Playful organisations: Undecidability as a scarce resource

This article explores how organisational play becomes a managerial tool to increase and benefit from undecidability. The article draws on Niklas Luhmann's concept of decision and on Gregory Bateson's theory of play to create a conceptual framework for analysing the relation between decision and undecidability. With an empirical point of departure in Danish public school policy and two concrete examples of games utilised in school development, the article analyses how play is a way for organisations to simultaneously decide and also avoid making a decision, thus keeping flexibility and possibilities intact. In its final sections, the article discusses what happens to conditions of decision-making when organisations do not just see undecidability as a given condition, but as a limited resource indispensable for change and renewal. The article advances discussions of organisational play by exploring the consequences play has for the very conditions of organising and for key concepts in organisation theory.     

文明对话视角下的回儒对话

文明对话是当今世界全球化时代人文社会科学领域中一个崭新的学术论域,也是不同族群、不同信仰群体之间进行平等交流、相互学习、和睦相处的一种人文精神和学术实践;文明对话的提出,是全球化时代社会经济、科技和文化多样性发展的必然需求,同时也是对"文明冲突论"的拨正与回应。近10年来,回儒对话作为文明对话论域中的重要学术论题,已在中国学术语境中产生了积极而深远的影响;对回儒群体及其思想贡献的总结与回顾,是为了更好地阐发其宝贵的历史学价值及其时代意义,为建设和谐美好的世界提供一种具有中国本土经验的精神资源和人文参照。因此,回儒对话的时代价值和意义将是持久而深远的。     

文明对话视角下的回儒对话

文明对话是当今世界全球化时代人文社会科学领域中一个崭新的学术论域,也是不同族群、不同信仰群体之间进行平等交流、相互学习、和睦相处的一种人文精神和学术实践;文明对话的提出,是全球化时代社会经济、科技和文化多样性发展的必然需求,同时也是对“文明冲突论”的拨正与回应。近10年来,回儒对话作为文明对话论域中的重要学术论题,已在中国学术语境中产生了积极而深远的影响;对回儒群体及其思想贡献的总结与回顾,是为了更好地阐发其宝贵的历史学价值及其时代意义,为建设和谐美好的世界提供一种具有中国本土经验的精神资源和人文参照。因此,回儒对话的时代价值和意义将是持久而深远的。     

Playful biometrics: controversial technology through the lens of play

This article considers the role of play in the context of technological emergence and expansion, particularly as it relates to recently emerging surveillance technologies. As a case study, I consider the trajectory of automated face recognition—a biometric technology of numerous applications, from its more controversial manifestations under the rubric of national security to a clearly emerging orientation toward play. This shift toward “playful” biometrics—or from a technology traditionally coded as “hard” to one now increasingly coded as “soft”—is critical insofar as it renders problematic the traditional modes of critique that have, up until this point, challenged the expansion of biometric systems into increasingly ubiquitous realms of everyday life. In response to this dynamic, I propose theorizing the expansion of face recognition specifically in relation to “play,” a step that allows us to broaden the critical space around newly emerging playful biometrics, as well as playful surveillance more generally. In addition, play may also have relevance for theorizing other forms of controversial technology, particularly given its potential role in processes of obfuscation, normalization, and marginalization.     

Dialogue and creativity: The generative dialogical perspective in therapy

The generative perspective in therapy understands relations and dialogue as a generative social space where participants can promote innovative resources and possibilities for themselves, and their relations and circumstances, along with new social ecologies. It focuses on the creative dimensions of human relationality. This epistemological and clinical perspective has a heuristic value that allows us to discern and work with micro dialogues—micro processes of creative, generative dialogues—in the ongoing dialogue, mindful of the opportunities for creativity and innovation they provide. The generative perspective promotes creative processes and transformations to help clients build possible and viable futures when faced with problems, conflicts and challenges. It involves the dialogical and relational co-creation of resources and possibilities, and actions for implementation. The perspective is illustrated with a therapy process involving a 3-year follow-up. The paper includes a section where differences and similarities between dialogical perspectives are presented.     

The Listener as Addressee in Face-to-Face Dialogue

Face-to-face conversation is a unique listening setting, with a particular kind of listener; the person the speaker is directly addressing is the addressee. Our research program has included several experiments involving detailed, reliable examinations of the subtle yet crucial behaviors that addressees use to collaborate with the speaker in face-to-face dialogue. We have found that addressees respond to speakers using either generic back channels (e.g., “m-hm” or nodding) or responses that specify what the addressee has understood (e.g., opening eyes wide to show surprise). Addressees timed these specific responses to precise moments in the speaker's narrative, and they tailored their responses to that moment (e.g., wincing when the speaker described something painful). Distracting addressees with a task that prevented them from following the speakers' narratives made these addressees unable to contribute specific responses, which, in turn, had a deleterious effect on the speakers' storytelling. Further research showed that addressees who were not distracted used a wide variety of behaviors to contribute to dialogue without interrupting the speaker, such as brief vocalizations, facial displays, and even gestures. Speakers and addressees regulated the timing of addressee responses using an interactive pattern of gaze. Addressees also indicated understanding by their formulations, which summarized or paraphrased what the speaker had said. However, our analysis showed that these formulations were not neutral. The analysis of addressees in face-to-face dialogue generates a deeper understanding of the listening process and has implications for listening in applied settings, such as psychotherapy or health care interactions.