Explore the vast range of titles available.

In recent years, critiques of “carceral feminism” have proliferated, objecting to feminist support for punitive policies against sexual and gendered violence that have contributed to mass incarceration. While the convergence of feminist and antiprison efforts is important, this essay argues that critiques of carceral feminism are limited insofar as they present a binary choice between the criminal legal system and informal community justice practices. First, this binary allows critics to overlook rather than engage feminist disagreements about the state and sexual harm. Second, the narrow focus on alternative solutions to harm obscures the plural and contested nature of prison abolition, which may include efforts to seize the state and to problematize carceral logics. Drawing on Michel Foucault, alongside Angela Davis and other contemporary prison abolitionists, I suggest that feminist prison abolition is better served by envisioning a spectrum of decarceration.

PurposeA positive outlook on the impact of Industry 4.0 (I4.0) on sustainability prevails in the literature. However, some studies have highlighted potential areas of concern that have not yet been systematically addressed. The goal of this study is to challenge the assumption of a sustainable Fourth Industrial Revolution by (1) identifying the possible unintended negative impacts of I4.0 technologies on sustainability; (2) highlighting the underlying motivations and potential actions to mitigate such impacts; and (3) developing and evaluating alternative assumptions on the impacts of I4.0 technologies on sustainability.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on a problematization approach, a systematic literature review was conducted to develop potential alternative assumptions about the negative impacts of I4.0 on sustainability. Then, a Delphi study was carried out with 43 experts from academia and practice to evaluate the alternative assumptions. Two rounds of data collection were performed until reaching the convergence or stability of the responses.FindingsThe results highlight various unintended negative effects on environmental and social aspects that challenge the literature. The reasons behind the high/low probability of occurrence, the severity of each impact in the next five years and corrective actions are also identified. Unintended negative environmental effects are less controversial than social effects and are therefore more likely to generate widely accepted theoretical propositions. Finally, the alternative hypothesis ground is partially accepted by the panel, indicating that the problematization process has effectively opened up new perspectives for analysis.Originality/valueThis study is one of the few to systematically problematize the assumptions of the I4.0 and sustainability literature, generating research propositions that reveal several avenues for future research.

Business author John Elkington´s key assumptions, presented in his 1997 work Cannibals with Forks - the multiple perspectives view, global data and future-oriented temporality - continue to inform mainstream fashion sustainability today. If fashion is to move beyond a singular profit-driven vision toward shared well-being, the research community needs to increasingly steer studies toward using reflexive approaches, by actively mobilizing and problematizing existing frameworks, not aiming to subvert or debunk or to vindicate or defend our normative point of view, but to critically problematize it. In this article, problematization methodology is used to identify and challenge the assumptions underlying Elkington’s work and contemporary fashion sustainability research. By analyzing this seminal text the article contributes to the critical problematization of design disciplines, fashion sustainability in particular. Retaining hope and moving toward prosperity fashion in its true sense calls for dialectically questioning and unravelling one’s own position, and scrutinizing and reconsidering some commonly held assumptions. This will enable us to make space for different positions and lines of thinking, which are desperately needed in fashion research.

The modernist usage of the word crisis conveys the idea of an event that acts as a historical judgment, marks an epochal transition, and sometimes leads to a utopian era. Furthermore, current uses of crisis in the political sphere often figure catastrophic events as the result of errors and malfunctions, drawing attention away from the quotidian and normatively accepted practices and policies that produce them. Anthropological definitions of disaster, in contrast, understand catastrophes as the end result of historical processes by which human practices enhance the materially destructive and socially disruptive capacities of geophysical phenomena, technological malfunctions, and communicable diseases and inequitably distribute disaster risk according to lines of gender, race, class, and ethnicity. Despite this fundamental difference between customary and scholarly definitions of crises and disasters, the former term is commonly used to refer to the latter by political elites and academics alike. This article reviews the merits and limitations of the crisis concept in the analysis of disasters on the basis of anthropological research on catastrophes during the last 40 years and provides an overview of the analytical diversification of disaster anthropology since the 1970s.

We contend that the development of sustainable supply chain management (SSCM) theory has been impaired by a lack of paradigmatic diversity in the field. The contested nature of the concept of sustainability has been repressed in SSCM theory, which has led to SSCM cutting itself off from debates that could be the source of inspiration for the development of interesting theory. We adopt the problematization approach proposed by Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) in order to unveil some of SSCM's unquestioned assumptions, propose an alternative assumption ground, and in this way move toward stronger theory in SSCM. We use paradoxical framing to make sense of the inherent tensions between the different levels of sustainability and between the different types of theory being produced in response to the challenges of sustainability. We articulate a number of foundational assumptions for an alternative theory of SSCM that emerge from the various tensions identified between the different paradigms of sustainability. Finally, we identify a number of ideas for future research that would enable researchers to empirically explore the alternative assumptions.

This paper draws from Carol Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be’ (WPR), to examine how the Education and Training Sector Strategic Plan (2015–2020) represents education ‘problems’ in Botswana. Although there are widely held views that education problems exist in Botswana, there is lack of empirical and theory-driven studies that critically examine how such problems are represented as policy issues. It is largely unclear how some issues come to be represented as education ‘problems’, the politics of their formation, and the effects of such problematizations. Through WPR analysis, the study reveals two (2) problematizations; the mismatch between tertiary qualifications and labor market needs, and access to, and quality of education. This is what is assumed to be the problems of education in Botswana. The WPR analysis disentangles how these problems are represented as problems, the politics of their formation, their silences and the material effects they have on the education sector in Botswana. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the WPR analysis and emphasize the need to unmake and re-think the existing education problem representations to allow for alternative conceptualizations.

The control of information systems (IS) projects is central to creating and capturing value from digitalization. However, the current understanding of IS project control is too restrictive and not well attuned to the digital era, in which collaborative value creation in open-ended digital innovation and transformation efforts is critical to firm competitiveness, ecosystem evolution, and societal advancement. Reviewing earlier research, we find that the dominant view of IS project control emphasizes value capture/appropriation and virtually ignores value creation. To address this shortcoming, we introduce the concept of control purpose ( why ) and advocate for broadening control activities to encompass the two control purposes of value appropriation and value creation. This implies that practitioners need to strategically decide on and actively manage the balance between different purposes of control activities. By doing so, they will be better equipped to achieving success in digital innovation and transformation initiatives. In this research commentary, we argue that the current digital era compels a reconsideration and problematization of research on information systems (IS) project control. IS projects are key to the pursuit of digital innovation and transformation activities, and the control of IS projects is central to creating and capturing value from these activities. However, IS project control research has not kept pace with current developments in the digital era. Specifically, we find that existing research has been dominated by an underlying agency theory perspective, which is not attuned to salient aspects of current control settings, such as digital innovation initiatives, and thus restricts our understanding of IS project control. To address this shortcoming, we problematize core assumptions underlying existing IS project control research and draw on stewardship theory to present an alternative set of assumptions complementing the prevalent agency theory perspective; introduce the concept of control purpose ( why ); offer empirical support for its conceptual distinction between value-appropriation and value-creation control purposes; and develop a research agenda that helps move IS project control research into the digital era.

Human embryos produced in labs since the 1970s have generated layers of uncertainty for law and policy: ontological, moral, and administrative. Ontologically, these lab-made entities fall into a gray zone between life and not-yet-life. Should in vitro embryos be treated as inanimate matter, like abandoned postsurgical tissue, or as private property? Morally, should they exist largely outside of state control in the zone of free reproductive choice or should they be regarded as autonomous human lives and thus entitled to constitutional protection like full-fledged citizens? Administratively, if they deserve protection, what institutional and policy mechanisms are best suited to carrying out the necessary oversight? Using a method termed comparative problematization, this article traces divergent answers to these questions produced in three countries—the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany—across the last twenty-five years. Comparison reveals distinct bioconstitutional foundations that give rise to systematically different understandings of each state’s responsibilities toward human life and hence its particular treatment of claims on behalf of embryonic lives.

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to offer a reconceptualization of the critical incident technique (CIT) and affirm its utility in management and organization studies. Design/methodology/approach Utilizing a case study from a leadership context, the paper applies the CIT to explore various leadership behaviours in the context of nonprofit boards in Canada. Semi-structured critical incident interviews were used to collect behavioural data from 53 participants - board chairs, board directors, and executive directors - from 18 diverse nonprofit organizations in Alberta, Canada. Findings While exploiting the benefits of a typicality of events, in some instances the authors were able to validate aspects of transformational leadership theory, in other instances the authors found that theory falls short in explaining the relationships between organizational actors. The authors argue that the CIT potentially offers the kind of \"thick description\" that is particularly useful in theory building in the field. Research limitations/implications Drawing on interview material, the authors suggest that incidents can be classified based on frequency of occurrence and their salience to organizational actors, and explore the utility of this distinction for broader theory building purposes. Practical implications Principally, the paper proposes that this method of investigation is under-utilized by organization and management researchers. Given the need for thick description in the field, the authors suggest that the approach outlined generates exceptionally rich data that can illuminate multiple organizational phenomena. Social implications The role of nonprofit boards is of major importance for those organizations and the clients that they serve. This paper shed new light on the leadership dynamics at the top of these organizations and therefore can help to guide improved practice by those in board and senior management positions. Originality/value The CIT is a well-established technique. However, it is timely to revisit it as a core technique in qualitative research and promote its greater use by researchers. In addition, the authors offer a novel view of incidents as typical, atypical, prototypical or archetypal of organizational phenomena that extends the analytical value of the approach in new directions.

Over the last 10 years, the concept of a global ‘carbon budget’ of allowable CO2 emissions has become ubiquitous in climate science and policy. Since it was brought to prominence by the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, the carbon budget has changed how climate change is enacted as an issue of public concern, from determining the optimal rate of future emissions to establishing a fixed limit for how much emissions should be allowed before they must be stopped altogether. Exploring the emergence of the carbon budget concept, this article shows how the assessment process of the IPCC has offered scientific experts the means to modify how the climate issue is problematized, and discusses the implications of this ‘modifying-work’ for the politics of climate change. It finds that the ‘modified climate issue’ must be seen as an outcome of the ordinary work within established scientific and political institutions, and the agency these institutions afford scientists to enact the issue differently. On this basis, it argues that the case of the carbon budget holds important insights not only for the relationship between climate science and policy, but also for the pragmatist literature on ‘issue formation’ in STS.