PROCEEDINGS - ORGANIZATION, IDENTITY, LOCALITY III - Massey University
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
ORGANIZATION, IDENTITY, LOCALITY III
Organizing the Postcolonial in Aotearoa / New Zealand
1
A one day symposium on being a critical organisational
scholar in Aotearoa/New Zealand
16 February 2007
Massey University Albany Campus
PROCEEDINGS
Proceedings Publication Details:
Department of Management
College of Business
Massey University
New Zealand
© Craig Prichard, Deborah Jones and Roy Jacques
ISSN 1178-6000 (Print)
ISSN 1178-6019 (Online)
1
Image used with permission from Divine Jewellery, Opotiki, Bay of Plenty. Go to http://www.abalone-
craft.com/colours/natural.htm
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................iii
Background ..................................................................................................................iii
Oil Facilitators .............................................................................................................iii
Call for Papers.............................................................................................................. iv
Presentation Schedule .................................................................................................. vi
Leadership the Kiwi Way: An Artistic Investigation ................................................... 2
‘Centres of Research Excellence’ Scheme: An Immutable Mobile?............................ 4
Social Enterprise in Aotearoa ....................................................................................... 8
What counts as healthy food? The role of New Zealand food producers in
changing practices of food consumption. ................................................................... 13
Management PhDs in Aotearoa/New Zealand: the trick of standing upright
here.............................................................................................................................. 17
The paradox of constructions that construct us: ......................................................... 21
A personal reflection on post-colonial experience of texts......................................... 21
Who is afraid of the postcolonial? .............................................................................. 24
Is it really still a life? Sunflowers, mangoes and coin slots: The kumete of
Patoromu Tamatea and the implicit economies of postcolonial engagements as
a cautionary tale for researchers ................................................................................. 31
Visibility machines and organizing the postcolonial; an institutional analysis of
‘location’ and New Zealand’s computer graphics firms............................................. 36
Postcolonial Voices: ‘One’ through ethnicity and ‘Other’ through Gender ............... 39
Anarchy in the UK! Anarchy in NZ! .......................................................................... 40
Organizing on Aotearoa: between inner space and external artefact.......................... 50
The recent re-branding of Air New Zealand: What does it say about a New
Zealand ‘style of labour’? ........................................................................................... 52
Management Education in New Zealand: the Foundation Professors ........................ 56
Being ‘Sustainable’ in Aotearoa/New Zealand........................................................... 59
Whither Nature?.......................................................................................................... 59
Where am I located? Being critical and researching organisations and the
natural environment .................................................................................................... 64
iii
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the support of Massey University at Albany in
providing conference facilities and refreshments during this event.
Background
OIL (Organization, Identity, Locality) is the term used to identify an informal group
of academics engaged in research and teaching that offers critical analysis of
management and organizational in Aotearoa New Zealand. Annual OIL gatherings
began with an informal meeting at Massey University’s Palmerson North campus in
March 2004 . This and subsequent meetings have focused sharply on the intersections
of the critical and the local. Many of the contributions explore the nature of Critical
Management Studies in Aotearoa / New Zealand?
The conference places a strong emphasis on discussion and interaction. Conference
papers are required to be short statements that identify the key ideas, themes and
problems the author/s will be discussing. All conference statement have however
been reviewed by two anonymous (to the author) members of the OIL community
prior to the event.
The next OIL meeting will be at Otago University on February 14 and 15, 2008.
Oil Facilitators
Deborah Jones
Victoria Management School, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O.Box 600, 23
Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand. Office: RH 902, 9th Floor, Rutherford
House.
Phone: 04 463-5731 (DD)
Fax: 04-463-5253
Email: Deborah.Jones@vuw.ac.nz
Craig Prichard
Department of Management, Massey University, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston
North. Office: Business Studies Central Room Basement 2.05).
Phone: 06 350 5799
Fax: 06 3505796
Email: C.Prichard@massey.ac.nz
Roy Stager Jacques
Department of Management and International Business, Massey University, Albany,
Auckland.
Ph 09 414 0800 extn 9572
Email: R.Stagerjacques@massey.ac.nz
iiiCall for Papers
As with OIL I in Palmerston North (2004) and OIL II in Wellington (2005), this
symposium continues to ask what it means to do organizational scholarship
`critically,’ specifically, what it means do so here, in Aotearoa / New Zealand.
OIL III invites papers from any critical perspective which help us to reflect on,
discuss and respond to the challenges of place and identity which face us as Kiwis and
which are constitutive of who we are as Kiwis.
Contributors may wish to consider these issues from the perspective of Postcolonial or
Kaupapa Maori theorizing, but not necessarily. We invite participants to address any
aspect of our present and future social and organizational experience from any critical
perspective.
The purpose of OIL is to provide an opportunity for constructive interaction with
colleagues for mutual support and concept development. Sessions will be designed so
that everyone has an opportunity to present and to receive feedback. An idea you’re
working on is better than an idea that is nailed down. Graduate students whose
interests are congruent with the programme theme are welcome.
Key Dates
• Submissions are due by Monday December 4, 2006. If extra submission time is required,
or if expedited notification of acceptance is required in order to make travel plans, please
contact R.Stagerjacques@Massey.ac.nz.
• Peer reviews by submitters to be returned by Monday December 18, 2006.
• Final drafts for inclusion in the conference proceedings are due February 10.
Tentative Conference Programme
Thursday, 15 February:
t.b.a. Informal dinner for early arrivals (subject to attendee interest).
Friday, 16 February:
9.00 – 9.30 Tea/coffee/arrival
9.30 -- 10.30 Welcome and introduction
10.30 – 11.00 Morning tea
11.00 – 12.30 Session1: Discussion streams; target: 2 presenters per session.
12.30 – 1.30 Lunch (provided, courtesy of dept of M.I.B., Massey Albany)
1.30-2.45 Session2: Discussion streams; target: 2 presenters per session.
2.45 – 3.15 Afternoon tea
3.15 – 4.30 Session 3: Discussion streams; target: 2 presenters per session.
4.30 – 5.30 Plenary session
5.30 Drinks, cash bar.
7.00 Dinner
Saturday, 17 February:
t.b.a. Informal breakfast with stragglers (subject to straggler interest) ).
Attendees will be polled via email regarding interest in informal sessions, transportation needs
etc. Please contact R.Stagerjacques@Massey.ac.nz with any questions.
ivSubmissions
Since OIL is informal and dedicated to collegial peer interaction, we ask for short
written submissions: (1) to help structure the day’s discussions and (2) to assist
submitters in developing an idea for future publication. For these reasons, we do not
seek full papers, but position statements of about 1500 words that connect your
current research interests and questions with the themes of the conference. Work in
process is welcomed with the caveat that it should be written in academically
appropriate style with proper documentation.
There is no conference fee. In lieu of fee, as a condition of submitting, we will ask
submitters to act as an anonymous reviewer of two other submissions. Reviews
should be about 2-300 words and should address:
• the contribution of the paper to the conference theme
• theoretical and conceptual coherence
Reviews should be constructive and developmental. Conference proceedings will be
published online and in hardcopy. Inclusion on the programme is subject to timely
return of reviews.
White board, and computer projection (from a USB storage device) will be available.
In planning your presentation:
Please do:
• Target about a 10 minute presentation time to allow for meaningful discussion.
• Consider your presentation an interactive chat with colleagues.
• Plan your presentation format to stimulate discussion/feedback.
• Keep visual aids/formats simple.
• Help us watch “air time” in discussion so that all get a chance to participate.
Please do not:
• Run long or lecture to the audience; our goal is to facilitate peer interaction.
• Read a paper (please, please). Most or all attendees read well without
assistance.
• Prepare an elaborate presentation. No visual aids or simple ones are best.
vPresentation Schedule
Room AT 5 Room AT 6
Aesthetically Related Approaches Postcolonial Aotearoa/NZ
11.00 – Ralph Bathurst - Joy Panoho –
12.30 Leadership the Kiwi Way: An Artistic Who is afraid of the postcolonial?
Investigation
Session 1
Nanette Monin - Craig Prichard --
The paradox of constructions that Visibility machines and organizing the
construct us: A personal reflection on postcolonial; an institutional analysis of
post-colonial experience of texts ‘location’ and New Zealand’s computer
graphics firms.
Damian Ruth – Judith Pringle –
Organizing on Aotearoa: between inner Postcolonial Voices: ‘One’ through
space and external artefact ethnicity and ‘Other’ through Gender
Wayne Pihema –
Is it really still a life?
Lifestyle / Workstyle Contemporary Issues in Ways of
Organizing
1.30 –
Helen Richardson – Andrew Dickson –
2.45
Anarchy in NZ!: Oblong Internet Café: ‘Centres of Research Excellence’ Scheme:
Anarchy as a business model for Creative An Immutable Mobile?
Session 2 Capitals?
Janet Sayers – Suzanne Grant –
The recent re-branding of Air New Social Enterprise in Aotearoa New Zealand
Zealand: What does it say about a New
Zealand ‘style of labour’?
Marco van Gelderen – Terry Nolan –
Life Style Entrepreneurship as a Watch out Kiwis- here come the Eurocrats!
Contributor to Variety in the Economy
Decolonizing Management ONE New Zealand: Organizations
Education and the Natural Environment
3.15 –
Deborah Jones -- Alison Henderson –
4.30
Management PhDs in Aotearoa/New What counts as healthy food? The role of
Zealand: the trick of standing upright here New Zealand food producers in changing
Session 3 practices of food consumption.
Ralph Stablein – Tregidga, Kearins, Milne, Birch –
Management Education in New Zealand: Being ‘Sustainable’ in Aotearoa/New
organization, identity and locality Zealand: Whither Nature
Roy Stager Jacques – Sara Walton –
"Indigenous" (Kiwi) Textbooks: Damned Where am I located? Being critical and
if you do; damned if you don't researching organisations and the natural
environment
viPosition Papers
1Leadership the Kiwi Way: An Artistic Investigation
Ralph Bathurst
Is there a peculiarly New Zealand style of leadership? If so, what is the nature of that
leadership and how do we theorise about it?
In his recent Listener interview Professor of Leadership Brad Jackson, claims that
New Zealanders do indeed have a preferred leadership style. An egalitarian approach
where the leader is not distinct from followers is an attitude familiar with Kiwis.
Jackson claims that in New Zealand ‘we have one of the lowest power distances in the
world’ (Clifton, 2006, p. 14). This implies that Kiwis are uncomfortable with strict
hierarchies and the class distinctions that result from stratified organisational
structures.
Should we infer from this that the retiring, shy, Kiwi leader suffers from inferiority
and low self esteem? Or rather does he or she reflect qualities that are more
appropriate within an empowered workforce? In this paper I opt for the latter view,
that New Zealand leaders express qualities that are appropriate for the third
millennium. These qualities have application beyond the New Zealand context to the
wider world of organisational life.
In this presentation I propose an artistic investigation that reflects on the nature of
leadership within an egalitarian frame. By presenting leadership artistically I think we
can discern some of the qualities that have hitherto been hidden from view. I offer,
then, an exploration of Berlioz’s second symphony Harold in Italy. This paper forms
the preparatory work that underpins a live interactive presentation with an orchestra
performing the symphony (June 2008 Nomadic University Conference in Stockholm).
The attraction of Berlioz’s symphony is its number of innovative aspects, the primary
one being the use of a solo viola. While a concerto features one or more soloists, it is
rare to do this in a symphony.
Originally the work was designed for violinist extraordinaire, Niccolò Paganini. As a
friend of Berlioz, Paganini had asked for a work for solo viola. On seeing the
sketches Paganini rejected Berlioz’s ideas claiming that there was not enough in the
work for him to show off his skills. He noticed that ‘there is not enough for me to do,
I should be playing all the time.’
As a metaphor for leadership, the solo viola becomes an integral part of the
symphony, promoting ideas and interacting thematically with the other sections.
However, by the final movement, the violist all but disappears. Hence although the
viola is silent, it is present.
This absence-presence paradox underpins the kind of egalitarianism that Jackson
speaks of in his Listener interview. As a symbol for leadership, the viola works with
the orchestra to fulfil the vision of the piece, and then fades into the background
allowing the full ensemble to shine through.
2In this presentation at OIL III, I aim to briefly discuss these background issues and
then describe how I propose to mount this project in an interactive context.
References
Clifton, J. (2006). Follow the leaders. New Zealand Listener, 206(3472), 14–17.
3‘Centres of Research Excellence’ Scheme: An Immutable Mobile?
Andrew Dickson
MBS Student
Massey University, Palmerston North
Email: agdickson@paradise.net.nz
In this paper I consider the uptake of the ‘Centres of Research Excellence’ (CoRE)
model into New Zealand’s government policy. With little comment on the success or
otherwise of this fund I utilise an actor-network approach to consider how the model
has become an integral and accepted part of New Zealand’s government policy.
In 2002 the government announced the first five CoRE institutions; since then the
model has grown significantly, and now seems to incorporate, as hosts or participants,
the majority of the scientific research institutions in New Zealand. The CoRE model
is an inherited model, based on the Finnish and other international examples. If we
utilise “conventional organizational thinking” (Calas & Smircich, 1999, p.664) this
seems like a sensible thing, I mean – why re-invent the wheel, or even change it
slightly, if we can utilise a working example with little need for ‘local’ change? But
thinking in a conventional way is only one way of analysing the rise of the CoRE fund
in New Zealand government policy; another way is using the sociology of actor-
network theory. Calas & Smircich describe actor-network theory as providing a “very
good way of telling stories” (p. 663) about organisational life that we otherwise take
for granted. They also state that actor-network theory “with its focus on
irreductionism and relationality, rather than facts and essences, may become a very
useful exercise to counter conventional ‘theoretical tales’ in organization studies” (p.
664). In the following few paragraphs I counter the conventional tale in this
circumstance and instead offer a brief account of this tale using actor-network
theory’s sociology of translation (Callon, 1986; Latour, 1987).
We often view something that is a process as a static entity because of what Latour
entitles ‘immutable mobiles’. We label entities (such as ‘The CoRE fund’) and by
doing so these “networks are often converted into inscriptions or devices” (Tatnall &
Gliding, 1999, p. 958). Many commonly understood ‘entities’ are reified and given a
‘black box’ status, a salient example of this can be seen in documents – we may see
them as entities, but viewed through the lens of actor-network theory they are just
processes that have won the struggle against their resistors to emerge as order (Law,
1992). For instance in New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi is often viewed as a
reified entity, but can also be viewed as a process that won a struggle against other
processes to establish a treatise between indigenous and colonial peoples. The thing
about these immutable mobiles is that become immutable (literally – ‘not able to
change’) and mobile (literally – ‘able to move freely around’) so as Latour states you
have created “objects which have the properties of being mobile but also immutable,
presentable, readable and combinable with one another” (1986, p. 26, emphasis in
original). Below I argue how the concept of the ‘CoRE’ landed in the policy arena of
the New Zealand government as an immutable mobile, transported from other western
governments, and was combined, through a process of translation, into the policy
framework.
4If the immutable mobile is the result, the process of translation is the process of
winning the struggle to create order within a network. A particular actor within a
network acts to reinforce a particular position, and they perform this position in all of
their interactions. This is most easily understood from a human within institution
perspective when one actor (be that individual or group etc…) performs a particular
‘mode of ordering’ their institution’s arrangements (these may be for example as a
not-for-profit or as a profit making enterprise) this (these) actors will position other
actors (human and non-human) in the network to reinforce the order their chosen
mode represents. The more successful they are the more ‘real’ the institutional order
becomes, this is the process of translation. Michel Callon tells of four stages of
translation as the promoting actors employ various strategies to reinforce their
position. The first is the problematising of the institution from the perspective of their
mode; this enables the actor to become indispensable to the cause. The second is by
utilising the devices of interessment, where the actor positions other actors to create
interest in their own mode, this may also involve interrupting the interessment devices
of competing modes. The result of successful interessment is enrolment, where other
actors enrol in the promoted mode. The final stage involves ensuring the enrolled
actors are representative of the masses, if so, thereby mobilizing the masses to
continuously reinforce the order (Callon, 1986). As Hardy, Phillips and Clegg (2001)
note:
“These strategies help to create convergence by locking actors into the network. The
more fixed or stable it appears, the more ‘real’ and durable it becomes, and the less
controversy and ambiguity are evident… The aim, then, is to put relations between
actors into ‘black boxes’ where they become a matter of indifference – scientific
‘facts’, technical artifacts, modes of thought, habits, forces, objects” (2001, p. 538).
The news media texts espouse the success of the CoRE fund, and so do the
researchers in the Centre, and the Government press releases (as we would expect!)
and so did (do) I. It has been successful hasn’t it? Everyone says it has – so it must be,
or is this simply a testament to the power of the ‘CoRE’ mode of ordering research
management, as an immutable mobile – black boxed and reified into an
unquestionable ‘truth’.
If we follow the line above you can argue that the Government actor-network
managed to successfully problematise the things that would support the establishment
of a ‘CoRE fund’, such as issues with inter-institutional and cross-disciplinary
collaboration in New Zealand universities and government laboratories, as many other
western governments had already done. For instance the following statement
describes the government’s vision for the CoRE fund:
“Establishes and promotes excellent, collaborative, strategically focused research;
creates significant knowledge transfer; provides opportunities for the creation and
diffusion of knowledge that are not available through existing funds; and encourages
tertiary education institutions to develop relationships and linkages with other
research organisations, enterprises and communities that they serve” (RSNZ, 2006, p.
1)
Then, through Callon’s process of interessment the Government worked to block
other potential competing modes of ordering that would promote or support
collaboration between universities, government laboratories and disciplines. This can
be seen in the selective advice taken from the Tertiary Education Advisory
Commission (TEAC), who suggested that two types of CoRE’s be funded, whereas
only one was. Third, it does seem that the Government has managed to enrol a range
5of influential actor-networks to support their project (certainly the first round of
CoRE’s involved many influential New Zealand scientific actor-networks) and now
also acts to continuously mobilize supporting actors (like student researchers who are
researching the ‘success’ of the programme) to reinforce the mode.
When I was thinking about and writing this short piece I was constantly concerned
with the seeming political maneuvering of the authorities that imported the CoRE
scheme. The saving factor that allowed me to not recoil from the ramifications of my
analysis is the fact that the Government in this story is in fact also only an actor-
network in itself bowing under the strain of other international forces of mobilization
– New Zealand did, after all, follow the Finish CoRE model – because of its apparent
success.
I think the use of this paper resides in the fact that it is important for us as Kiwis to
consider how ‘imported’ government policy comes to rest in New Zealand, often with
little local adaptation. However following the empirical realism of actor-network
theory (Lee & Hassard, 1999) I am comforted, because many of the CoREs have
achieved a range of very impressive feats, ranging from a substantial increase in
publications, to launching internationally successful student alumni, to international
conference hosting and many others – they incorporate, to be as sure as I can, an
impressive bunch of scientists!
References
Calás, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative
directions. Academy of Management Review 24(4), 649-671.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the
scallops and the fishermen of Saint Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.) Power, action
and belief: A new sociology of knowledge? Sociological Review Monograph.
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul. 32: 196-233.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and
management theory: A study of the production of the research ‘subject’. Human
Relations, 54(5), 531–560.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through
society. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Law, J. (1992). Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy and
heterogeneity. Systems Practice, 5, 379-393.
Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Lee, N., & Hassard, J. (1999). Organization unbound: Actor-network theory, research
strategy and institutional flexibility. Organization, 6(3), 391-404.
RSNZ, (2006). CoRE Fund Selection Framework 2006. Royal Society of New
Zealand. [Unpublished guideline document].
Tatnall, A., & Gilding, A. (1999). Actor-network theory and information systems
research. 10th Australasian Conference on Information Systems (ACIS),
6Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.
7Social Enterprise in Aotearoa
Suzanne Grant
Waikato University
The opportunity provided through a symposium such as OIL III is very timely for me.
As I begin my Post Doctoral research, one area of interest I have is the emergence of
social enterprise (SE) within Aotearoa New Zealand. I am interested to see what
‘flavour(s)’ and influences are shaping these activities which purport to achieve some
aspect of social change within New Zealand. I have taken the opportunity to develop a
‘think piece’ from which I hope to further develop my research. Currently I have more
questions than answers. However, I look forward to discussing these with others, so
that I might begin to develop ideas on how to further ‘flesh’ out the challenges I see
before me.
Introduction
Building on a brief review of definitions of social enterprise provided in literature, I
begin to consider whether social enterprise as it is manifest in New Zealand is a
natural progression of ‘kiwi ingenuity’, or are social enterprise developments
consistent with other areas of change in the NZ community/voluntary sector -
reflecting changes to social and government policy, such as the transfer of services
previously provided by government to the community sector and reduced government
funding for such activities? What contributions do social enterprises make to NZ
society? For example, Pearce (2003, p.38) identifies democratic involvement of
members as a defining characteristic of social enterprises within the United Kingdom.
Do SE’s within New Zealand contribute towards achieving similar democratic,
emancipatory and participative ideals, whereby the wellbeing of both members and
the extended community is able to flourish? Applications of critical theory provide a
useful lens as I begin this investigation….although thus far, I appear to identify more
questions than answers……..
In search of a definition…..
There is general agreement in academic literature that no commonly accepted
definition or consistent application of social enterprise is applied in scholarship (Dart,
2004b; Haugh, 2005; Jones & Keogh, 2006; OECD, 1999). Yet organisation, identity
and location are inextricably linked, so it is not surprising that three distinct
interpretations are evident within literature, encompassing social enterprise activities
in the United Kingdom, Europe, and the United States.
In the United Kingdom, “there seems to be general agreement that a social enterprise
is an independent organisation with social and economic objectives that aims to fulfil
a social purpose as well as achieving financial sustainability through trading” (Haugh,
2005, p.3). These organisations may take a variety of forms, potentially covering
“everything from not for profit organisations, through charities and foundations to
cooperative and mutual societies” (Harding, 2004, p.40). Social cooperatives are
identified by Kerlin (2006) as the most common form of social enterprise in Europe,
with a dominant feature being the involvement of work, or some form of participatory
contribution by those benefiting from the programme. In contrast, social enterprise in
8the United States appears more focused on enterprise for the sake of revenue
generation (Kerlin, 2006). Dart (2004b) observes that many (North American) social
enterprises are influenced by business thinking with a primary focus on results and
outcomes for client groups and communities.
To generalise from the above definitions, social enterprises might be assumed to be a
cluster of organisations situated within the not for profit/community sector of society.
There appears to be little consideration (as yet) given to potential cross sector
interaction, or actions taken by business to adopt a social enterprise focus, beyond or
within the (at times) equally ambiguous notions of corporate social responsibility
and/or sustainable development (Roper & Cheney, 2005). State and market influences
are acknowledged by scholars as shaping both the structure and activities of social
enterprises (Dart, 2004b; Pearce, 2003). I am interested to see what ‘flavours’ and
influences are evident within social enterprise in New Zealand.
Here in Aotearoa New Zealand……
I have found little formal published scholarship on social enterprise to help us
understand how this concept is developing within Aotearoa New Zealand. Kiwis are
often lauded for their ingenuity (Bridges & Downs, 2000; Martin, 2004; Riley, 1995)
so are efforts to achieve a ‘better’ way the motivating force behind New Zealand
social enterprises? Pearce (2003) observes how the growth of social enterprises in the
UK during the 1970s provided a challenge to the political and economic status quo of
the time. Such efforts demonstrate emancipatory aspirations, however he also
observes this motivation appears less apparent in social enterprises established more
recently – potentially he suggests a result of “business-like indoctrination” (p.61). In
light of the neoliberal influences NZ society has faced over the last two decades, it
seems prudent to consider this issue more deeply: To what extent do NZ social
enterprises develop from fresh, innovative ideas, and/or to what extent are they
responses to neoliberal and ‘Third way’ government policy which purports to promote
active citizenship (Dean, 2004)? For example, is fundraising undertaken by a school
community to address a shortfall in operational funding a form of social enterprise?
With the seemingly dominant focus on business models evident within US approaches
to social enterprise (Dart, 2004a; Massarsky, 2006), sounding my personal alarm
bells, I am also interested to see if social and spiritual aspirations are encouraged to
flourish within New Zealand social enterprises, or do economic intentions also
dominate such interactions here? The Western concept of heart/head metaphors which
scholars such as Fals Borda (2001) and Park (2001) invoke as a means of
distinguishing instrumental and relational influences provide a lens through which to
consider SE developments in New Zealand. Are our social enterprises driven by
individual intentions, shaped by technical and functional objectives, i.e. ‘the head’?
Or are we able to adopt a relational ethic (Humphries & Grant, 2006), whereby values
and expressions of humanity, i.e. the ‘heart’ reside?. Current government mechanisms
of support appear to indicate a preference by the state for a strong rational, business,
(i.e. ‘head’) orientation. Fuelled by media attention, controversy surrounding
recipients and projects resulted in the termination of the government’s ‘Social
Entrepreneur Fund’ in 2004. This fund has since been replaced by the Community
Initiatives Fund, with stated labour market objectives to be achieved through
community employment and community development schemes. Fund recipients,
supported by a mentor/fieldworker are encouraged to adopt a business orientation
9with the aim of turning around their ‘disadvantaged’ communities. Profiled ‘success stories’ illustrate communities creating ‘development’ activities around the resources they have at hand (Buwalda, 2003), but critical reflection beyond outputs is still needed so that we may also begin to consider wider reaching issues and associated outcomes. For example, do these activities begin to address the causal influences that contribute to the community in question being labelled as ‘disadvantaged’? Is participation in employment creation activities to be perceived as synonymous to participation in (and contribution to?) our purported democratic society? An absence of any clear definition for social enterprise within the New Zealand context provides opportunity to shape my research from the onset. My personal paradigm in some ways reflects the activities from the UK… as I seek to look beyond a focus on revenue generating activity. Outlets for fair trade coffee and chocolate, employment schemes for disabled persons, Canteen selling bandanas to support child cancer patients, and Angel Funds such as those established in Christchurch and Dunedin which provide support and small interest free loans to women (Saunders, 2006) are all potential social enterprises in my eyes, as the activity each group engages in is a medium through which they seek to achieve a form of social change. Rather than restrict interpretation of enterprise as a noun and represented by a (fixed) entity, I consider enterprise as a verb – a form of action. Thus, building on motivational intent, facilitating interaction, inter and intra sectorial relationships or even activism (Jones & Keogh, 2006) are possible conduits through which social enterprise may contribute to the wellbeing of our nation. Relationships are crucial within the social enterprise context. Horton (2006) identifies social enterprise as including a cross section of individuals and organisation members interacting across business, not for profit and public sectors towards a common goal of adding social value. I believe much of this value stems from engagement which occurs across sectors. The challenge we face is to ensure such relationships are nurtured not constrained, and that they seek to empower not exploit! (Grant, 2006). Albeit a somewhat simplistic view, Habermas’ framework of the lifeworld and system can be applied to illustrate these relationships, between social and enterprise; with the lifeworld signifying ‘social’ and the system ‘enterprise’ activities respectively. Neither sphere of society is seen by Habermas to be more important than the other - it is the interconnection between the spheres, and the resulting tensions which he deems to be important. “The tension between the lifeworld and the system is both an index of potential crisis and emancipation” (Swingewood, 2000 p.234). To this end, one might (again simplistically) consider the tension between the two spheres to be representative of the aspirations of social enterprise. Looking beyond the potential within such tension however, Habermas is also concerned with the processes through which lifeworld imperatives may be dominated/overcome by the instrumental intentions within the system. Habermas describes such domination as the ‘colonisation of the lifeworld’. Continuing our example then, colonisation influences, such as the seemingly uncritical adoption of business models in the USA, must be contained if social enterprise is to successfully contribute towards human flourishing. At this point I invite discussion of the questions raised thus far. What social enterprises are others aware of in New Zealand? Specifically, I invite my fellow participants to join me, in reflecting on and identifying aspects of the NZ lifeworld and system. For example, while our lifeworld reflects a multi cultural society, specific 10
recognition is given to Maori and the influence their language and customs bring to
our day to day lives. Similarly, the neoliberal reforms noted earlier can be identified
as a dominant feature of our ‘system’, manifest increasingly through schemes such as
‘user pays’. From this discussion we might begin to identify the context within which
NZ social enterprises operate, deepen our understanding of them and establish a
subsequent research agenda.
References
Bridges, J., & Downs, D. (2000). No.8 wire. Auckland: Hodder Moa Beckett.
Buwalda, J. (2003). Special edition. Employment matters, 14(9).
Dart, R. (2004a). Being 'business-like' in a nonprofit organisation: A grounded and
inductive typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 290-310.
Dart, R. (2004b). The legitimacy of social enterprise. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 14(4), 411- 424.
Dean, H. (2004). Popular discourse and the ethical deficiency of 'Third Way'
conceptions of citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 8(1), 65-82.
Fals Borda, O. (2001). Participatory (action) research in social theory: Origins and
challenges. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research.
London: Sage Publications.
Grant, S. L. (2006). A paradox in action? A critical analysis of an appreciative
inquiry. Unpublished PhD, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Harding, R. (2004). Social enterprise. The new economic engine? Business Strategy
Review, 15(4), 39-43.
Haugh, H. (2005). A research agenda for social entrepreneurship. Social Enterprise
Journal, 1(1), 1-12.
Horton, R. (2006). Thoughts on the meaning and field of social enterprise. Retrieved
15 March 2006, from the World Wide Web:
http://ww2.gsb.columbia.edu/socialenterprise/message/MeaningSE.html
Humphries, M., & Grant, S. (2006). Social enterprise: A remedy to growing
inequality across and within nations or a deflection of attention? Paper
presented at the 7th International Conference of International Third Sector
Research (ISTR), Bangkok, Thailand.
Jones, D., & Keogh, W. (2006). Social enterprise: A case of terminological ambiguity
and complexity. Social Enterprise Journal, 2(1), 11-26.
Kerlin, J. A. (2006). Social enterprise in the United States and abroad: Learning from
our differences. In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social
entrepreneurship: Understanding and contributing to an emerging field (Vol. 1,
pp. 105-125). Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit
Organizations and Voluntary Action.
Martin, F. (2004). Attitudes of our young. Bright, 7 (November), 12-14.
11Massarsky, C. W. (2006). Coming of age: Social enterprise reaches its tipping point.
In R. Mosher-Williams (Ed.), Research on social entrepreneurship:
Understanding and contributing to an emerging field (Vol. 1, pp. 67-88).
Indianapolis,IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and
Voluntary Action. OECD. (1999). Social enterprises: Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development.
Park, P. (2001). Knowledge and participatory research. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury
(Eds.), Handbook of action research. London: Sage Publications.
Pearce, J. (2003). Social enterprise in Anytown. London: Calouste Gulbenkian
Foundation.
Riley, B. (1995). Kiwi ingenuity. A book of New Zealand ideas and inventions.
Auckland: AIT Press.
Roper, J., & Cheney, G. (2005). The meanings of social entrepreneurship today.
Corporate Governance, 5(3), 95-104.
Saunders, G. (2006). Microfinance in New Zealand: Tindall Foundation and Ethical
Investment Aotearoa.
Swingewood, A. (2000). A short history of sociological thought. Basingstoke:
MacMillan.
12What counts as healthy food? The role of New Zealand food producers
in changing practices of food consumption.
Alison Henderson
Waikato University
What counts as healthy food? Food producers in New Zealand increasingly develop
and market foods in terms of their health benefits, and this would seem to be
advantageous in promoting public health. Yet, as the boundaries between foods and
medicines become blurred, the resulting complexity of medical and market
information creates challenges which may be counter-productive, both in terms of
sustainable business and consumer health. This study aims to understand the
organisational tensions created by various approaches to what is considered to be
healthy food, and to explore how New Zealand food producers may, as a result,
influence food consumption practices.
The medical profession expresses increasing concerns about the social and economic
consequences of health problems associated with obesity and current western food
consumption. At the same time, consumers are provided with a wealth of conflicting
information about healthy food choices. Food producers cite the benefits of high-tech
‘functional foods’ enriched in the manufacturing process, and intended to address
specific health needs (Fonterra, 2006), while ‘natural’ foods are presented as a ‘pure’
and wholesome alternative (Comvita, 2006). At the same time, medical research cites
the benefits and risks of particular food elements in health management, and has
expressed concern about the potency of ‘natural’ over-the-counter food supplements,
and called for the regulation of herbal and ‘natural’ products (Drew, A. K., & Myers,
S. P., 1997; Crawford, S. & Leventis, C., 2005).
Recent organisational communication scholarship has focused significantly on the
management of organisational tensions within the organisation (Alvesson, M. &
Karreman, D., 2000; Ashcraft, K., 2001; Ashcraft, K. & Kedrowicz, K., 2002;
Fairhurst, G. & Putnam, L.L., 2004; Zoller, H., 2003, 2004) but little consideration
has been given to how organisations deal with tensions from external debates,
integrate these into their own strategic planning, and participate in public policy
discussion. Additionally, studies linking food and health have largely focused on
consumer behaviour (Armstrong, G., Farley, H., Gray, J. & Durkin, M., 2006; Bogue,
J., Coleman, T. & Sorenson, D., 2006; Botonaki, A., Polymeros, K., Tsakiridou, E. &
Mattas, K., 2006; Shiu, E., Dawson, J. & Marshall, D., 2004), on the risk factors for
health issues like obesity and heart disease (Chandler, B., 2006; Dixon, J. M., Hinde,
S. J. & Banwell, C. L., 2006; Higgs, J., 2005), and on the effectiveness of specific
food campaigns (Jones, P., Comfort, D. & Hillier, D., 2006; Reinaerts, E., de Nooijer,
N., van de Kar, A. & de Vries, N., 2006; Taylor, F., 1996), but little work looks
specifically at how food producers manage the complex and dynamic array of medical
and market research data about healthy food. Equally, little research focuses on food
producers’ influence on which ideas gain legitimation and are subsequently adopted
by consumers, or as public policy. In New Zealand the economy depends significantly
on the acceptance of its primary produce in international markets. Food producers
may therefore have great influence on public policy, so studying how they determine
what counts as healthy food, as they decide on their research and development
13agendas, provides an important opportunity to understand how organisations make sense of wider public policy debates about relevant issues. For food producers, such debates focus, for example, on optimal food consumption and health practices, the use of GM technologies in food production, and a preferred export identity for New Zealand. Recent research suggests, for example, that New Zealand primary producers exporting to international markets had to manage multiple industry and New Zealand identities as they made decisions about their position on genetic modification (Henderson, Weaver & Cheney, forthcoming). Public debate about the issues surrounding genetic modification highlighted two possible directions for New Zealand food producers to consider in terms of research and development opportunities in the international marketplace. On the one hand, the New Zealand government’s commitment to a knowledge economy has identified biotechnology as a key area for future development, following the report of the Royal Commission on Genetic Modification in 2001 (Growing an innovative New Zealand, 2002). The dairy industry has, for example, highlighted the need for New Zealand to maintain its position in the global dairy marketplace, where competitors such as Nestle and Arla are already researching the potential of GM technologies. Fonterra’s new product on the domestic market, Anlene, would suggest that the dairy industry is pursuing the development of functional foods, or nutriceuticals, that may prove more acceptable to New Zealand consumers (and European, and Japanese markets) than GM products. On the other hand, research suggests that New Zealand may also benefit from developing organics industries and positioning food products that draw on New Zealand’s ‘clean, green’ identity which has been so successful in the area of tourism (Tourism New Zealand, 2005). The kiwifruit industry (Zespri) and honey industry (Comvita), for example, prioritise the health-giving properties of their ‘natural’ products, and highlight the unique properties of the New Zealand environment in which their products are grown. The proposed study will combine both macro and micro approaches to examine how food-producing organisations make particular assumptions about ‘health’ in their own strategic planning. First, document and interview research will be conducted involving key texts and spokespersons on New Zealand public policy related to food and health, to gain an overview of relevant current debates; second, a detailed critical discourse analysis will be undertaken of formal texts and data from interviews with three key New Zealand organisations producing food products for both national consumption and for export. The study aims to build on existing theories of identity management (Cheney, 1991, 2004; Cheney & Christensen, 2001; Cheney & Vibbert, 1987) to theorise how organisations make sense of (see Weick, 1979a, 1979b, 1995, 2001) the challenges created by intersecting discourses, and the implications for sustainable business. It will examine how the development and positioning of food products creates a new role for food producing organisations in relation to New Zealand public health policy, and aims to assess possible implications for food and drug regulation, and for consumers’ healthy food choices. References Alvesson, M. & Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53(9), 1125-1149. 14
Armstrong, G., Farley, H., Gray, J. &Durkin, M. (2006). Marketing health-enhancing
foods: implications from the dairy sector. Marketing Intelligence and Planning,
23(7), 705=719.
Ashcraft, K. (2001). Organized dissonance: Feminist bureaucracy as hybrid form.
Academy of Management Journal, 44(6), 1301-1322.
Ashcraft, K. & Kedrowicz, K. ( 2002). Self-direction or social support? Nonprofit
empowerment and the tacit employment contract of organizational
communication studies. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 88-110.
Bogue, J., Coleman, T. & Sorenson, D. (2006). Determinants of consumers’ dietary
behaviour for health-enhancing foods. British Food Journal, 107(1), 4-16.
Botonaki, A., Polymeros, K., Tsakiridou, E. & Mattas, K. (2006). The role of food
quality certification on consumers’ food choices. British Food journal, 108(2),
77-90.
Chandler, B. (2006). Diet, obesity and cancer – is there a link? Nutrition & Food
Science, 36(2), 111-117.
Cheney, G. (1991).Rhetoric in an organizational society: Managing multiple
identities. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
Cheney, G. (2004). Arguing about the ‘place’ of values in market-oriented discourse.
In S. Goldzwig & P. Sullivan (Eds.), New directions in rhetorical criticism
(pp.61-88). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheney, G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001a). Organizational identity: Linkages between
internal and external communication. In F. Jablin, & L. Putnam (Eds.), The new
handbook of organizational communication: Advances in theory, research, and
methods (pp. 231-269). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheney, G., & Vibbert, S. L. (1987). Corporate discourse: Public relations and issue
management. In F. M. Jablin, L. L. Putnam, K. H. Roberts, & L. H. Porter
(Eds.), Handbook of organizational communication: An interdisciplinary
perspective (pp. 165-194). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Comvita. (2006). Retrieved 9 October, 2006 from
http://www.comvita.com/index.html
Crawford, S. & Leventis, C. (2005). Herbal product claims: boundaries of marketing
and science. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 22(7), 432-436.
Dixon, J. M., Hinde, S. J. & Banwell, C. L. (2006). Obesity, convenience and
“phood”. British Food Journal, 108(8), 634-645.
Drew, A. K., & Myers, S. P. (1997). Safety issues in herbal medicine: implications for
the health professions. Medical Journal of Australia, 166, 538-541.
Fairhurst, G. & Putnam, L.L. (2004). Organizations as discursive constructions.
Communication Theory, 14(1), 5-26.
Fonterra. (2006). Anlene. Retrieved October 9, 2006 from
http://www.newzealandmilk.com/anlene/ Growing an innovative New Zealand.
15(2002). Retrieved April 11, 2005, from http://www.
beehive.govt.nz/innovate/innovative.pdf
Higgs, J. (2005). The potential role of peanuts in the prevention of obesity. Nutrition
& food Science, 35(5), 353-358. Jones, P., Comfort, D. & Hillier, D. (2006).
Healthy eating and the UK’s major food retailers: a case study in corporate
social responsibility. British Food Journal, 108(10), 838- 848.
Reinaerts, E., de Nooijer, N., van de Kar, A. & de Vries, N. (2006). Development of a
school- based intervention to promote fruit and vegetable consumption. Health
Education, 106(5), 345-356.
Shiu, E., Dawson, J. & Marshall, D. (2004). Segmenting the convenience and health
trends in the British food market. British Food Journal, 106(2), 106-127.
Taylor, F. (1996). Nutritional health project: ‘putting food on their agenda”. Nutrition,
Food & Science, 3, 6-11.
Tourism New Zealand. (2005). 100% Pure New Zealand. Retrieved May 31, 2005
from the Tourism New Zealand website: http://www.new zealand.com
Weick, K. E. (1979a). The social psychology of organising. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Weick, K. E. (1979b). Cognitive processes in organizations. Research in
organizational behaviour, 1, 41-74.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Weick, K. (2001). Making sense of the organisation. Oxford, UK: Blackwell
Publishers.
Zoller, H. (2003). Working out: Managerialism in workplace health promotion.
Management Communication Quarterly, 17(2), 171-205.
Zoller, H. (2004). Manufacturing health: employee perspectives on
problematic outcomes in a workplace health promotion initiative.
Western Journal of Communication, 68(3), 278-301.
16Management PhDs in Aotearoa/New Zealand: the trick of standing
upright here
Dr Deborah Jones
Victoria Management School
Victoria University of Wellington
Wellington
New Zealand
Te Whare Wananga o te Upoko o te Ika a Maui
Te Whanga-nui-a-Tara
Aotearoa
Deborah.jones@vuw.ac.nz
Not I, some child born in a marvellous year,
Will learn the trick of standing upright here
—Allen Curnow
Curnow’s phrase - ‘the trick of standing upright here’ - has for over half a century
echoed through discussions of national identity in Aotearoa/New Zealand. It evokes
the possibility of finding a way for non-Māori to stand in this place, ‘feeling
comfortable and "at home" in New Zealand’, as Jim Traue has put it (Traue, 2005). It
has acted as a point of impossible aspiration – ‘forever to be deferred, and forever to
be deferred to’ (Manhire, 1987, 2000 - and possible aspirations. To take some recent
examples of the latter, it evokes our political independence in global politics
(Templeton, 2006); reworked Māori -Pakeha relationships; a basis for a new
multiculturalism; and a clarion call for to ‘be genuinely world-class at whatever it is
that you do’ in business (Skilling, 2003) and leadership (Biggs, 2003).
When I was interviewed for my current job I was given the usual opportunity at the
end of the interview to reverse the process and to ask my own questions. I said I was
interested in PhD supervision and I asked if there would be supervision opportunities
in the job. The Dean explained that this was unlikely to be a major issue because ‘we
like to send our best students overseas’. I explained in return that my own views were
more or less completely the opposite. I am very committed to the ‘trick of standing
upright here’ as a critical academic in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
This interview has returned to my mind many times, and more in the last few months
as I have become PhD Director in our school. It seems, too, like a useful opening to
address issues of organization, identity and location from a critical perspective. It
addresses our own practices as critical management scholars and opens up the wider
questions of indigenous knowledges, globalisation and the neo-colonial. The
‘problem’ of local PhDs is also a topic that - as far as I am aware - is not directly
discussed among academics here in any terms. The closest we might get is discussion
of whether and how to increase the number of PhD students in the lights of increased
financial incentives to do so, and the implications of the recently easier access to New
Zealand PhDs for ‘international’ students in terms of resourcing and processing.
This issue of PhDs also touches quite deeply on sensitive issues for the identities of
academics in terms of how we experience, authorise and present ourselves. (Those
‘bio’ notes with our publications, our websites, our PBRF applications, our behaviour
at conferences). ‘Where’ we study (which country, which university) as well as
17‘where’ we teach are concerns central to this power/knowledge nexus. It is linked to scholarships, curricula, research funding, the organisations we belong to. Location constitutes our intellectual aspirations as well as our career strategies. As New Zealanders (and a high proportion of local academics are not born here) we are part of a wider debate about the global diaspora of New Zealanders, highlighted recently in Don Brash’s claim that we will all just move to Queensland if we cannot earn comparable money here. And then of course there is our relation to those ‘international students’ whose applications are currently flooding my inbox. (It is a strange paradox that ‘international’ tends to code to ‘non-Western’ or even ‘Asian’ when referring to students, but to western, high-prestige northern-hemisphere when it comes to publications). Are we to the big northern hemisphere universities as they are to us? And what about Māori students and the knowledges that they can generate? If they stand for local knowledges (including of course the global importance of such knowledges), can non- Māori New Zealanders make some kind of related stand? Even at the time of my job interview, some years ago now, Victoria University was sloganed as ‘world class and student centred’ (somewhat to the sniggers of many academics). The ‘world class’ is suspect in itself: it immediately implies some impossibly neutral evaluation of ‘best’ academic work, a neutrality which invariably cloaks partialities, geographic and otherwise. But it can also serve for a country like Aotearoa / New Zealand as a kind of polemical device to say that ‘we are just as good as you’ – in global knowledge politics, this could be a kind of call to resistance or even a heuristic to examine local identities and ethics of knowledge. This ‘we are just as good as you’ is a long-running theme in the cultural life of Aotearoa / New Zealand. In fields such as literature and visual arts, intellectuals have for several decades done a pretty good job of getting past the idea that nothing done here can be any ‘good’, and that you have to go to the northern hemisphere to learn how to do good work. As Jim Traue says it on the Great New Zealand Argument blog, “I think our writers have now learned the trick of standing upright here” (Traue, 2005). While the local/ global debate in the arts, humanities and cultural studies of various kinds is by no means over – it continues to take new forms - it has been open and it has been intense. It has been recognised as central to the intellectual work that is done here. It is also intimately linked to the PhD question, as addressing as it does where the ‘best’ is located, and how and by whom it can be verified. (At this point in writing I notice I start to feel uncomfortable as if I need to do a ritual acknowledgement that it can be valuable for New Zealanders to travel, learn from ‘international’ knowledges, etc. etc. – for fear of being called bad names like ‘parochial’, ‘xenophobic’ and even - and I have been called this – a ‘nativist’. But I am going to resist). In a parallel stream, New Zealand businesses are busy promoting themselves as offering ‘world class’ products and talents to the global market. A study such as the World famous in New Zealand project is blatantly triumphal and patriotic in this respect, boosting as it does globally successful local business (Campbell-Hunt, 2001). In the last few years the power of the ‘Peter Jackson effect’ is that it combines global recognition with living in and identifying with Aotearoa / New Zealand. In my view 18
You can also read
