IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v57y2006i9d10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602080.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Foucault to analyse ethics in the practice of problem structuring methods

Author

Listed:
  • J-R Córdoba

    (The Business School, University of Hull)

Abstract

As a new generation of problem-structuring methods (PSM) develops in operational research (OR) practice, the issue of ethics needs attention. This paper aims to contribute to examining ethics in the practice of problem structuring. The paper argues that PSM could influence ethical reflection but the scope of new developments is limited, as it is also the scope of ethical codes or norms in OR. Ethics needs to be understood as a continuous development by individuals in relation to existing frameworks and codes. This view of ethics is inspired by Michel Foucault's ideas on power and ethics. Using Foucault's ideas, two main areas of inquiry are suggested to enhance critical reflection about ethics: (a) individualization of forms of ethics, and (b) possibilities and constraints of ethics in power relations. Using these two areas, practitioners reflect on the ethics of their practice and relate it to their own ethical development.

Suggested Citation

  • J-R Córdoba, 2006. "Using Foucault to analyse ethics in the practice of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(9), pages 1027-1034, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:57:y:2006:i:9:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602080
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602080
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602080
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602080?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gass, Saul I., 1987. "Managing the modeling process: A personal reflection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 1-8, July.
    2. John Mingers, 2001. "Combining IS Research Methods: Towards a Pluralist Methodology," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 240-259, September.
    3. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    4. Maclagan, P, 1989. "Methodology choice and consulting ethics in management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 397-407.
    5. J Mingers, 2005. "‘More dangerous than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer’: a contribution to the Ulrich debate," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 468-474, April.
    6. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    7. M C Jackson, 1999. "Towards coherent pluralism in management science," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 12-22, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    2. Mingers, John, 2011. "Ethics and OR: Operationalising discourse ethics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 114-124, April.
    3. J Mingers, 2006. "A critique of statistical modelling in management science from a critical realist perspective: its role within multimethodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(2), pages 202-219, February.
    4. J Mingers, 2005. "‘More dangerous than an unanswered question is an unquestioned answer’: a contribution to the Ulrich debate," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(4), pages 468-474, April.
    5. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    6. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    7. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    8. M C Jackson, 2003. "Deeper complementarism: a brief response to Ulrich," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(11), pages 1225-1226, November.
    9. Luke Houghton, 2013. "Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 430-443, July.
    10. R J Ormerod, 2008. "The transformation competence perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(11), pages 1435-1448, November.
    11. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    12. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    13. Luke Houghton & David Tuffley, 2015. "Towards a Methodology of Wicked Problem Exploration through Concept Shifting and Tension Point Analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 283-297, May.
    14. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    15. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    16. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    17. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    18. Murray-Prior, Roy, 2007. "PR - Methodological Frameworks For Research And Development On Improving Linkages And The Competitiveness Of Supply Chains," 16th Congress, Cork, Ireland, July 15-20, 2007 345400, International Farm Management Association.
    19. Santos, Sérgio P. & Belton, Valerie & Howick, Susan & Pilkington, Martin, 2018. "Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 18-30.
    20. Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2010. "Mapping the changes in management science: A review of 'soft' OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973-2008)," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 38(1-2), pages 46-56, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:57:y:2006:i:9:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2602080. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.