值得这样做吗,还是自杀更好?大学的伦理审查

IF 4.5 2区 管理学 Q1 MANAGEMENT Human Relations Pub Date : 2024-05-11 DOI:10.1177/00187267241248530
Mats Alvesson, Anna Stephens
{"title":"值得这样做吗,还是自杀更好?大学的伦理审查","authors":"Mats Alvesson, Anna Stephens","doi":"10.1177/00187267241248530","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article examines the formal process of ‘ethical clearance’ for social science research at a large university and illuminates how it functions to undermine its stated purpose. We find that rather than promoting ethical standards, the bureaucratic process creates negative and cynical attitudes and game playing. For almost all participants, the entire procedure is counterproductive and experienced as absurd, creating a boomerang effect. The findings reveal how a specific rationalization effort leads to widespread experiences of irrationality, where detailed and strict organization merges with experiences of the bizarre. The article develops concepts capturing the experience and resulting organizational type: ‘orbizzarization’ and ‘absurdocracy’. These concepts enrich our understanding of toxic/irrational organizations, including Kafkaesque organizations.","PeriodicalId":48433,"journal":{"name":"Human Relations","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘Is it worth doing this or is it better to commit suicide?’: On ethical clearance at a university\",\"authors\":\"Mats Alvesson, Anna Stephens\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00187267241248530\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article examines the formal process of ‘ethical clearance’ for social science research at a large university and illuminates how it functions to undermine its stated purpose. We find that rather than promoting ethical standards, the bureaucratic process creates negative and cynical attitudes and game playing. For almost all participants, the entire procedure is counterproductive and experienced as absurd, creating a boomerang effect. The findings reveal how a specific rationalization effort leads to widespread experiences of irrationality, where detailed and strict organization merges with experiences of the bizarre. The article develops concepts capturing the experience and resulting organizational type: ‘orbizzarization’ and ‘absurdocracy’. These concepts enrich our understanding of toxic/irrational organizations, including Kafkaesque organizations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Relations\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Relations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241248530\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Relations","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267241248530","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

文章研究了一所大型大学的社会科学研究 "伦理审查 "正式程序,并揭示了该程序是如何破坏其既定目标的。我们发现,官僚程序非但没有促进道德标准的提高,反而造成了消极和愤世嫉俗的态度以及游戏规则。对几乎所有参与者来说,整个程序都会产生反作用,并被认为是荒谬的,从而产生回旋镖效应。研究结果揭示了特定的合理化努力是如何导致普遍的非理性体验的,在这种体验中,详细和严格的组织与离奇的体验合二为一。文章提出了一些概念来捕捉这种体验和由此产生的组织类型:"orbizzarization "和 "arbisocracy"。这些概念丰富了我们对包括卡夫卡式组织在内的有毒/非理性组织的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
‘Is it worth doing this or is it better to commit suicide?’: On ethical clearance at a university
The article examines the formal process of ‘ethical clearance’ for social science research at a large university and illuminates how it functions to undermine its stated purpose. We find that rather than promoting ethical standards, the bureaucratic process creates negative and cynical attitudes and game playing. For almost all participants, the entire procedure is counterproductive and experienced as absurd, creating a boomerang effect. The findings reveal how a specific rationalization effort leads to widespread experiences of irrationality, where detailed and strict organization merges with experiences of the bizarre. The article develops concepts capturing the experience and resulting organizational type: ‘orbizzarization’ and ‘absurdocracy’. These concepts enrich our understanding of toxic/irrational organizations, including Kafkaesque organizations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Relations
Human Relations Multiple-
CiteScore
12.60
自引率
7.00%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: Human Relations is an international peer reviewed journal, which publishes the highest quality original research to advance our understanding of social relationships at and around work through theoretical development and empirical investigation. Scope Human Relations seeks high quality research papers that extend our knowledge of social relationships at work and organizational forms, practices and processes that affect the nature, structure and conditions of work and work organizations. Human Relations welcomes manuscripts that seek to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to develop new perspectives and insights into social relationships and relationships between people and organizations. Human Relations encourages strong empirical contributions that develop and extend theory as well as more conceptual papers that integrate, critique and expand existing theory. Human Relations welcomes critical reviews and essays: - Critical reviews advance a field through new theory, new methods, a novel synthesis of extant evidence, or a combination of two or three of these elements. Reviews that identify new research questions and that make links between management and organizations and the wider social sciences are particularly welcome. Surveys or overviews of a field are unlikely to meet these criteria. - Critical essays address contemporary scholarly issues and debates within the journal''s scope. They are more controversial than conventional papers or reviews, and can be shorter. They argue a point of view, but must meet standards of academic rigour. Anyone with an idea for a critical essay is particularly encouraged to discuss it at an early stage with the Editor-in-Chief. Human Relations encourages research that relates social theory to social practice and translates knowledge about human relations into prospects for social action and policy-making that aims to improve working lives.
期刊最新文献
Relations between reflexivity and institutional work: A case study in a public organisation Inspired to be transformational: The interplay between employee voice type and manager construal level Cultivating dispersed collectivity: How communities between organizations sustain employee activism The different ways of being true to self at work: A review of divergence among authenticity constructs Embodying wilfulness: Investigating the unequal power dynamics of informal organisational body work through the case of women in stand-up comedy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1