Advertisement

The Philosophy of Innovation in Management Education: a Study Utilising Aristotle’s Concept of Phronesis

  • Gabriel J. CostelloEmail author
Article

Abstract

While much has been written on phronesis, there is a dearth of empirical work on the how the concept can be developed and implemented in practice, particularly in an educational setting. To address this problem, characteristics of phronesis were identified through a review of current literature and an examination of related themes from a special issue of the Philosophy of Management Journal on the philosophy of innovation. The implementation of the concept was investigated using an illustrative study of ongoing work aimed at embedding phronesis in an innovation educational module. The study will contribute to the nascent debate by providing evidence of embedding Aristotle’s phronesis in the curriculum of future managers, in this case Engineering and Business students, working in cross-functional teams. A schema is proposed, based on concepts distilled from the literature and the illustrative study, to examine whether an educational project cultivates phronesis among the students.

Keywords

Phronesis Aristotle Teaching of innovation Philosophy of innovation Responsible innovation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to acknowledge the contribution and expertise of my colleague Ivan McPhillips, School of Business, GMIT to the development of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ainley, Alison. 2005. Levinas, Emmanuel. In The Oxford companion to philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich, 512–513. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aristotle. 1967. translation. The ethics of Aristotle, the Nicomachean ethics / translated from the Latin by J.A.K.Thomson. Penguin.Google Scholar
  3. Aristotle. 1973. translation. Aristotle's 'Ethics' / translated from the Greek by W.D. Ross ... and others ; selected and with an introduction by J.L. Ackrill. London: Faber.Google Scholar
  4. Aristotle. 1978. translation. Nicomachean ethics [by] Aristotle. Translated, with introduction and notes, by Martin Ostwald. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  5. Avison, David E., Francis Lau, Michael D. Myers, and Peter Axel Nielsen. 1999. Action research. Communications of the ACM 42 (1): 94–97.Google Scholar
  6. Baskerville, Richard, and Michael D. Myers. 2004. Special issue on action research in information systems: Making IS research relevant to practice—Foreword. MIS Quarterly 28 (3): 329–335.Google Scholar
  7. Bergo, Bettina. 2015. Ethics as "first philosophy": Levinas's Reading of Aristotle available on line through http://www.academia.edu/445591/Ethics_as_First_Philosophy_Levinass_Reading_of_Aristotle Accessed April 2015.
  8. Bernstein, Richard J. 2002. The Constellation of Hermeneutics, Critical Theory and Deconstruction. In Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, ed. Robert J. Dostal. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Blok, Vincent. 2018. Philosophy of innovation: A research agenda (guest editorial). Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0080-z.Google Scholar
  10. Blok, Vincent, and Pieter Lemmens. 2015. The emerging concept of responsible innovation. Three reasons why it is questionable and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of innovation. In Responsible Innovation 2: concepts, approaches and applications, eds. Bert-Jaap Koops, Ilse Oosterlaken, Henny Romijn, Tsjalling Swierstra, and Jeroen van den Hoven. Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London: Springer International Publishing Switzerland.Google Scholar
  11. Blok, V., H.G.J. Gremmen, and R. Wesselink. 2016. Dealing with the wicked problem of sustainability: The role of individual virtuous competence. Business and Professional Ethics Journal 34 (3): 297–327.Google Scholar
  12. Braa, K., and R. Vidgen. 2000. Research: From observation to intervention. In Chapter 12. Planet Internet, ed. K. Braa, C. Sørensen, and B. Dahlbom. Lund: Studentlitteratur Previously published as: Braa & Vidgen, (1999) interpretation, intervention, and reduction in the organizational laboratory: A framework for in-context information system research, Accounting, Management and Information Technologies, issue 9 pp 25–47. Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  13. Coghlan, D., and T. Brannick. 2005. Doing Action Research in Your Own Organization. Second Edition ed. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  14. Copleston, F.C. 1955. AQUINAS, A Pelican Book. Penguin books, ltd.; 1963 reprint edition (1955).Google Scholar
  15. Corey, Stephen M. 1954. Action Research in Education. The Journal of Educational Research 47 (5): 375–380.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1954.10882121.Google Scholar
  16. Costello, Gabriel J., Kieran Conboy, and Brian Donnellan. 2015. Reflections on "reflection" in Action Research. Paper presented at the Uncertainty is a Great Opportunity.15th European Academy of Management Conference (EURAM) 17–20 June 2015 ,WarsawGoogle Scholar
  17. Critchley, S. 2001. Continental philosophy : A very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dante. 1984 translation. The Divine Comedy: Volume 1: Inferno by Dante Aligheri translated by Mark Musa. Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  19. Davis, Colin. 1996. Levinas : An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Davison, Robert M., Maris G. Martinsons, and Ned Kock. 2004. Principles of canonical action research. Information Systems Journal 14 (1): 43–63.Google Scholar
  21. Dick, B. 1993. You want to do an action research thesis? Available on line at http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html Accessed July 2015: Action research resources, Southern Cross University, Australia.
  22. Dostal, Robert J. 2002. Introduction. In Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, ed. Robert J. Dostal. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dreyfus, Hubert, and Stuart Dreyfus. 1990. Making a mind versus modelling the brain: Artificial intelligence Back at the branch point. In The philosophy of artificial intelligence (Oxford Readings in Philosophy), ed. Margaret A. Boden. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (July 12, 1990) reprinted 2005.Google Scholar
  24. Fish, Stanley. 1990. Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary & legal studies. Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2001. Making social science matter : Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again (translated by Stephen Sampson). Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2011. Case study. In The sage handbook of qualitative research, ed. Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, 4th ed., 301–316. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Flyvbjerg, Bent. 2018. What is Phronesis and Phronetic social science? https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-phronesis-phronetic-social-science-bent-flyvbjerg-%E5%82%85%E4%BB%A5%E6%96%8C−/ Accessed 30 March 2018.
  28. Gashin, J.C.A. 2005. Cicero, Marcus Tullium. In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Hammershøj, Lars Geer. 2018. Conceptualizing creativity and innovation as affective processes: Steve jobs, Lars von Trier, and responsible innovation. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 115–131.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0053-2.Google Scholar
  30. Hühn, Matthias P. 2018. Responsible innovation: A Smithian perspective. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 41–57.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0057-y.Google Scholar
  31. Jaffa, Harry V. 1952. Thomism and Aristotelianism : A study of the commentary by Thomas Aquinas on the Nicomachean ethics. Cambridge: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  32. Kamishima, Yuko, Bart Gremmen, and Hikari Akizawa. 2018. Can merging a capability approach with effectual processes help us define a permissible action range for AI robotics entrepreneurship? Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 97–113.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0059-9.Google Scholar
  33. Kenny, Anthony. 2010. A new history of Western philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kinsella, Elizabeth Anne. 2012. Practitioner Reflection and Judgement as Phronesis. In Phronesis as Professional Knowledge : Practical Wisdom in the Professions, ed. Elizabeth Anne Kinsella and Allan Pitman. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Kinsella, Elizabeth Anne, and Allan Pitman. 2012. Phronesis as professional knowledge : Practical wisdom in the professions. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Lawrence, Fred. 2002. Gadamer, the hermeneutic revolution, and theology. In Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, ed. Robert J. Dostal. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Malpas, Jeff. 2005. Hans-Georg Gadamer In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2014/entries/gadamer/.
  38. Maritain, Jacques. 1973. Person and the common good. University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  39. Markus, M. Lynne, and Carol Saunders. 2007. Looking for a Few Good Concepts...and Theories...for the Information Systems Field. MIS Quarterly 31 (1): iii–ivi.Google Scholar
  40. McAteer, Mary. 2013. Action Research in Education. SAGE Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  41. Moran, Dermot. 2000. Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Moussavi, Arash, and Ali Kermanshah. 2018. Innovation systems approach: A philosophical appraisal. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 59–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0078-6.Google Scholar
  43. Musa, Mark. 1984. Introduction. In The divine comedy: Volume 1: Inferno by Dante Aligheri translated by Mark Musa. Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  44. ODE. 2006. Aristotle. In Oxford Dictionary of English, Second Edition, Revised ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. ODS. 1999. Aristotle. In Oxford Dictionary of Scientists, ed. John Daintith and Derek Gjertsen. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Owen, R., M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. 2013. Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible emergence of science and Technology in Society. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Reason, Peter , and Hilary Bradbury. 2001. Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of human aspiration. In Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice eds. Peter Reason, and Hilary Bradbury. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Ross, David. 1954. Introduction. in The Nicomachean Ethics: translated and introduced by Sir David Ross. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Sand, Martin. 2018. The virtues and vices of innovators. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 79–95.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0055-0.Google Scholar
  50. Schlaile, Michael P., Matthias Mueller, Michael Schramm, and Andreas Pyka. 2018. Evolutionary economics, responsible innovation and demand: Making a case for the role of consumers. Philosophy of Management 17 (1): 7–39.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-017-0054-1.Google Scholar
  51. Schön, Donald A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  52. Schön, Donald A. 1990. Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new Design for Teaching and Learning in the professions. John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  53. Small, Michael W. 2004. Philosophy in management: A new trend in management development. Journal of Management Development 23 (2): 183–196.  https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410517265.Google Scholar
  54. Stilgoe, Jack. 2013. Foreword: Why responsible innovation? In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Technology in Society, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  55. Student Awards. 2018. Student entrepreneur awards available on-line at http://studententrepreneurawards.com/ Accessed April 2018.
  56. Susman, Gerald I., and Roger D. Evered. 1978. An assessment of the scientific merits of action research. Administrative Science Quarterly 23 (4): 582–603.Google Scholar
  57. Taylor, C.C.W. 2005. phronēsis. In The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, ed. Ted Honderich. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, Gary 2011. How to do your case study: A guide for students and researchers. SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  59. Tredennick, Hugh. 1969. Introduction in Plato: The Last Days of Socrates. Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  60. Van de Ven, Andrew H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social research. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. von Schomberg, René. 2013. A vision of responsible innovation. In Responsible Innovation, ed. R. Owen, M. Heintz, and J. Bessant. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  62. Zuckert, Catherine H. 2002. Hermeneutics in Practice: Gadamer on Ancient Philosophy. In Cambridge Companion to Gadamer, ed. Robert J. Dostal. West Nyack: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Galway-Mayo Institute of TechnologyGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations