Value (ethics)

About: Value (ethics) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 21347 publications have been published within this topic receiving 461372 citations.

The limits of joined‐up government: towards a political analysis

Abstract: Joined-up government has featured prominently on the agenda of the New Labour government in the UK. However, the politics of joining-up remain under-explored, with disproportionate emphasis on the technical and managerial dimensions of the challenge. This paper argues that political value conflicts form an essential part of the explanation for the replication of 'silos' within city strategic partnerships, the joining-up institution of choice at the local scale. A study of the local politics of social inclusion in the British cities of Dundee and Hull revealed a strong partnership ethos. However, this ethos sustained only a shallow consensus over abstract goals, at the same time legitimating the avoidance of political value conflicts. Thematic partnerships comprising interest group clusters with different political values therefore tended to replicate silo practices. The paper argues, consequently, that the consensual partnership ethos caused the displacement of value conflicts, in turn causing fragmented governance. It concludes with three propositions for further research.

The Work of the New Economy: Consumers, Brands and Value Creation

Abstract: My goal in this article is to apprehend claims about person–product relationships now circulating in the world of business. I take up approaches that presuppose the embeddedness of economic action in shifting networks or assemblages of people and things (human and nonhuman actors), and that call attention to the agency distributed within such networks. I discuss the work of Michel Callon and his colleagues and specifically their notion of “the economy of qualities” (Callon et al. 2002). I pose two sets of related questions. First, can we translate marketing claims that relationships between consumers and corporate brands define a locus of value creation into the terms of Marx's theory of value? And how might this translation revise not only the marketing claim, but also Marx's understanding of surplus value creation? Second, can we translate the claim that value creation hinges on a dynamic relationship between corporations and consumers into terms of a theory of participatory democracy? That is, what sort of political potential might inhere in this relationship? In particular, how might this relationship endow consumers with agency not only in value creation but also in “making things public” (Bruno Latour 2005b)? I address these questions of commodity networks and consumer agency with a set of visual props drawn from my research into the sociotechnical lives of an iconic type of global commodity: Coca-Cola brand soft drinks.

Defeat into Victory

Abstract: "A general who has taken part in a campaign is by no means best fitted to write its history. Thatr if it is to be complete and unbiassed, should be the work of someone less personally involved. Yet such a general might write something of value. He might, as honestly as he could, tell of the problems he faced, why he took the decisions he did, what helped, what hindered, the luck he had, and the mistakes he made. He might, by showing how one man attempted the art of command, be of use to those who later may themselves have to exercise it. He might even give, to those who have not experienced it, some impression of what it feels like to shoulder a commander's responsibilities in war. These things I have tried to do in this book."

Just Playing?: The Role and Status of Play in Early Childhood Education

Abstract: Unravelling the "mystery" of play play and learning playing through and with language solving problems through play play and creativity play, curriculum and organization play and progress - observing, recording and assessing the value of play play and the "different" child paly and adult expectations play in childhood and adulthood.

Literature Reviews of, and for, Educational Research: A Commentary on Boote and Beile’s “Scholars Before Researchers”

Abstract: n their article "Scholars Before Researchers: On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation" (Educational Researcher, August/September 2005), David N. Boote and Penny Beile argue that the literature review is the fundamental task of dissertation and research preparation. They claim that doctoral students receive minimal formal training, and little guidance from faculty or published sources, in how to analyze and synthesize research literature (p. 5). As a result, they argue, most dissertation literature reviews are poorly conceptualized and written (p. 4), and "Doctoral students may not be learning what it means to make and justify educational claims" (p. 9). They conclude that "Literature reviewing should be a central focus of predissertation coursework, integrated throughout the program" (p. 12). Many of Boote and Beile's claims are consistent with my experience in teaching and advising doctoral students, and the authors perform a valuable service in raising important, and often neglected, issues that bear on conducting a literature review for a doctoral dissertation in education. I agree with their assessment of the majority of dissertation literature reviews, and with their emphasis on the importance of learning to identify, analyze, and integrate research literature competently. In my view, however, the authors' conception of a proper dissertation literature review undercuts the value of their insights. They repeatedly use the terms "thorough" and "comprehensive" to describe the type of dissertation literature review they recommend, and although they criticize the idea, held by many doctoral students, that such reviews should be "exhaustive" (p. 7), the authors' overall message is clearly that dissertation reviews should be a broad and comprehensive review of the literature dealing with a particular field or topic. "Comprehensiveness" and "breadth" are two of their criteria for assessing "coverage," the first of their standards for evaluating dissertation literature reviews and the one to which they devote the most discussion.