tibet; (3)accession to a different state in the case of Kashmir; and (4) independence the same for Tibet (McGranahan 2003, p. 169-171). The article then details necessary directions for nonviolent conflict resolution, concluding on the need for developed historical and anthropological, interdisciplinary approaches to develop understandings and expand knowledge of the concept of sovereignty in the cases of both Kashmir and Tibet as correlated. Conclusions then detail the potential and need for such insights in contemporary politics to achieve a peaceful conflict resolution informed by history.

Reflection

The article is another that I believe presents encouraging critical perspectives for theory development in international relations. The presentation of the case study is well written and organized with clearly stated and easy to follow, well-developed and articulate theoretical arguments. The article first caught my attention while researching methods of conflict resolution used in both the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and the conflict in Northern Ireland. Later, the article inspired me to write a paper on the history of Tibet (which honestly is not at all worth comparing, particularly as Tibetan history is the author’s primary area of study). The case study provides relevant insights into the emergent area of conflict resolution, which itself would be of benefit to the regional relations as discussed with the cases of Kashmir and Tibet. While this is a promising aspect of the work, the article offers convincing case for interdisciplinary and anthropological approaches for the analysis of relations between sovereign states where developed cultural awareness is rudimental.

McGranahan (2003) develops a strong critique of traditional concepts of sovereignty in political science as well as hegemonic, bureaucratic power relations, "the hegemonic sanctity of state borders and comunal belonging so prevalent in the modern state" (p. 146). At the same time, the article conveys a recognition of the importance of state sovereignty and the realities of international relations in a way that, for example the previously discussed article by Olssen (2004) might be said to undermine. As an anthropologist, the author proves to have respectable knowledge and awareness of international and regional relations while providing the theory development that seems to me exceptionally relevant, promising and necessary for relations in today’s world. The correlation between Kashmir and Tibet is probably a little weak, but defended quite well. As McGranahan is a scholar of Tibetan history, it also seems to me that the author is aware of biases in the writing of the article. In the end, the article does make a developed enough argument to support the claim that relations between states cannot be understood in isolation, that the conflicts are often interdependent and regional knots need be untied to solve problems.

Much like Olssen, McGranahan's perspective also closely mirrors my own research and beliefs. They do provide insight into one another (particularly for the context of globalization, economics and conflict). McGranahan’s (2003) anthropological study of regional relations is a valuable interdisciplinary bridge for research as undertaken by Olssen and work done by practitioners in peace studies and conflict resolution. For example, the work of Herbert Kelman in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict; of which, vice versa, offers directions for the conflicts discussed in the article. Such a bridge between the researches could lead to valuable theory and practice for development in an era of neoliberal economics. McGranahan has been producing some work lately, it is hard to keep up. The author’s research is always nicely organized with clearly stated facts to support well-defined arguments.

Why Reading Is Not a Natural Process

“Why Reading is not a Natural Process.” Lyon, G.R., Educational Leadership (1998), Vol. 55, No. 6.? Available online.? ?

The Article

Much federally funded research has been done in the area of literacy and reading throughout the years. In discussing what is important in learning how to read, Lyon (1998) details the research undertaken by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), maintaining “learning to read is critical to a child’s overall well being.” With brief summary of the research done at the institute, the author details their approach to investigating how children learn to read language, what skills and environments impede development, and what instructional practices are most beneficial to which students. The article?expands upon the importance of phonemic awareness for developing automaticity in reading and reading comprehension, believing that reading is not entirely a natural process of simply learning to “decode and read printed English.”

Lyon (1998) defines and contrasts awareness of phonemes to phonics instruction. Phoneme awareness is more than the sounds that the individual written letters on the page make, but knowing how each individual note of the sounded letters compose the whole word. The author emphasizes that the awareness of how sounds are combined to make up words is important to reading skills, where the conundrum is that “what is good for the listener is not so good for the beginning reader.” In pointing out the fact that learning to read is not at all like learning to speak, the research suggests translating awareness of the actual sounds and phonemes in spoken language as they are written into the text itself becomes an essential part of fluency, automaticity of skills and understanding. Lyon (1998) then continues with further discussion of research done, asserting that conventional methods fail to develop reading skills from phoneme awareness and maintaining that the failure to connect the auditory sounds of language with reading skills in instruction is why many children have difficulties with phonics,?and thus learning to read, developing vocabularies, et cetera. The article concludes with discussion of the fact that much research has been done to support this claim. Where research fails to inform practice, there is a need to bridge the gap and move beyond traditional assumptions about how children learn to read.

Reflection

An avid reader with a background in teaching language to?both children and adults, this short article resonated with me when reading it for the first time. Really, I have not always been much of a reader throughout my life.? Perhaps I had fancied myself as a well read, but had never been a dedicated reader until college. One can read a book, but not read a book and you do not know that you have never really read a book until you have really read a book (here, I am reminded of Joseph Epstein's "The Personal Essay: A Form of Discovery," where the author?speaks of?being too young and inexperienced to write a?first personal essay at the age of thirty-one).??In reflection, I believe my reading skills were probably below par before?truly getting into reading. It did take a lot of discipline for me to become the reader I am today. Having taught language, I agree with the article on literacy very much. The difference between spoken and written language for beginning readers and the need to recognize how each is critical to the development of the other seems very true to me.

The same is true for adults, where reading develops one’s verbal skills and vice versa.? There is?equally much to be said about the interdependence between reading and writing. The article has?also been introspective in other ways, such as in thinking about how language developed in early civilizations. For example, South American Incan tribes never developed a written language, but their spoken language is said to be of the most musical oral traditions. It also makes me think of the potential consequences of technology, such as written virtual technologies and the imbalance of verbal realities where people talk to one another in real person. Overall, just an agreeable article that I enjoyed reading.

Systemic Dynamic Social Theory

“Systemic Dynamic Social Theory.” Hull, D.L., Sociological Quarterly (1970), Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 351-363.  

The Article 

In the literature on systems theory, the work of Ludvig von Bertalanffy’s and his General Systems Theory (GST) is generally held as foundational to the area of study for generalists. Hull (1970) introduces the article with a discussion of the high esteem for Bertalanffy's work, believing that work in systems theory today has lost sight of the original thought and arguing that the deviation of “general systems theory in contrast to General Systems Theory” is a dangerous development. The author thus provides critique of the work of sociologist Hugo Engelmann and the theorist's dynamic social theory to iterate his argument. In doing so, the author pinpoints the problems with the misinterpretation of Bertalanffy’s work from the evolution of the classical assumptions of science, any theory “concerned in large measure with the problems surrounding the verification and falsification of hypotheses embedded in a highly articulated theory” (Hull 1970, p. 352). Hull (1970) details the influence of the changing assumptions science from Newtonian to modern science in Engelmann’s work, particularly the challenges to the structure of classical logic (p. 353). The author then critiques Engleman’s reconstruction of logic and the belief that a calculus could be devised to formulate a social theory and dynamics analogous to particle physics, which the sociologist entitled “Systemic Dynamic Social Theory.”

The article provides a summary analysis of the dynamic social theory as it breaks social interactions down into elementary particles of organization. Engelmann believes a behavioral science from biological and physical systems could be effectively explain behavior through “(1) an analysis of the behavioral units into biological processes within which they emerge, or (2) derivation of various theorems from the postulates and the identification of these theorems with common-sense phenomena” (p. 357). This general thesis of the sociologists' work is the target of the article’s critique, as “Engelmann is not interested in such psychological matters but only in the logical schematizations of science” (Hull 1970, p. 353). Hull (1970) breaks down the logic of Engelmann’s thesis for “Systemic Dynamic Social Theory” and its identification with general systems theory. In conclusion, the article then asserts that the systemic dynamic social theory and the intersections with the behavioral sciences are superficial. Moreover, the author maintains that if a genuine systemic dynamic social theory were possible for application to general systems science that such a literal interpretation of the theory would be detrimental to general systems theory itself.

Reflection

The article brings up very valid points about the misinterpretation of general systems theory (rather, General Systems Theory). Such misinterpretations have a history in the behavioral sciences and are a major focus of Debora Hammond’s book The Science of Synthesis: Exploring the Social Implications of General Systems Theory.  In fact, it seems to me that the author's major argument is better understood through Hammond's historical research on the origins of systems theory and how Bertalanffy's work became puzzled by behaviorism following the world wars.  The approach by Hull (1970) to make a technical argument against the logic of the theory accomplishes as little as the logic itself.  While not familiar with the work of Engelmann, Hilary Putnam's work in logic and quantum logic could actually justify Engelmann's work, at least the idea of the justification of a logical system with "empirical identification from physics" (Hull 1970, p. 360). The question remains if such a system of pure mathematics could provide method to effectively explain behavior and social dynamics. These complicated questions involve lengthy explanation with so many uncertainties over whether methods in the physical sciences could be applied to the social sciences, it seems to me that the author is correct in his critique.  However, I believe critique need focus not on the science, but the misinterpetation and misuse of science.

Really, Engelmann reminds me of the main character in A Beautiful Mind chasing around pigeons in the park trying to determine an algorithm to explain their behavior. The concerns of the article are with the possibility for such an explanation of human behavior and the misuse of that science. Rather, the misinformed belief that such a behavioral social theory is possible with any attempt to justify the knowledge of authority, which today – at the present state of science – is really quite far from reality.  My own belief is that when and if it becomes an actuality, it will affirm pluralism and Bertalanffy's definition of the historical, cultural and biological relativity of knowledge.  Today, we are left to accept a pragmatism to positivism – in fact, as defined by Putnam himself – which, in the case of the article is found in Hammond’s research and by uncovering Bertalanffy's original systems theory.  For those curious in doing so, evidently without much of a life, like myself, take interest in Bertalanffy's "An outline of General Systems Theory," which appropriately appears in the same issue of The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science as Karl Popper's "Indeterminism in Quantum Physics and in Classical Physics," Vol. 1, No. 2, August 1950. 

What interested me in the article is that it suggests both the promise of Bertalanffy’s thought (though it has had little impact and influence), the consequences and potential dangers of misinterpretating science, particularly as it relates to systems theory and Hammond’s work. There is also a subtle art to the article in the analysis of social dynamics. The romanticism to the idea of a unified science through the physical sciences has enchanted humanity since the dawn of time. The article offers a glimpse of such an idea in correlation with social theory and systems science like no other discussion of the topic I've read, which intrigued me.  However, there is no possibility of it justifying a singular, authoritative view of the world and no possibility for such a social theory. The problem at present is the belief that it could, not the quest in search for this Holy Grail of science.

Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy

“Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy: challenges for education.” Olssen, M., Globalisation, Societies, and Education (2004), Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 231-274.

The Article

Many questions concerning globalization have arisen from the literature in international studies and concerns have begun to be noted with the challenges of globalization for education. Olssen (2004) offers discussion of the challenges of globalization, detailing the global trends as they are driven by neoliberal economic policies. The article begins by asserting that neoliberalism as a facet of globalization is an obstacle to democracy where it “reduces social regulation and actively frustrates policy initiatives in a number of areas,” including for small-scale producers, policy to protect jobs and wages, programs to stabilize communities, direct employment policy, environmental, educational and health care policies (p. 231). Redefining and clarifying the idea of the “welfare state,” the author provides literature review to support the argument that there is still the need for state regulation in the context of globalization, maintaining deregulation is a challenge to under-represented groups, democracy, social justice and education in general.

Olssen (2004) defines globalization and neoliberal trends as they have been initiated from transitions in the global economy – for example, the replacement of the international forum GATT (The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) with the World Trade Organization (WTO) – as well as changes from Keynesian economics to the neoliberal (neoclassical) economics. The author details the challenges and consequences of these transitions for the global economy where “at the level of governance, globalisation is complex and fragmented, at the cultural level we can also agree that globalisation is having a marked effect” (Olssen 2004, p. 239). Following, the article defines separate globalizing trends, one as it leads to increased interconnectedness between countries and the second context which “requires a great deal of state power to drive it” (Olssen 2004, p. 241). The research continues to iterate the implications of the defining trends with the changes in global economies – noting the challenges for state structures and recognizing that not all the trends challenge governance – and approaches contextual solutions for neoliberal globalization based upon the need for a developed cosmopolitan democracy.

The article offers definition of cosmopolitan democracy as conceptualized in correlating literatures, focusing on the work of Jayasuriya, who develops the concept from the writings of Habermas, Foucault and Kantian republican state government for the international context of governance. Olssen (2004) discusses agreeable points with Kant’s original formulation of the concept of cosmopolitan democracy for governing structures, but suggests that “while the cosmopolitan ideal expresses some important insights, the approach needs serious modification” (p. 245). The author then suggests the concept of “demarchy,” defined by cited literatures as a form of governance organized along functional instead of territorial lines, an idea to provide a “specific practical means by which democracy can be extended and organized at the level of regional and global politics” (Olssen 2004, p. 247). The author continues with a discussion of the literature on demarchy, then asserts the necessity of the concept in order to support democracy at multiple levels, and to ensure respect for human rights and social justice with regional and globalizing trends.  From cosmopolitan democracy and demarchy, the article iterates the need for a comprehensive discourse for democracy given the "thin communities" of social justice, based upon ideas such as a "cognitive" developmental approach to achieve international cooperation.

Olssen (2004) contrasts Kantian international politics to that of Groitus and Pufendorf, maintaining a “comprehensive discourse of democracy becomes the best answer to the Hobbesian problem of order,” in facing the challenges of providing “(1) safety and security; (2) freedom and autonomy; (3) inclusion; (4) fairness and justice; and (5) equality of resources and capabilities” (p. 250). The article also emphasizes the need for institutions committed to ideas such as conflict resolution and similarly expands knowledge on community, liberty and justice where they are critical to international cooperation. Here, Olssen (2004) notes the challenges for education, maintaining education is itself a critical mechanism for deepening democracy and need be recognized as the “third estate between the free market and the autocratic hand of regulation and management” (p. 263). The author then defines a multicultural view of democracy and the learning of democracy through education. The article concludes by iterating focus on critical issues such as concerns for equality, the role of the state, the development of civil society, and purpose for education with neoliberal globalization in an interconnected world.

Reflection

This article has been a touchstone for much of my research. In fact, the author’s work in general has been an inspiration to my work. Honestly though, the specific article has not been entirely useful in terms of content, but does affirm numerous ideas and perspectives that I have myself been working on over the years. The article is a little lengthy and overwhelmingly theory-laden – not exactly a casual read; it attempts to accomplish so much that it is almost impossible to reflect upon with brevity. It is also a tricky perspective for theory development in many respects. The detail on the political economy is relevant and informative, but the emphasis on the challenges of globalization as it advocates the need for education with the international trends is most engaging to me.  The idea that the purpose of education is to help “construct a socially established normative culture that provides security and builds the capacities for democracy,” (Olssen 2004, p. 363) could not be more agreeable to me. Really, the author does little to develop this point and spends much time on the concept of cosmopolitan democracy, iterating the challenges of globalization for social justice, human rights and equity for the periphery of international politics. The challenge for education is real, where the paradox is that education is itself the critical mechanism to promote awareness and provide solutions.

My approach to these issues in the context of globalization very much mirrors that of the author. Nonetheless, with a shared critique of Kant, my research has taken a different path.  Rather than cosmopolitanism and demarchy (though they do prove to be important concepts), my research has focused on systems theory, educational and organizational psychology in correlation with political theory as the evolution of a Kantian philosophy from the classical assumptions of science. Our different approaches with shared belief in the need for solutions to conventional theory clearly correlate. However, the article is too theory-laden and rather boring - yawn - which, in my opinion does little for solutions to the challenges of globalization. Certainly, I do not fault the author for this as the theory development that the article approaches is not at all an easy task.

Nevertheless, the article has been influential as I recognize that it provides the foundations to explain complicated issues that relate with my own attempts at theory development (and it does seem to me that interdisciplinary study with the organizational sciences, learning theory, systems theory and particularly the philosophy of science offers more promising directions). Systems theory in the tradition of Bertalanffy supports many ideas in the research, including multicultural democracy and education for democracy.  The author's work in both the area of education and political theory has assured me in my own work.  Olssen's (2004) research does provide relevant content to develop contemporary political science and international relations theory, which remains defunct by classical assumptions.  However, I think I am more optimistic as well as comprehensively aware the complexities at multiple levels (but he is the established and published scholar and I evidently am not – so he is cool and I am not. Really, we would probably disagree on our agreements, agree on our disagreements). The article is tricky in a postmodern sort of way, but represents critical directions I believe globalization studies need undertake.

Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes

“Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences on education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts.” I.C. McManus and A. Furnham, British Journal of Psychology (2006), No. 97, pp. 555-587.

The Article

The authors offer statistical analysis of aesthetic activities, attitudes and personality. McManus and Furnham (2006) note there have been very few studies on aesthetic appreciation of the arts: “one of the surprising things is how little they have been investigated by psychology and the behavioral sciences” (pp. 555-556).  Detailing summaries of those studies that have investigated the arts and artistic personalities – including on the relationship between psychopathology and artists – with the exception of the work of Pierre Bourdieu in the late 1960s and other research, there is limited research on the appreciation of art by those that appreciate it. There is relevant literature on “the relationship between the individual difference variable of sensation-seeking and various measure of interest in art,” which nonetheless fails to understand the aesthetic attitudes of those that engage in aesthetic activities (McManus & Furman 2006, p. 556). Thus, the authors approach survey research on aesthetic attitudes and activities according to the five variables commonly understood as the underlying factors of personality, which are extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience (to which they add a fifth variable of masculinity due to the recent interest in the relationship between it and the arts in some schools of psychology).

After additional review of the studies that have researched the relationship between the arts and personality, McManus and Furham (2006) detail their method (as part of a laboratory class assignment where students were asked to find participants to complete the survey). The questionnaire used contained attitude questions and questions on demographics, education and social background, then questions on aesthetic attitudes and a brief measure of personality dimensions (adapted to include questions related to masculinity, as done by previous research studies). They provide information on the participants, statistical analysis and the results from 1,199 participants (89.3% of which had provided completed survey information for the study). The authors detail the descriptive statistics from the data collected on 17 activities from a 7-point scale, then discuss the correlations with personality for both aesthetic activities and attitudes, with attitudes operationally defined as anti-art, aesthetic inclusively, emotion and understanding, aesthetic relativism, aesthetic quality, and aesthetic attitude. Data analysis is done through a structural equation modeling. The models are defined by activities based on personality, education and demography, and then aesthetic attitudes followed by an overall comparison and measure of active vs. passive involvement in the arts.

Major findings of the research suggest that there is a wide range of participation in the specific activities where aesthetic activities and attitudes are “likely to be continually interacting over a period of time,” and individuals involved in one form of activity tend to be actively involved in another (McManus & Furham 2006, pp. 577-578). The findings also suggest that overall educational level has little effect on aesthetic activities, that a science education “has a large, direct negative effect on aesthetic activities, but it also has indirect effects due to those with a science education having less art education” (McManus & Furham 2006, p. 578). The authors further discuss the direct effects of a science education on artistic activity and attitudes, then address the fact that personality in general has a large effect on aesthetic activities (also noting the relationship with regards to masculinity). The authors conclude that the relationship between personality, aesthetic activities and attitudes is deserving of further work, particularly in relation to openness to experience, maintaining that longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the complexities of the causal pathways between personality and aesthetic interests.

Reflection

The article is one that immediately piqued my interests because it approached the arts through a technical science, and did so in the name of aesthetics and a positive attitude toward the arts (rather than investigating the pathology of artists, for example, etc.). The conclusions suggesting that there is no link between neurosis and artistic activity and aesthetic appreciation – despite the conventional view of the artist as neurotic – was re-assuring as I thought to myself “well that’s a good thing” in a joking sort of way. My background is not personality, nor can I profess high-level knowledge of statistics, but the article was accessible and engaged an interest to investigate the area of personality psychology.  Even more so, structural modeling interests me. As a graduate student with primarily a background in qualitative and theory-based research, I have begun statistics classes with limited knowledge of quantitative research (but with advanced knowledge of learning theory in correlation with the philosophy of science). Structural modeling begins to answer my many questions pondering what if, but, and, then how . . . when studying statistics. The discussion of causality and the difficulties of determining causal relationships are particularly relevant in this respect, wherewith analysis of aesthetic activities and attitudes – I think simply made the article quite aesthetic itself.

Any technical paper that references Tolstoy also unquestionably deserves to be on a favorite reading list. Noting Tolstoy’s belief that it is a mistake to think only in terms of the appreciation of “high art,” where the research encourages a broad definition of the arts is certainly respectable. As in quoting Tolstoy, “all human life is filled with works of art of every kind” (as cited in McManus & Furham 2006, p. 577). Needless to say, the inclusion of masculinity as a variable for personality was head-scratching to me, not because I question the authors’ intent (without exhausting an analysis of their use of the variable) but because I question the possible misinterpretations and misreading of the use of the variable. It seems the authors’ intent and research findings do prevent misunderstandings, but it is an aspect of the research worth reflecting upon further, given that “most artists throughout history have tended to be males, a difference only slightly diminished in the 20th and 21st centuries” (McManus & Furham 2006, p. 579). Nonetheless and overall, I was pleased and inspired to find such constructive creativity between art and science.  At the same time, it gave me better perspective on both personality and statistics.

Introduction
Having come across a very interesting article in the British Journal of Psychology, it occurred to me that I should make a list of my favorite scholarly journal articles (however odd it may seem to have such a list of literatures).  Then, it occurred to me that it would be an even better idea to create a blog where I would offer review of articles read along with reflections.  Certainly, people will wonder if there could be anything else for me to do with my time.  Nonetheless, as a casual project I anticipate doing exactly this in my spare time, beginning with the article that piqued my interest today.