ZU|Repositorium – der Hochschul- und Dokumentenschriftenserver der Zeppelin Universität
Not a member yet
12136 research outputs found
Sort by
Report on the Workshop “The Dynamics of Local Knowledge in Peace and Conflict Intervention” at Zeppelin University
No full text
Frauen in Top-Managementorganen öffentlicher Unternehmen – Ein deutschlandweiter Städtevergleich (FIT-Public Management-Studie 2023)
No full textSichtbares Publikum? Automatisierte Akteure als (un-)sichtbares Publikumssegment der Öffentlichkeit
No full textOrganizational Learning: A Conceptualization in the Framework of the Relational Economics Theory
No full textIn this research, a relational conceptualization of organizational learning (OL) is proposed. Following relational economics (Wieland 2020), this research conceptualizes the organization as a nexus of stakeholders' resources and interests. Stakeholders are either within or outside the institutional boundaries of the organization, which implies a view of the organization that goes beyond the intra-organizational context, coherent with an open systems view of the organization. Although the organization forms a nexus of stakeholders, it is an entity in its own right, i.e., it exists independently of individual stakeholders and is therefore ontologically real. Following the existing literature on the theory of the firm and institutional economics (e.g., the works of Commons, Coase, Williamson), transactions are considered as the unit of analysis in organization theory. Consequently, the organization as an entity is defined as a governance structure used by stakeholders to conduct transactions. Stakeholders contribute different rationalities that should be relationalized to carry out transactions. This view of the organization elucidates the ontological nature of organizations in this study and is the starting point for the conceptualization of OL as a relational process. In this framework, OL would be a process for the relationalization of rationalities for enabling the completion of multi-contextual transactions in the context of organizations intended as entities in their own right. Such a conceptualization would provide a new perspective on OL to existing theories. Indeed, much of the existing OL learning implicitly or explicitly relies on a neo-classical view of the organization and a focus on employees when conceptualizing OL (intra-organizational view of organizations and OL). Although the relevance of these theories to the field of OL, the emphasis on employees in OL models and elaborations has led to some epistemological and ontological problems in the OL literature, such as the OL paradox (can an organization actually learn? Is OL a mere metaphor?) and anthropomorphism (applying human characteristics such as the mind to inanimate entities such as organizations). This paper argues that a fundamental methodological change is required to conceptualize OL within the framework of relational economics: from methodological individualism to methodological relationism. By defining OL as a process focusing on individuals in the organization, existing OL literature can be placed within the meta construct of methodological individualism because the learning process focuses on the components of the organization. In methodological relationism, OL is defined as a micro-meso-relational process in which both the stakeholders (components of the organizational system) and the organization as an entity learn. The argument that the organization learns implies that the organization as an entity is capable of learning. This would then mean that OL is not a purely cognitive process, but a relational process which, in turn, would mean that learning could be conceptualized beyond human cognition
Energy Research Governance in the European Union
No full textA major share of Europe’s knowledge about its incumbent energy cultures is pre-defined in closed spaces of negotiations. One such space are the negotiations surrounding the European Union´s research and innovation Framework Programmes, which are the focus of this thesis. With these programmes, the European Union not only funds energy research across Europe, but likewise produces guiding energy research narratives that act beyond their scope into the research agendas of its Member States. Energy research governance, considered as the wider scope surrounding the Framework Programmes negotiations in the European Union, takes place in hybrid spaces, were science and politics meet and are influencing each other, inheriting limiting, and enabling effects on both sides. This study aims to determine how these spaces are organised, who is participating under which conditions, and how decisions on energy research agendas and research funding conditions are taken. Therefore, this thesis enfolds the emergence history of energy policy, research policy and the governance of its overlap, namely energy research. It then examines in depth the negotiations that took place during the reform process of the Frame-work Programmes between its seventh and eighth repetition. The perspective of scientific, political and hybrid social worlds is taken to draw an encompassing picture of the situation of energy research governance of the European Union. The methodological background of this study is a situational analysis, which was conducted based on narrative expert interviews, participant observations and documents, drawing on sensitizing concepts from the fields of Science and Technology Studies, sociology, and political sciences. The investigated hybrid spaces revealed the importance of historical rooted (energy) re-search narratives, that are combined with a set of standards and standardized governance practices making the Framework Programmes a robust governance tool, despite changing political climates. Moreover, the role of so far largely overlooked boundary social worlds became apparent. Whereas strategies of narrative governance were found to be a structuring element across all social worlds and hybrid spaces. The newly developed continuum of implicatedness disclosed movements of visibility and agency among the participating negotiators of energy research governance. These results have in common that they bear diverse forms of ambivalences a collective, an individual or a group of collectives is confronted with. The author concludes that these the ambivalences must be met with strategies of disclosure and debate, rather than with vain attempts to resolve irresolvable contradictions