Facilitating embodied learning in business ethics education: the use of relational sculpting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to first, provide an interdisciplinary overview of the pedagogical perspective known as “embodied learning”; second, describe the particular relevance of embodied perspectives for business ethics and business ethics education; third, introduce “relational sculpting” as a pertinent embodied technique in this context. Design/methodology/approach – Content analysis of qualitative data on relational sculpting fromn=50 participants in two sections of a required undergraduate course on business ethics was conducted. Findings – Findings indicated that the use of relational sculpting was associated with increased emotional awareness of, and empathy for stakeholders; a more compelling sense of connection to ethical issues and the affected stakeholders; enhanced understanding of stakeholder perspectives; and, a stronger appreciation of interconnections among stakeholders, as well as of the situation as a whole. Research limitations/implications – Future investigations could explore diverse other applications of relational sculpting and any implications these might have for learning effectiveness. Consideration could also be given to the viability, development, implementation and assessment not just of embodied techniques, but also, of integrated and coherent educationalprogramsthat are embodied in nature. Practical implications – Step-by-step practical guidelines for using relational sculpting are provided. Additionally, comprehensive ethical guidelines for the use of innovative teaching methodologies such as relational sculpting are also provided. Originality/value – Management scholars have recently advocated not only for increased ethics training in undergraduate and graduate curricula, but also for enhanced teaching and learning through the integration of diverse scholarly perspectives and innovations. This paper provides an interdisciplinary overview of the pedagogical perspective known as “embodied learning,” identifies its relevance for business ethics and business ethics education, and also introduces “relational sculpting” as a relevant embodied technique.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".