No abstract

'What's going on?' Within the context of our critically-informed teaching practice, we see moments of deep learning and reflexivity in classroom discussions and assessments. Yet, these moments of criticality are interspersed with surface learning and reflection. We draw on dichotomous, linear developmental, and messy explanations of learning processes to empirically explore the learning journeys of 20 international Chinese and 42 domestic New Zealand students. We find contradictions within our own data, and between our findings and the extant literature. We conclude that expressions of surface learning and reflection are considerably more complex than they first appear. Moreover, developing critical reflexivity is a far more subtle, messy, and emotional experience than previously understood. We present the theoretical and pedagogical significance of these findings when we consider the implications for the learning process and the practice of management education.

This paper uses panel data from New Zealand from the years 1995 and 1999 to examine the impact on those organizations, size fifty and over, that engaged in repeat downsizing during this period. It was found that, during the panel period, approximately 20 per cent of the 322 organizations in the survey had engaged in the permanent reduction of their workforce in both periods. When compared with organizations in the survey that had not engaged in downsizing in both periods, it was found that the repeat downsizers exhibited characteristics that were little different from those that had downsized only in the later period, who reported the greatest decline in performance. However, those who had downsized only in 1995 had, by 1999, largely recovered from the initial negative effects. The repeat downsizers appear to have created a long-term concession climate that is associated with negative workplace performance.

Academic well-being is increasingly being eroded by the ever-shifting demands of the neoliberal university. As stressed early-career research-path academics, we both experienced an acutely depleted sense of well-being within this context. While our struggles were neither unusual nor remarkable, they exposed the difficulties inherent in blending academic work and life outside academia. Through embarking on a process of sharing our experiences with each other, we challenged the traditional silence about stress in academia. We created a shared narrative that interwove a process of writing individual vignettes, longitudinal diarising and critical reflexive questioning. Turning a critical gaze upon our struggles was a powerful means of opening up spaces of self-care within our academic practices. Here, we present the collaborative reflexive process that we used to nurture spaces of well-being in our own academic lives and thus, draw attention to the way reflexive practice can be understood as more than a tool of the researcher, becoming a tool for the researcher. We aim to shift the predominant focus of well-being remedies from being individualised and externally-oriented, to the possibility of collectively developing self-care for well-being within our academic work.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential to develop a shared understanding of systemic discrimination and the complexity of equality and an appreciation for the range of interventions designed to redress inequality within the context of business school curricula.Design/methodology/approach: Qualitative material was gathered over a four-year period through written reflections of student interpretations of equality. Participants were enrolled in a human resource management course critically examining systemic gender discrimination, women's organisational experiences, gendered employment outcomes, and the range of interventions designed to redress gendered employment outcomes. Threshold concepts framed the analysis of participant reflections.Findings: The paper shows that while the participants developed a shared understanding of systemic gender discrimination, their interpretations of equality and appreciation for the range of interventions available to redress inequality differed. These differences were shaped by 1) the extent to which participants integrated their understanding of systemic discrimination with their interpretations of equality and 2) the extent to which the interventions to inequality transformed, upheld or challenged participant agendic self-identity and world view.Practical implications: The differences in interpretations have implications for the way educators introduce discussions of equality within the business school classroom.Originality: The paper demonstrates that developing a shared understanding of systemic discrimination does not always lead to developing a shared understanding of the complexity of equality or appreciation for the many forms of interventions available.