MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977754831 · doi:10.1177/1350507605049899

Ethical Dilemmas of Critical Management Education

2005· article· en· W1977754831 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Fenwick

Bibliographic record

VenueManagement Learning · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEthics in Business and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical management studiesCritical pedagogyCritical theorySociologyEngineering ethicsCritical thinkingPedagogyEpistemologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical management education (CME) raises ethical issues, some of which have been debated in the broader literature of critical pedagogy and others that are particular to the unique balance of critical learning within contexts of management studies. Three issues in particular are explored in this article: the problematic positionality of the critical educator, the potential fragmentation of student subjectivities, and the contradictions between management practice and critical teaching. These issues are presented as ethical dilemmas for which no clear response can be postulated that does not entail further problematic issues. Mindful of this slipperiness, the discussion presents pedagogical approaches drawn from critical education theory and the author's own classroom struggles, approaches that attempt to sustain critical intent alongside respect for student needs, in a pragmatic and flexible pedagogy that incorporates action with critical analysis.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.144
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.210
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1440.210
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0130.097
Scholarly communication0.0200.016
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0190.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueManagement LearningSame topicEthics in Business and EducationFrench-language works237,207