How useful is social anthropology for an overseas student in looking Essay

How useful is social anthropology for an overseas student in looking at and understanding modern British society - Essay Example Social anthropology is a title used in England and to some extent in the United States, to designate a department of the larger subject of anthropology, the study of man from a number of aspects. It concerns itself with human cultures and societies† (Pritchard 3). Therefore, it is evident that the study of Social anthropology deserves greater significance. Many researchers have identified that ‘social anthropology’ is quite a recent name which was taught under the names of anthropology or ethnology (Prichard 3). A very good definition of Social Anthropology can be found in the official website of Harvard University that writes, â€Å"Social Anthropology is concerned with the social and cultural diversity of contemporary human communities and groups† (Harvard). The website adds that through ethnographic methods and intensive participant observation â€Å"Social Anthropologists study topics such as gender, race and ethnicity; religion; economic development; i llness and healing; human rights and political violence; popular culture and the role of media in society; food and consumption; and the impact of globalization† (Harvard). This leads one to the inference that social anthropology will have an elite role in making an overseas student looking at and understanding the British society, its race and ethnicity, religion, economic development, illness and healing, and the like. The purpose of the study is to explore the certain factors of social anthropology that help an overseas student to properly understand the modern British society. Identifying gender has an elite role in assuring a good educational standard for an overseas student. When one selects a particular country for one’s further studies, it is mandatory that he or she should have proper awareness about the gender differences existing in that region. One should keep in mind that fact that ‘diversity, and complexity and change are, then, features of contemporary British society’ (Abercrombie,

Doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament in the Modern United Kingdom Essay

Doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament in the Modern United Kingdom - Essay Example Though, the judiciary was not isolated institutionally from the Parliament, but, the judiciary was and is considered as having been employing or employed a sizeable magnitude of independence from that of Parliament. When the Bill of Rights introduced in 1689, it attempted to regulate the association between the Parliament and the Queen in a legitimate dominion, and it has been custom of the court to give due recognition to the pre-eminence of an Act enacted by the Parliament1. By the enactment of Bill of Rights, in 1689 can be said that it recognised the customary view that the supremacy of the Parliament as it stated that in Chapter 02-1, that the â€Å"pretended authority to enact or annul laws by so-called regal authority without approval of the parliament is not legally valid, and this had made the Parliament’s law enacting authority above that of monarchy. Before the passing of the Bill of Rights, it could be claimed by the judiciary that the common law ( judge made laws or verdicts given by judges) regulated statutes thereby making them invalid if an Act is said to be against common reason or right or not possible to be implemented as held in Dr Bonham’s case2. As per Wade3, the concept that the Parliament is independent since the judge recognises Parliament’s political and legal supremacy. ... However, Dicey’s5 strict elucidation that the parliamentary sovereignty is the supreme is not free from criticism as in recent times, there has been judicial rejuvenation as corroborated by judicial verdicts that the courts in UK consider themselves as preserving some residual privileges to refute the authority of legislation. Lord Woolf6 viewed that "â€Å"finally there are even restrictions on the domination of parliament which it is the UK’s court absolute power to recognise and endorse7. In Jackson v Attorney General8, Lord Steyn, viewed scepticism whether the Diceyan view that parliament sovereignty was still holds good9: â€Å"The typical description made by Dicey on the â€Å"doctrine of dominance of the Parliament is absolute and pure, as it had been, can now be regarded as gone out of practice in the modern era of UK. Nonetheless, the domination of Parliament is yet regarded as the general principle of UK’s constitution. It is a notion that has been b uilt upon the common law. Judicial rejuvenation can be explained as judge made laws. In such scenarios, it is not preposterous that scenarios could occur where the courts may have to hold good a principle formulated on a varied theory of constitutionalism10.† While finding the proposition of the HRA (Human Rights Act) for parliamentary sovereignty , Alison Young11 was of the view that the courts should interpret and offer impact to the laws so that it becomes in line with the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights , 1950(ECHR). In case , if it is impossible to locate a convention well-matched with elucidation of a statue , then some courts are toothed with the authority to hold non-binding Declarations of Incompatibility

Concept of collective identity

Concept of collective identity Introduction: Although the concept of collective identity is a post-colonial phenomenon, a few nations would describe themselves under a collective identity before the modern times. In fact, Europe is historically unique in terms that it has been the people living in the continent of Europe who have persistently described themselves as Europeans since the 17th Century (Pagden, 2002). Indeed, European Union emerged as the most important attempt for creating a supranational entity in the Continent and the best example of a Pan-European common identity as even the words Europe and the European Union are being used as synonyms by millions of people every day. Nevertheless, an uncertainty of a common identity has always been the case for Europeans throughout history and the physical as well as social borders of Europe has never been distinctly known for centuries which are full of wars, confrontation competition and blood. Today, the same problem continues to exist and many believe that it is the major factor blocking the efforts for achieving a fully integrated Europe, as the definition and frontiers of a common European identity is still unknown. Indeed, one of the most important issues of the European integration from a socio-political perspective is the vague concept of a common European identity including prospects of European Union Citizenship. Although a common European identity has been long around for centuries, these are fairly new issues in relevance to the half a century long history of todays European Union. However, I believe how the common European identity is defined is very important for the future steps of the European integration project, as nowadays the EU is undergoing transformation towards a political union with an aim to become a global actor in the international political arena. What shall be the elements of a common European identity, how shall it be formulized if it is to bec ome a successful construct which would define Europe correctly to end the efforts that lasted for such a long time? I believe a triumphant common European identity must include the concrete and symbolic realities and it must be rooted to the diversity of cultures which had been created by the long history of Europe (DAppollonia, 2002). Otherwise, if it remains as a form of thin identity suggested by Habermas (2006), the problems and uncertainties of European identity as well as the poorly functioning European Union citizenship is most likely to exist in the Unions foreseeable future. In fact, a common European identity can only be successfully constructed by taking into account all the ambiguities, contradictions and developments in form of a unity in diversity principle which can be applied to the reality of Europe rather than building a shallow and artificial construct as it seems to be today. Theoretically, a united Europe in political terms is made possible if a united Europe in cultural terms is established through formulating a collective common identity which may only be conceived as a coll ection of multiple and complex values created by complicated dynamics of Europes long history. Nevertheless, a united Europe in cultural terms shall not mean to enforce a homogenous and strictly ordered European society; rather the European identity shall celebrate Europes long tradition of diversity. Another important question is how should European Union citizenship be defined and what should be the frontiers of cultural implications of such a political formulation. Considering the wide cultural diversity and long history that the individual members of the European Union had share in the European continent, a collective identity may prove to be far too complex to construct, so one may argue that a common European identity is still an illusion. Although Europeans have a successfully formed a common economic and increasingly political union, they are still far away from the desired level of cultural unity and a common identity which seems to be an alarming factor for the next stages of the European integration. Nonetheless, European Union citizenship is an area open to developments and it might be used as a critically important tool by the European Union leaders to accumulate a common European identity, only if it is formulized correctly. The critical point on the debate of Europe an Union citizenship is that the dominant Classical Model of Citizenship is based on the structures of nation-state and that is why this model cannot be applied to the European Union, as it is a whole different level of organization which cannot be compared to a nation-state. On the other hand, Post-National citizenship is a modern approach to the issue of European identity and my evaluation shows that it is a feasible solution suitable for todays Europe in order to reach its goals of unification and deepening through building a stronger common identity in the 21st Century. This paper is organized in several sections. European identity from a historical perspective is analyzed in the first part; nationalist responses to the current status of European identity and the issue of national identities in contrast to the common European identity is discussed in the following part; a new European identity and suggestions for a new understanding of common European identity is suggested in the third part; a brief history of European Union efforts and progress on building a common identity is examined in the fourth part; the current status of European Union Citizenship is discussed in the fifth part and finally, Post-National citizenship as a model for European Union citizenship is proposed in the last part of this paper. After all, this paper argues that a common identity in form of a collective European identity is clearly necessary for the Union at this stage of integration, and it is a crucial element for the future of the European integration project especially as our world is getting smaller as well as more fragmented simultaneously due to the complex dynamics of international relations every day at the age of globalization. European citizenship is very much connected to the issue of European identity and it is the key to achieving such a strong common and collective identity when it is formulized as a Post-National phenomenon. The Europeans must derive their power from the diversity of their cultures by building a thick identity for Europe rather than a thin identity which consists of merely political rights; yet the Europeans shall not overlook the uniqueness of the Continent and the similarities they share in comparison to the rest of the world emphasized by the Unity in Diversity principle. Today, it is time for the Europeans to unite under one roof in socio-political terms, complete the long standing task of defining the boundaries of the European civilization by establishing a common and collective European identity in order to carry on the progress of the European integration project in a globalized world. Nonetheless, the question of possibilities of the Europeans to achieve such a high level of cultural as well as political unity remains a question and it is subject to a whole different level of research. However, often seen as a regional product of globalization itself, I believe the European integration project cannot progress any further without achieving a common European identity which is more critical than ever today in order to overcome the challenges of globalization in the 21st Century. What is Identity? Identity has always been a problematic concept because it is uncertain, fluid and highly flexible. Identity is the way to define ones self and to differentiate from the others. If taken literally, identity means equal; identical. Identity is not static but dynamic, and it can be defined in different ways in different circumstances. Identity is construct, which cannot be constructed immediately but only in time. It is not a fixed, constant and pre-given entity; while identity formation is heavily dependent on how one is perceived by the others. Identification implies belonging or membership, in turn which implies the exclusion of non-members (Bretherton Vogler, 1999: 236). In other words, the sole purpose of identity is to separate self from the other in a sense. Moreover, identities are multiple in nature, or even kaleidoscopic. A person may have a single identity, but it will be made up of many levels of loyalty and identification (Von Benda-Beckmann Verkuyten, 1995: 18). Meanwhil e, identities change, because they are based on perceptions, which themselves change over time and environment; as it is possible to identify ones self with more than one thing at a time such as class and gender, or religion and age. Therefore there are various elements of ones identity and which operate at different levels and these various elements in an identity may well be contradictory (Von Benda-Beckmann Verkuyten, 1995: 12). On the other hand, a collective identity means the attitudes, which all members of that group have in common in their thoughts and behavior; which differentiates them from the other (Munch, 2001: 137). Collective identities can provide existential meaning for people, thus they are primary means of unity in a society which give additional stability especially during periods of upheaval. Collective identities can generate a degree of continuity between individuals and their social environment, and can provide social recognition and approval (Von Benda-Beckmann Verkuyten, 1995: 24). Therefore, collective identities are defined mainly by culture from a historical point of view rather than biological genes, ethnicity, nationalism or simple political rights. Finally, they are used to construct community and feelings of cohesion and holism, a concept to give the impression that all individuals are equal in the imagined community (Strath, 2002: 387). From the perspective of political scienc e; there are two types of political identities: a civic identity and a cultural identity. The cultural definition of political identity entails a sense of belonging of an individual towards a particular group which can mostly defined by its uniform cultural or ethnic values. On the other hand, the civic definition of political identity involves with the identification of an individual mostly in form of citizenry with a political structure, which includes political institutions, rights, duties and rules (Bruter, 2004: 26). Therefore, a cultural European identity implies a reference to Europe as a continent, a civilization and a cultural entity whereas a civic European identity implies a reference to the political and institutional aspects of European Union identity largely in the form of EU citizenship. European Identity throughout History: Europe has always been more of a mental construct than a geographical or social entity (Lowenthal, 2000: 314). Europe has no natural frontiers both in geographic and sociological terms. Therefore it had never been easy to acquire a singular definition of European identity because the borders of Europe had always been dynamic, and no one knew where Europe started and Europe ended (Pagden, 2002). A European identity is an abstraction and a fiction without essential proportions (Strath, 2002: 387). The concept of a European identity is an idea expressing artificial notions of unity rather than an identity of equality. In this sense, the concept of European identity is inscribed in a long history of political reflection on the concept of Europe. From the perspective of history, Europe has been united as a singular entity in various settings for a number of times in its past such as the Roman Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Napoleonic Empire, and arguably the Nazi Third Reich. However, identity was only conceptualized as a macro-level collective phenomenon by the intellectual elites of Europe; on the other hand, for the rural masses of Europe, identity was a local term associated with the micro-level, rarely the nation and never an incident as large as the continent of Europe (Pagden, 2002). In different period of history, a common European identity had been defined on different basis. In the Middle Ages, Christianity was the main defining characteristic of European identity, whereas in modern times, the emergence of the nation state, periods of nationalism and afterwards democracy and secularism has been the common characteristic of the Europeans. Meanwhile, Christianity lost its dominance yet it arguably remained as one of the important components of European identity. Today, the European Union similar to the continent of Europe can be characterized by overlapping and unclear boundaries. From a geographical perspective, the EU has fuzzy boundaries due to the ongoing enlargement processes since the 1970s (Risse, 2003: 490). Although the geographical borders of Europe are not objectively defined particularly in the East, a state without a geographical relevance to the European continent cannot become a part of the European Union, even if it shares the EUs collective values and norms. Moreover what adds to the uncertainty of Europes borders is that boundaries of the EU may change according to different policy fields such as the Schengen includes the non EU member Norway but at the same time it does not include the EU member state the United Kingdom. Therefore, before anything else the lack of solid geographical boundaries weaken efforts of the EU to be seen as a singular entity by its own people (Castano, 2004). Meanwhile, the geographic boundaries of Europe have suffered dramatic changes within time and even the recent years provide an image of changing boundaries in Europe considering the reunification of Germany, the break-up of Yugoslavia and collapse of the Soviet Union. Therefore, Europe cannot be defined solely as a geographical space. On the contrary, Europe cannot be defined in cultural space either, unless European culture is associated with the Continents long history of diversity itself. Indeed, diversity shall be the main characteristic of European identity from a cultural point of view. Religious and cultural heritages including Roman law, political democracy, parliamentary institutions, Renaissance humanism, rationalism, romanticism characterize the common identity of the Europeans (Smith, 1992). On the other hand, there are undeniable socioeconomic, cultural, national and ethnic differences among the member states of the European Union. Nevertheless, the motto of the EU, unity in diversity, reflects this fact from a positive point of view and proposes a common identity for Europeans based on their peaceful diversity as a fundamental character of the European society at large. A collective political culture is an important feature of the common European identity. The Greeks gave Europe the science and philosophy and the Romans gave it the idea of single continent and unity which created Europes strong cultural and political origins. The diverse and multiple cultures of the ancient Europe shared a single identity as they were brought together under a common system of Roman law. The people of Europe also shared a common language, Latin, and after Europe slowly converted to Christianity they acquired a common religion as well. Christianity has been a crucial part of the European identity and it played a key role to create its internal cohesion and to designate its relationship with the rest of the world. Further references are made to Europes identity besides its heritage of Greco-Roman civilization and Christianity; such as the ideas of the Enlightenment, Science, Reason, Progress, Industrialization, Democracy and Individualization as the core elements of th is claimed European legacy (Wintle, 1996: 13-16). Hellenism, Romanticism, welfare society and cross-fertilization of diversity can be added to this list (Garcia, 1993: 7-9), while one may argue that Europes core values include its commitments to an undivided continent, to individual freedom, and to the universalism of humanity (Havel, 1996). However, this unity never reached to the point of sharing a common European culture up to this point in history of the Continent. In fact, a single body of citizenry or a common cultural identity could not be reached even in the peak of Europes history of unity and solidarity. When the differences within Europe are emphasized, they are often in the form of unity in diversity; religious differences such as Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christianity, and linguistic differences including Romance, Germanic and Slavic languages are obvious; yet they are seen as correlated, Catholic-Romance, Protestant-Germanic, Orthodox-Slavic, and essentially are underlying the major ethnic cleavages and conflicts in the history of Europe (Wintle, 1996). Anthony Smith is among the scholars who are skeptical of the possibility of a common European identity because they could not find a common culture across the European continent, and even more critically they claim that Europe lacks of a shared set o f myths, experience and symbols; these elements which they find crucial to create post-national identity (Smith, 1992: 72-73). Furthermore, Europe lacks of a shared historical and cultural content as which is the largest source of division among Europeans. Other obstacles to a common European identity include linguistic diversity and its tripartite religious division. In fact, a major difference among EU countries is the persistence of linguistic diversity, even though in practical level English has become the dominant language in Europe. Language does not only have an instrumental but also an emotional dimension and peoples sense of nationality is often tied up with their mother tongue (Guibernau, 2001: 192). Finally, confrontation, wars and the effort to establish clear differences between peoples of the continent dominate the history of Europe, which is the exact opposite of what the European Union seeks to achieve today. On the other side of the debate, scholars such as Michael Wintle are more optimistic on the possibility of creating a European identity. Indeed, the existence of the EU identity in the form of converging education standards, educational exchanges, and the organization of a European civil society is already established in most parts of Europe. Wintle argues that a European identity was previously already created during the high Middle Age (Wintle, 1996: 19-22), and it can be easily established today considering the forces of globalization. For now, the major success of the EU in fostering its identity has been limited with the increasing free movement of people across European borders, which has accelerated since the 1985 and formalized in 1990 Schengen accords parallelly correlated with the rising impact of globalization. Increased interaction among peoples of Europe would also encourage cultural exchanges and this could foster a stronger sense of a shared community. Education and hi gh culture shall play a key role in European Unions cultural policy which has critical importance for building a thick European identity, because these two factors have an important effect on the creation as well as promotion of the EU identity. Education is obviously one of the crucial dimensions in any attempt to develop the future identity of the EU or at least more understanding and convergence among Europeans; high culture unites Europeans against the low culture which separates them. After all, the development of the EU identity will be the outcome of a long process in which bottom-up as well as top-down initiatives are likely to be employed (Guibernau, 2001: 183-184). The idea of Europe as well as the identity of Europeans are constructed over time with processes of contention and bargaining. Gerard Delanty argues that a European Culture is not an entity with cohesion and fixed boundaries, but a floppy concept, with no clear borders and with internal opposition and contradictions, discursively shaped in contentious social bargaining processes (Delanty, 1995; 1999). In other words, the images of Europe do not exist as a natural phenomenon but are discursively shaped by internal as well as external forces (Strath, 2002). A basic step in the process of creating a collective identity is to defining itself in relation to the other. Central to ones identifications are images of others. Likewise any identity, European identity necessarily contains an element of separation from the non-European. The boundaries of Europe can only be drawn and the identity of Europe can only be realized in the mirror of others. Indeed, Europe does not exist without non-Euro pe and that non-Europe does not exist without Europe (Wintle, 1996). Many centuries ago, the Europeans defined people living in the north as uncivilized and people living in the south as oriental (Pagden, 2002). Furthermore, the Greeks labeled the non-Greek speaking people as barbarians, even if that word would surely have a different meaning by that time. In nearer times, although the Russians shared many features with a European society including the same religion, it could not reach the formal limits of a Romanized civilization thus perceived as a barbaric empire or the orient, depending on the time. Moreover, European belief of its superiority relied on the common features of European societies such as science and liberal arts. Thus the rest of the world could only be portrayed as actors in relation to Europe, in other words always remained as the other. According to Delanty, Europe has been always invented and reinvented on the basis of division and strategy for the construction of difference from the other starting from Christian identity against Islam in the Middle-Ages, after that in the colonial politics to the New World, and to the ethnic minorities in the contemporary European Union (Delanty, 1995). Therefore, historical experience suggests that the new European identity may be constructed on the other which may be the United States, the East, Islam or the European past itself. Samuel Huntington has argued that religion provides the best common means of historically distinguishing between Europeans and the other, especially in terms of the confrontation between the Judeo-Christian tradition and Islam (Huntington, 1996). However, at the same time, the separation between Eastern Orthodox Christianity and Western variations of Christianity has, for a long time, been crucial in establishing a division between Western and Eastern E urope; partially reinforced in the Cold War, divisions between Catholicism and Protestantism and separation between North and South (Guibernau, 2001). Therefore, history shows that peoples of Europe has been united against peoples of other civilizations at times such as global upheaval and wars while at other times Europeans get divided and separated due to the face that they may perceive the other internally. Today, the European Union is frequently argued to be a fortress for the other and the EU is often referred to as a Christian Club, because historically all states on the continent of Europe had Christian societies. The Ottoman Empire was the greatest enemy of European states as well as Christianity in the Middle Ages; which made Islam the primary characteristic of the other for Europeans from the perspective of history. Today, the accession dialogues of Turkey into the European Union raise wide public opposition in Europe while the European Union officials make constant efforts to prove their allegiance to non-religious, non-ethnic but solely liberal and non discriminatory Copenhagen Criteria independent from historical aspects of the other which has actually been extensively used to define the European identity. Finally, Europe is unique because it has possessed an identity as a cultural space which gave birth to political unions throughout its history; however, it has never succeeded to constitute a single nation-state or a unified ethnic group. Although the European Union with its single currency and supranational political and legal institutions changed these historical facts to an extent, it is only possible with the means of a common European identity which will carry Europe to the next stage of integration that it always aimed but failed to achieve during its long history. Nevertheless, history has already proved that it will surely be hard to overcome uncertainties of a common European identity at the level of the masses. Over the past millennium, the advancements of European civilization gave rise to the elites living on the continent of Europe who feel increasingly attached to Europe as a whole and shared dreams of a united continent. However, Europe as a realm sharing a common history as well as a common destiny has been largely abandoned by fixed prejudices on often nationalistic and ethnic grounds. National interests and biases at local, national, and global levels have prevented the masses of European people from viewing themselves collectively (Lowenthal, 2000: 315). However today, forces of globalization, advancements in communications technologies and popular culture now promote the sense of being European among larger segments of society other than the European elites. Although a truly trans-European society is still far away, many of its essential elements are already in place this time largely due to the forces of globalization. Most European states are increasingly democratic; their econo mies are for the most part market driven; their popular culture grows more homogeneous as communication technologies expand under the forces of globalization in the 21st Century (Waterman, 1999: 23). Therefore, Europe is at the stage of defining its identity today; however which criteria are being deployed to define Europe, Europeans, Europeanness and their respective boundaries is critically important. A common European identity must be constructed by defining and understanding the historical roots of outstanding features of the European society in relation to the notion of citizenship, which will be discussed in depth in the following parts of this paper; developed in the past over the land of Europe. For sure, Europe is being redefined as a result of a complex set of processes, but an important question is what sort of Europe is emerging from them? Nationalist Responses to European Identity: There is certainly a structured symmetry in the perception of the European Union as the coincidence of a homogenized socio-political space, a unified regulatory space of an EU super-state, a singular European civil society surpassing existing national and regional differences in culture and identity (Hudson, 2000). In some respects there has been progress towards such an ideal of European common European cultural and a trans-national civil society. For example, the Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights have had an important role in defining acceptable standards across Europe. The issue of European identity and the criteria used to denote Europeans is clearly a critical one for the political and social integrity of the European Union. Europe will exist as an unquestionable political community only when European identity permeates peoples lives and daily existence (Demos 1998). Identity is a key issue which is continuously changing and thats the reason why it is so hard to define especially in a world of fast changes in the 21st Centurys globalization. The member states of todays enlarged EU have become multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies with various structural phenomenon ranging from the immigrant community of France to Post-Communist yet ethnic communities of the Central and Eastern European states. As the EU expanded eastwards in the last two rounds of enlargements, the issue of defining a European identity became even more critical for sake of integrity and stability of the Union. One conception of a singular European identity would see it constructed through a process similar to that involved in the creation of national identities in the 19th and the 20th Centuries. Ironically, while the aim was to create those national identities in the past, the challenge that Europeans face today would be to transcend them for the creation of a trans-national understanding of Europeannes. However, the current trends at local European level are quite different from the interests of Europeanists at the supranational level. There are pressures from nation-states and their citizens to resist any further transfer of national sovereignty as well as erosion of national identity (Hudson, 2000). In fact, the success of extreme right wing political parties in important European countries such as Austria and France in recent years may be seen as a sign of the reappearance of dangerous nationalist and racist ambitions which the peoples of Europe have most probably experienced more tha n any other continent in the world history. Eric Hobsbawm has proclaimed that nationalism is dead (Hobsbawm, 1990). On the contrary, Llobera argues that national identities are certainly not eternal, but the time of their demise has not yet arrived (Llobera, 2003). In fact, national identities are still dominant in Europe as recent Eurobarometer surveys show that people in Europe prefer maintaining their national identity and sovereignty; but increasing number of people have accepted European identity in addition to their national identities. Therefore, European nationalism is another important component of a common European identity and it has been a major ideological tool for unifying nation states as well as the Europeans as a whole throughout Europes history. To start with, the European Union, with its both intergovernmental and supranational characteristics represents a far different type of state-organization than a classical nation state. The main distinguishing characteristics of the EU from the nation-state are the ab sence of a shared language, a uniform media, common education system and most importantly a central state structure (Shore, 2000: 64). Furthermore, the powers of the EU rely on the sharing of sovereignty of its member states which may often have conflicting national interests. Indeed, the European integration project has mainly served as a tool for progressively limiting individual nation-states to practice any kind of harmful nationalism and this makes up an important part of the European identity. At this point, nationalist Euroskeptics may argue that building a common Europe and an identity for it means destroying nations. However, a general feeling of Europeanness and loyalty to Europe in a cultural sense, does not need to conflict with national identities (Andreani, 1999). A successful construct of European identity must include the concrete and symbolic realities created within history of the Continent but exclude nationalist ambitions of the past. Surely, the European states have not always been nationalist through Europes long history. The definition of nationalism counts on the idea of nation and territory; while the definition of a European nationalism depends on the historical and ideological evolution of the European nation states and aspirations for a post-national Europe. In fact, the aspirations that underlie in the roots of the foundation of the European Union are parallel to European cosmopolitanism in the 18th and the 19th centuries. From the Enlightenment to the beginning of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) after the Second World War; European nationalism found two separate meanings: one as an antinational Pan-European idea of a new united Europe that limits the sovereignty of the nation states, and the other as a pro-national ideology to create or legitimate new nation states (DAppollonia, 2002). Historically, cosmopolitanism reflected intentions for a European unity, and gave rise to anti-national European nationalism. European nationalism was characterized by the will to protect the European interests and its supremacy from non-Europeans as well as protecting Europe from itself by creating a federation. It can be argued that economic development, comme

good versus evil :: essays research papers

  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  In the chapter titled Rebellion (or his book title), Feodor Dostoevski’s character, Ivan Karamazov, demonstrates that his angry and resentful attitude is the by-product of his very choosing. The fundamental principal of our own humanity is God’s acknowledgment of our expression of free will. Found between the boundaries of man’s ownership of worldly acts and thoughts, which can lead him to an eternity of joy or damnation, is that critical choice of what attitude we will wrap ourselves in for our finite time here. The extreme, and perhaps somewhat all too common, result of this human choice between simple joy and compounding suffering is presented in Ivan. As highlighted in Genesis account of Gods’ pure joy and pleasure of man, and His authoritative command for man’s dominion over all of His creations, it is impossible to imagine our Creator desiring our willing choice for suffering.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  God’s divine plan for man starts and ends upon love. God provides overflowing and unconditional love so we can grasp the extent of His love for the purpose of developing our own love of self. The evolvement of our personal faith instills in us the divine sense of worth and desire, we some how come to â€Å"know† originates from our Creator. Ivan has neither grasped nor developed this love, let alone experienced this instilment. Genesis states God said, â€Å"Let us make man in our image, after our likeness† (KJV Gen 5:26). In the shared likeness of God Himself, we must assume we all have the full capacity to experience and share God’s innate love and joy. God’s sending of His son in order to redeem us, His children, is the ultimate act of both heavenly and earthly love. Through His written word and through His son, God explicitly teaches us that love and joy are the nature of His being. Man, in God’s likeness, must activel y counter this nature in order to derive an attitude of suffering, through the denial of natural joy and love. Ivan is a clear example of this suffering activism, as he clearly stands against most issues rather than necessarily in agreement or support of any higher principal. In Feodor Dostoevski’s book The Brothers Karamazov, this excerpted chapter is appropriately titled â€Å"Rebellion†. Rebellion is defined as the willful resistance or defiance of an established principal or authority. In our definition of activism, Ivan’s rebellion would be considered the most aggressive and destructive form of activism.

Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) Essay

Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS): An Unrealised Potential* David Grant** Work and Organisational Studies The Institute Building (H03) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Email d.grant@econ.usyd.edu.au Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 7871 Fax: +61 (0)2 9351 5283 Kristine Dery Work and Organisational Studies The Institute Building (H03) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Email k.dery@econ.usyd.edu.au Tel: +61 (0)2 9036 6410 Richard Hall Work and Organisational Studies The Institute Building (H03) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Email r.hall@econ.usyd.edu.au Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 5621 Nick Wailes Work and Organisational Studies The Institute Building (H03) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Email n.wailes@econ.usyd.edu.au Tel: +61 (0)2 9351 7870 Sharna Wiblen Work and Organisational Studies The Institute Building (H03) The University of Sydney NSW 2006 Australia Email s.wiblen@econ.usyd.edu.au Tel: +61 (0)2 9036 7603 Abstract: Over the last decade there has been a considerable increase in the number of organisations gathering, storing and analysing information regarding their human resources through the use of Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) software or other types of software which include HRIS functionality (Ball, 2001; Barron, Chhabra, Hanscome, & Henson, 2004; Hussain, Wallace, & Cornelius, 2007; Ngai & Wat, 2006). The growing adoption of HRIS by organisations combined with the increasing sophistication of this software, presents the Human Resource function with the opportunity to enhance its contribution to organisation strategy. In this study we examine the ways in which HRIS might be used in order to achieve this. Our analysis of four Australian case study organisations finds that the claimed potential of HRIS to contribute to business strategy is contingent on its overcoming one or more of three key challenges. * This research is funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (LPLP0882247) in collaboration with the Australian Senior Human Resources Roundtable (ASHRR). ** Corresponding Author. Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS): An Unrealised Potential The last decade has seen a significant increase in the number of organisations gathering, storing and analysing human resources data using Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS) (Ball, 2001; Barron et al., 2004; Hussain et al., 2007; Ngai et al., 2006). In this paper we show that the study of the impact of HRIS is of direct significance to the ongoing debate about the extent to which Human Resources (HR) can play a strategic role in the organisation (Becker, Huselid, & Ulrich, 2001; Hewitt Associates, 2007; Huselid, 1995; Lawler & Mohrman, 2003; Sheehan, Holland, & De Cieri, 2006). Specifically, we examine the argument that through its capacity to deliver accurate and timely metrics, HRIS has the potential to assist the HR function in developing business strategy and thus enhancing organisation performance (Barney & Wright, 1998; Broderick & Boudreau, 1992; Gueutal, 2003; Lawler, Levenson, & Boudreau, 2004; Lengnic k-Hall & Moritz, 2003). Our initial findings from the first phase of interviews with four organisations based in Australia, suggest that the potential of HRIS to deliver the strategic competencies promised remains largely unrealised and that instead HRIS is used to increase administrative efficiency and/or obtain compliance support. Specifically, we find that the implementation and use of HRIS is being hindered by three main challenges: maintaining organisational attention, addressing the complexities associated with people management, and managing user acceptance of the change associated with the system. The paper comprises four main sections. In the first section we review the literature on HRIS paying particular attention to previous studies which recognise challenges associated with the selection and implementation of HRIS as well as the importance of social constructionism as a theoretical lens to analyse this topic. In the second section we discuss our case study methodology a nd profile our four case study organisations. In the third section we discuss our results by identifying and discussing the three challenges which we identify as important to the study of HRIS and HR. The final section summarises the findings and provides recommendations for management. Literature Review and Theory The current generation of HRIS automate and devolve routine administrative and compliance functions traditionally performed by corporate HR departments and can facilitate the outsourcing of HR (Barron et al., 2004). In doing so, HRIS not only make it possible for organisations to significantly reduce the costs associated with HR delivery, but also to reassess the need for retaining internal HR capabilities. However, HRIS also provide HR professionals with opportunities to enhance their contribution to the strategic direction of the firm. First, by automating and devolving many routine HR tasks to line management, HRIS provide HR professionals with the time needed to direct their attention towards more business critical and strategic level tasks, such as leadership development and talent management (Lawler et al., 2003). Second HRIS provides an opportunity for HR to play a more strategic role, through their ability to generate real time reports on HR issue s, including workforce planning and skills profiles, which can be used to support strategic decision making (Hendrickson, 2003; Lawler et al., 2004; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2003). The existing literature on HRIS suggests that they have different impacts on HR across organisations, but provides little explanation for this variation. Early surveys suggested that HRIS were used predominantly to automate routine tasks and â€Å"to replace filing cabinets† (Martinsons, 1994). Ball (2001) reported similar results for small and medium sized enterprises in the UK and concluded that HR had missed the strategic opportunity provided by HRIS. More recent research shows greater use of HRIS in support of strategic decision making by HR (Hussain et al., 2007). However, the extent to which HRIS is used in a strategic fashion differs across organisations, with the vast majority of organisations continuing to use HRIS simply to replace manual processing and to reduce costs (Bee & Bee, 2002; Brow n, 2002). Recent debates about technology and organisation have highlighted the importance of social context and sought to develop frameworks which acknowledge both the material and social character of technologies including HRIS (Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2006). Accordingly, theories which can be considered as ‘social constructivist’ can play an important role in the study of technology as they explicitly recognise that technologies, such as HRIS, can not be evaluated and analysed without having an explicit understanding of the context of individuals and groups which consequently comprehend, interpret, use and engage with the technology (Grint & Woolgar, 1997; Orlikowski & Barley, 2001; Williams & Edge, 1996). Social constructionist views offer insights into the implementation and use of HRIS in a number of ways. In this study we draw on the social construction of technology and technologiesin-practice literature. The social construction of technology (SCOT) approach challenges the idea that technologies and technological artefacts have a pre-given and fixed meaning and in its place argues that the process, design and selection of technologies are open and can be subjected to contestation (Pinch & Bijker, 1984). Thus a technology is seen to be characterised by ‘interpretative flexibility’ and various ‘relevant social groups’ who articulate and promote particular interpretations of it. This meaning, over time tends to become accepted and the interpretation of the technology stabilised (Dery et al., 2006). In similar tradition to SCOT approaches, the technologies-in-practice approach endeavours to recognise the inability to separate the technology from surrounding social relations. Orlikowski (2000) conceives of technologies-in-practice as the structure that is enacted by users of a technology as they use the technology in recurrent ways. The important implications of this idea for the purposes of this research is the realisation that it is only when individuals use the HRIS that the associated social practices will frame and determine the value that they attribute to it. Hence the process of using a technology involves users interacting with ‘facilities’ (such as the properties of the technology artefact), ‘norms’ (such as the protocols of using the technology), and ‘interpret ative schemes’ (such as the skills, knowledge and the assumptions about the technology as might be positioned by the user) (Dery et al., 2006). Both of these approaches are important and useful as they recognise that when considering relationships and experiences with technology, it is essential that social factors and previous experiences be considered. Therefore the opinions of respondents can only be understood in the context of individuals and groups comprehending, interpreting, using and engaging with the technologies (Dery et al., 2006). The study discussed in this paper was initiated after a preliminary survey of the use of HRIS in 138 Australian Listed companies (Grant, Dery, Hall, & Wailes, 2007). The survey found that although 50% (n=69) of the participant organisations were found to have an HRIS, the extent to which they were being used in a strategic manner varied and for the most part the claimed potential of the information systems was not being realised. For example, while 91% of organisations with an HRIS used the systems in order to process and record leave, only 34% used them in relation to staff planning. In order to gain further insights into these results, the present study explores the impact of HRIS on the HR function in detail over a three year period at four large Australian organisations using a multiple case study approach (Yin, 2003). Specifically, the project examines whe ther HRIS enhances the strategic contribution of HR by exploring the ways in which HR professionals might make more effective use of these systems. The project is informed by four research questions: 1. Is there evidence to suggest that HR is using opportunities provided by the HRIS to enhance its contribution to firm strategic direction? 2. Do HRIS’s which are a module of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems have different impacts on the HR function than standalone HRIS’s? 3. How do different organisational characteristics affect the ability of HR to use the opportunities provided by HRIS to act as strategic partners? 4. What strategies can HR professionals adopt to ensure that the use of HRIS in their organisations supports the strategic contribution of HR? Methodology and Background The four case study organisations each volunteered to participate in this study which is funded by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant. Each organisation is a member of the Australian Senior Human Resources Round-table (ASHRR) the main industry partner in the project. Each of the case studies has either a standalone HRIS (e.g. CHRIS) or an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system module of HRIS (e.g. SAP) in place and all are in the process of either replacing or upgrading their existing system. Each company views the HRIS replacement or upgrade as a commitment to further extending the strategic contribution of the system. This provides us with a unique opportunity to gather rich empirical data related to our key research questions. The nature of the research questions required that the plans and activities of each case study be studied through the gathering of an array of data (table 1). This enabled the researchers to develop greater levels of understanding about the management of HRIS in each organisation and across organisations (Yin, 2003). Table 1: Data gathering across the case studies Case Study TechOrg # Interviews 4 Additional Data Organisational information available in the public domain, press articles Annual reports, Previous organisational presentations. OHS staff brochures and posters, Annual reports and promotional material Press clippings, web sites, office observations Observation of System in Use No observation of the system due to interviewee time constra ints BuildOrg 10 ManuOrg 8 Observation of HRIS in use within HR area; observation of OHS system in use Observation of HRIS in use with differing users. No observation of the system in use due to the sensitivity of data GovtOrg 4 Over a 16 month period initiated early 2008, interview data was combined with other empirical evidence gathered through access to secondary sources and during site visits. The interview data comprised semi-structured interviews conducted with executives across a range of roles in the organisations including: HR, IT, and Operations. Each interview was between one to two hours, and was conducted by two investigators, recorded and transcribed. Interviewees were selected on the basis of their involvement in the decision to implement or upgrade the HRIS at their organisation, or their high levels of use of the HRIS. In addition, and where possible, the researchers observed the HRIS at each organisation in use, so as to understand how the system was searched, reports were run, and the availability of data. The Case Studies Each of the four case studies discussed in this paper have been allocated an assumed name. Details concerning size of the organization, its current HRIS system and whether this was being renewed or upgraded and the reasons for the renewal or upgrade are summarized in table 2. TechOrg is a private organisation involved in the Information, Communications and Technology industry. Over the last three years, TechOrg has undertaken to upgrade its SAP HRIS module as part of its overall ERP upgrade and system development. BuildOrg is a large construction company which is also privately owned. Their workforce comprises both permanent and contracted employees. The organisation was previously operating a HRIS that was considered as outdated and sought to upgrade their existing system to primarily manage past and current employees. ManuOrg manufactures building products and metals and has a food processing division. The current HRIS was implemented 21 years ago with an increasingly modified CHRIS system that is currently in the process of being replaced with SAP. Lastly, GovtOrg is a public organisation responsible for security management. The organisation first implemented a proprietary HRIS in 1998 and had undertaken an upgrade in 2000 before initiating the current move to SAP in 2008. Table 2: Summary of Case Studies Case # Current system employees TechOrg 350 SAP BuildOrg Up to 1400 (varies) Tailored Preceda 9.1 by CHRIS, Mercury for payroll. CHRIS ManuOrg 7000+ Upgrading / replacing Replace with lighter version of SAP with more local functionality Upgrade to CHRIS Preceda 11 Mercury to remain SAP Reason(s) for change Change in ownership of organisation and requirement to severe links with previous owner and associated legacy systems. Increased requirement to meet compliance standards and to minimize risk of litigation. GovtOrg 5500 Proprietary system SAP HR director retiring with knowledge of the proprietary system. Need for a system consistent with the rest of the IT platform. Desire for IT rather than HR to manage HRIS. Moving to SAP so as to integrate with the organisation’s SAP ERP system and other govt. departments Results The initial research findings support the results of studies by those such as Towers Perrin (2008) and Bussler and Davis (2001). Despite all four case studies stating that the implementation or upgrade of their HRIS has been undertaken with the aim of utilising functions that are of a strategic nature thereby enhancing the strategic contribution of the HR function (Beatty, 2001; LengnickHall et al., 2003; Ulrich, 1997; Walker, 2001), the data suggests that progress towards making these changes is being hindered by a range of technological, managerial and organisational challenges. While some of these challenges could be attributed to the management of new technologies in general, our findings demonstrate that several are in fact specific to HR and reflect the complex nature of the management of people, the role of HR in the organisation, the allocation of resources to the HRIS, and technological issues related to the management of HR practice. It was never the intention of the project to select organisations that were undergoing major organisational change, rather we sought to gain access to organisations that were endeavouring to implement or upgrade their HRIS. The associated organisational changes which are discussed in this paper added to the complexity of the stories and experiences that these organisations have been able to share. The data across all the cases indicated the following three challenges for the organisations and each of these is discussed in the following section using cross-case analysis (Yin, 2003; Youndt, Snell, Dean, & Lepak, 1996). The challenges were: †¢ An inconsistency in the importance attributed to HRIS resulting in difficulties in sustaining management commitment to the project and in obtaining the resources necessary to fully develop the new or upgraded HRIS. †¢ A tendency to underestimate the complexity of the HRIS and its impact on the behaviour and processes of the organisation. †¢ The barriers to user acceptance of the HRIS and the consequent underestimation of the importance of change management. Inconsistent Salience Attributed to the Organisation’s HRIS Project The case study organisations have variously experienced significant changes in structure, size, ownership and government (summarised table 3). This has resulted in a shift of senior management attention away from development of the HRIS to more immediately pressing organisational issues. One consequence of this is the allocation of insufficient resources to the HRIS and, in some cases, the increased delegation of responsibilities to vendors and consultants. Table 3: Changes in Case Studies Case Study Organisational Change Process TechOrg Acquired by local company and required to adopt more localised processes BuildOrg Large growth in infrastructure projects Implication for the Business Reassessment and realignment of business processes Requirement to manage large contracted workforce. Significant increase in compliance requirements Need to align systems across range of standalone businesses Implication for the HRIS Enforced selection of more localised platform which aims to address more direct organisational needs Upgrade required for existing Preceda system ManuOrg GovtOrg Knowledge Management and establishment of sustainability practices Change of government resulting in increased demands and complexity of role. Desire for efficiencies in work practices. Migration to SAP and restructuring of the management of the HRIS away from HR and under IT Increased requirements Move to SAP platform to for reporting and comply with other standardised IT government departments TechOrg, a company based in the ICT sector, is a company that has constantly faced issues in maintaining the momentum and commitment of expanding their existing SAP system. Such challenges regarding salience have continued for the past three years as financial and engineering management systems upgrades have engulfed continual attempts to progress and complete the desired upgrade. The project, run and owned by the Human Resource department, is internally recognised as having low organisational priority: However the core will always be financial management systems and the things that allow our engineers and our program managers to run the calls, take the customer complaints, send them to the technician. We will certainly come a distant third to that†¦ So if we come third then we will do something, but we don’t know whether we’re coming third yet do we? (Director of People and Culture, TechOrg). The desire for the HRIS upgrade was later impeded in 2008 because the organisation was acquired by a domestic company and consequently all existing business processes needed to be changed to ensure separation from the previous owners. As a result â€Å"†¦the project (now) has been stopped pretty much †¦Ã¢â‚¬  (Director of People and Culture, TechOrg). The experiences of this organisation demonstrates that despite the best of intentions of HR, such projects as this, which are deemed as HR centric, can lose momentum as a result of factors beyond its control. BuildOrg started to investigate HRIS more than 10 years ago. The introduction of a new senior manager with existing ERP and HRIS knowledge combined with the perceived need to replace an outdated system instigated the desire to upgrade their original Mercury system, based on Lotus Notes. During these initial stages, several HRIS were considered, however, the project was abandoned when the costs associated with any new HRIS were deemed prohibitive. The project and operational requirements of the organisation were re-examined in 2005 and the organisation again considered implementing a new payroll system, but IT did not find any of the systems that they viewed appropriate for the organisational needs. The lack of executive support also played a significant role d uring this time. â€Å"So we sort of parked it at that stage. Because the other thing was, I think in an organisational sense with a new CEO, that wasn’t really a priority for us.† (General Manager HR, Safety and Corporate Relations). Finally in 2007 the latest attempt gained traction with senior management and the approval was given for an upgrade. Nevertheless the current progress on this project for BuildOrg has been met with caution. Because there’s been an awful lot of water under the bridge to get to this point. We’ve had – this is the third go at actually having a crack at getting Preceda as the HR system and getting the organisational structure in. Now there was one completely failed attempt. One almost got there but then failed and now this is the (final) go at it. (Applications Services Manager, IT). ManuOrg introduced its first HRIS in the 1970’s. Since then the organisation has undertaken a number of upgrades driven largely by organisational change which has required an expansion of the existing systems. Progressive changes and add-ons to the legacy system, has created for ManuOrg a HRIS that is complex and inconsistent. Although the HRIS has been accorded salience and sufficient resources over the past 30 years, the HR manager acknowledged that the rationale for change and selection of the replacement HRIS has tended to emphasise financial, rather than strategic human resource issues. The retirement of the HR Director, who has been central to developing the current HRIS, together with the need to standardise IT systems across all the operating companies has resulted in a call for migration to SAP and the re-positioning of HRIS management under the IT department. GovtOrg has been using PeopleSoft as the vendor for their HRIS since 1998, with an upgrade which introduced web based self service in 2000. With the aims of establishing a ‘single source of truth’, creating uniformity, gaining efficiencies and enabling data transfer and integration with other government organisations, GovtOrg has decided to replace PeopleSoft with SAP. Despite resounding confidence in the HRIS project, GovtOrg still believes that the project can be delayed by other organisational activities which are deemed more essential to the business and its performance. Probably the only issue is that will be a timing issue, as we – and we’re still debating with our plan – get a live date for SAPs views in October. So although it looks, at this point in time, like it may be delayed. If it gets delayed, it’ll actually push back into about March next year, because we’ve got some other peak periods in respect to processing and so forth. (National Manager of Infrastructure). The experiences of the four case study organisations suggests that their HRIS projects tend to face a number of challenges in the allocation of resources and the securing of ongoing support from senior management. Often finance, marketing and other operational functions are being given greater priority. In sum, based on the empirical research to date, it could be argued that all of the organisations, and specifically the HR function within them, have faced challenges regarding their ability to maintain momentum towards the selection and implementation of an upgraded HRIS. The Complexity of HRIS Underestimated The complexity of HRIS and its associated functionality appears to have been underestimated at the four case studies (Hannon, Jelf, & Brandes, 1996) and can be attributed to both technological and managerial factors. The challenge for HR management is how to manage the tension between the need to adapt practice to meet the needs of the HRIS versus customizing the technology to fit existing practices and the unpredictability involved in the management of people. Associated with this challenge is the decision of where to locate the management of the HRIS i.e. within Information Technology or as an HR technology group within HR. Our case organisations have varied responses to this dilemma, but all suggest that management of the system has significant implications for knowledge transfer between IT and HR and thus the ability to realise value from the HRIS . Previous studies have reiterated the claims made by HRIS vendors that there are two compelling benefits arising from the implementation or upgrading of HRIS (Hendrickson, 2003; Kavanagh, Gueutal, & Tannenbaum, 1990; Kovach & Cathcart, 1999). One is an increase in efficiencies through reduced costs and increased data accuracy, and the other is the improvements in the speed at which information can be produced. Such improvements in business processes have not yet been fully realised in our case study organisations as the implementation and functionality of the HRIS has proven to be more complex than anticipated. ManuOrg has maintained a number of legacy add-ons and proprietary upgrades to their CHRIS system. The current project is attempting to simplify and standardise systems into a standard IT platform that can be more easily supported but is finding it difficult to align the needs associated with its range of operating companies within one HRIS. The organisation realises that with its selection of a new and alternative HRIS vendor (SAP), there will be considerable compatibility issues with data migration. Accordingly, the transactional and menial activities for HR will increase prior to implementation, as existing data and codes are modified, and therefore the time required for data migration is expected to be significant. The complexity associated with the new system has compelled the organisation to implement it in a ‘big bang’ manner. â€Å"There are too many interdependent processes and that we really have to make the entire change of payroll for Australia and New Zealand at the one time† (Manager HR and Payroll Services). The complexity of the new system will also affect the value that the organisation can extract from the HRIS in the short term. Although the organisation has the explicit desire to establish a single source of truth via its new HRIS, it is recognised that such goals and aspirations will take second place, at least in the short-term, to the more urgent need to address issues surrounding change management and acceptance. The project based nature of the work that BuildOrg undertakes adds complications to the selection, use and implementation of any ‘vanilla’ HRIS. As the organisational structure is based more on projects and individuals rather than positions (typical of most organisations), particular reporting functionalities associated with HRIS may be deemed less germane or even superfluous for the organisation. In addition, similar to ManuOrg, this organisation is faced with the difficulty of trying to establish one central system which can be considered as a single source of truth from legacy systems which currently do not interface well. This has resulted in significant challenges around the compatibility and integration of data. BuildOrg has also experienced challenges with some of the functionality within the new system, particularly in relation to online leave applications. The issue of leave has proven to be problematic throughout the upgrade process, to the extent that the organisation has decided not to utilize this function initially, â€Å"which is probably why we’ve decided to not go forward with the (leave submiss ions) online; that’s a little bit in the too hard basket at the moment as to how it’s going to work† (Corporate HR Advisor). Furthermore, a number of other functionalities of the HRIS have needed to be adjusted in order to meet the organisational requirements before the system goes live: â€Å"You need a lot of tweaking at that point and we won’t be spot-on when we get it there; it’ll be close. That tweaking will take a while; it’ll take months and months† (Payroll Manager). This is a process that has consumed unexpected additional time and resources. Similar levels of complexity are associated with the implementation of a new system at TechOrg. This complexity can however be attributed to the changes in ownership that the organisation has experienced over the past 2 years. The new system and its implementation has experienced additional technical difficulties which have largely been driven by established business processes that could manage differences in European and Australian legislation. Being a publicly owned organisation presents its own range of issues for GovtOrg regarding the use and implementation of a HRIS. Comprising a highly structured workforce, GovtOrg faces challenges with the management of rosters, schedules and allowances. In contrast to ManuOrg and TechOrg, GovtOrg needs an HRIS capable of processing, administering and managing a variety of employee rosters and allowances. More specifically, for this particular organisation, the activities of workforce planning, the management of staff hours, associated policy issues and ensuring that its operations are conducted in accordance with the relevant collective agreements, results in additional complexity and has led to demands for additional functionality from the HRIS. Furthermore, the National Manager of Infrastructure recognised that existing contractual arrangements with their HRIS vendor has exposed the organisation to possible â€Å"†¦potential risks that may lead to delays.† Such potential risks and possible delays are believed to stem from concerns that the vendor may be unable to address the added demands for additional functionality that GovtOrg has put forward under present contractual arrangements. These contractual concerns along with workforce planning issues, have added to the complexity of the selection, implementation and use of GovtOrg’s HRIS. Barriers to Acceptance of New or Upgraded HRIS and the Importance of Change Management The third challenge which has hindered the ability of our case study organisations to realise the potential of their HRIS arises from barriers associated with the acceptance of the new or upgraded HRIS among key end-users of the system and the importance attached to managing the change processes associated with its implementation and introduction. Further, obtaining organisational ‘buy-in’ regarding the strategic contribution of the HRIS has, in some cases, been hindered by scepticism, a lack of understanding, insufficient management commitment, and fears that existing modes of work will be changed and result in, for example, job loss or altered leave entitlements and shift arrangements (Kavanagh et al., 1990; Kinnie & Arthurs, 1996; Tansley & Watson, 2000). The lack of organisation and management buy-in has also been a significant challenge for ManuOrg. Despite the HRIS project acquiring renewed salience and again being placed on the organisation’s strategic agenda, the Manager of HR and Payroll Services recognised that the system and its importance for the organisation was yet to be acknowledged and wholly accepted: â€Å"I’m not sure that it’s got the necessary buy-in from the business leaders that we’re going to need to have.† This problem was reinforced later in the same interview: â€Å"†¦from talking with the business heads, concept-wise, no one is saying this is a load of rubbish, but I don’t think they’ve quite got their heads into the space and are saying, ‘Yes, we’re 100% behind that†¦Ã¢â‚¬  To try and counter this lack of buy-in, the HR department is working on an ongoing basis to promote the HRIS promise. ManuOrg, acknowledges that the upgrade of the existing system, that has been in place for 21 years will generate significant change for the way that information is managed. As the Manager of HR and Payroll Services observed: The biggest issue I believe is going to be the change management†¦ Most [ManuOrg] employees are going to notice that and more than notice. They’re going to see a significant change in the way that they supply information, get information, gain approvals. It’s a big challenge for us at the moment to try and get people in the business into this online environment. Some people really love it, other people really hate it. There’s like that sort of – and there’s nothing really in between at the moment – lack of und erstanding of the change needed but also an explicit concern for the need to manage change. Discussions about this challenge and concerns about the required change management process have been extensive and the wider acceptance of the system and its changes are seen to differ between those that are associated with the project, versus existing employees who are comfortable with the organisations current policy and procedures, or alternatively fearful of technology. For me it works well, but I’m very adaptable to change. So being able to move to a system where we can have everything in the one place I think is going to be a much better thing for us. (HR Manager of Corporate and Shared Services). The challenges for GovtOrg in managing change are centred on the need to re-focus expectations. With the explicit desire to establish a single source of truth, the organisation has commissioned the HRIS project The ability for the organisation to achieve this relies on the ability to manage expectations: But we’ve also got to manage the expectation that this is not the silver bullet to everything. This is simply a system. A system, in and of itself, doesn’t actually resolve issues or processes or anything else. (National Director of People and Place) This same manager further believed this process and challenge would greatly impact the overall acceptance of the system and thus was focussed on the implementation process. â€Å"If this process experiences issues and additional complications, or just ‘goes wrong’ [then] you can almost smell the end of SAP or its user acceptance within customers.† Without an effective implementation process the ability of the organisation to gain potential strategic potential from their HRIS would be significantly compromised. Barriers to acceptance, ownership and maintenance have plagued BuildOrg’s past, current and planned HRIS. The resources allocated to the maintenance of the HRIS system have waned throughout the life of the existing system and overall ownership of the system has largely been transferred back and forth from IT, HR and Payroll: â€Å"We’ve had a lot of problems actually trying to get people to take ownership of the systems and maintain them† which has resulted in the existing system and the information that it generates being inaccurate and outdated. Past experiences of systems with limited use, combined with an appreciation of the needs of the current workforce has ensured that the organisation has delayed the implementation of the new updated system in an attempt to ensure tha t all problems and barriers have been addressed before the system goes live. According to the Corporate Human Resources Manager, training and education is essential and needs to be timely: It’s about educating and marketing, I think at the induction piece, the new joiners they get some sort of training on how to use it and then when we roll out self service and I was talking to [Manager X] about this the other day and said anything we do it has to have a really good marketing push so that people take notice and then quickly follow it up with the training. This organisation and its current project manager also realises that the training needs to be hands on in order to generate an acceptance and use of the system and avoid the work-arounds that have compromised the effectiveness of the system in the past. Acceptance of the HRIS has also presented problems for TechOrg however user resistance has not been as significant as evidenced in the other cases. Employees largely work in distributed teams located in client organisations for the duration of their projects. They are working in a hightech environment and thus are comfortable with a more virtual relationship with the organisation and use the HRIS to manage their information and for most of their HR requirements. Despite the HR department struggling to ensure that the new HRIS project retains salience in the organisation, the lack of organisational buy-in tends to surround specific fu nctions rather than the system as a whole. The Director of People and Performance spoke of limited success with functionality associated with time sheeting and the need to incorporate additional flexibility to meet the increasingly complex customer requirements which have implications for their employees in different work sites. Change is a constant in this organisation so together with the technical requirements of the job, this seems to create a more accepting environment for new systems. However, despite this environment, recent changes around pay cycles generated significant resistance that was unanticipated by management signalling that changes to the HRIS that directly impact employees such as pay may require significant more attention to change management than TechCo has traditionally been used to. Discussion and Conclusions Initial findings from our four case studies suggest that although new or upgraded HRIS systems are being used to automate and devolve routine administrative and compliance functions traditionally perfo rmed by the HR function, the potential for this technology to be used in ways that contribute to the strategic direction of the organisation is not being realised. More specifically, our results suggest that the opportunity to enhance HR’s role as strategic partner as a result of the use of HRIS is being hindered by three main challenges. The first challenge relates to the ability to maintain the levels of senior management commitment and resources needed to implement and manage new or upgraded HRIS. The second concerns managing the complexity of the HRIS and its associated functionality. The third challenge stems from barriers associated with the acceptance of HRIS among key managers and employees along with the importance attached to managing the change processes associated with the implementation and introduction of the new or upgraded systems. These challenges demonstrate that the material, functional characteristics of technologies such as HRIS are complex and make them difficult to introduce and operate. At the same time, and in line with a social constructionist approach to the study of technology each of the challenges illustrates that how and when a technology is used is also determined by the agency of its users and the social context within which it is adopted (Orlikowski et al., 2001). In sum, only through an appreciation of both the material and the social can a more informed understanding of the problems that surround HRIS implementation and operation be obtained. In this respect, our findings are in contrast to the more technological deterministic view of earlier studies of HRIS that suggest that it is simply the technology itself which has implications for the changing role of HR. It can be seen then that the social context of HRIS plays an important role in shaping user perceptions and behaviour (Orlikowski, 2000). From a technologies-in-practice perspective (Dery et al, 2006) user interactions with the ‘facilities’, ‘norms’, and ‘interpretative schemes’ associated with HRIS are affected not only by its technological complexity, but also by problems concerning the management of, and commitment to, its implementation. These socio-contextual factors are compounded by the fact that each case study organisation has experienced significant change, for example in ownership and structure. Underlying the three challenges is the issue of how various social groups, or key actors involved in the implementation and use of HRIS bring to bear their own interests and thus interpretations of the system and what it does. As a result of this process, the design, selection and use of HRIS are shown in this study to be subject to contestation as a range of meanings are attached to the technology that either undermine or highlight its perceived value and significance and which impact on the extent to which it is to be used in a strategic or more administrative fashion. Significantly, the study suggests that interpretations which run counter to HRIS being used in ways that realise its strategic potential are currently winning the day. Overcoming these interpretations of HRIS and replacing them with one that leads to its being used to inform business strategy requires organisations to identify and systematically address the three challenges we have identified. Until this takes place, the potential of HRIS to enhance the strategic role of the HR function is likely to remain unrealised. References Ball, K. S. 2001. The use of human resource information systems: a survey. Personnel Review, 30(5/6): 677-693. Barney, J. B., & Wright, P. M. 1998. On becoming a strategic partner: The role of human resources in gaining competitive advantage. Human Resource Management, 37(1): 31-46. Barron, M., Chhabra, D., Hanscome, R., & Henson, R. 2004. Exclusive Panel Discussion: Tips and Trends in HRIS. HR Focus, 81(5): 6-7. Beatty, B. D. 2001. A Framework for Transforming Your HR Function. In A. J. Walker, & T. Perrin (Eds.), Web-Based Human Resources: the technologies and trends that are transforming HR: 150-172. New York: McGraw-Hill. Becker, B. E., Huselid, M. A., & Ulrich, D. 2001. The HR scorecard: linking people, strategy, and performance Boston: Harvard Business School Press Bee, F., & Bee, R. 2002. Managing Information and Statistics London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Broderick, R., & Boudreau, J. W. 1992. Human resource management, information technology, and the competitive edge. Academy of Management Executive, 6(2): 7-17. Brown, D. 2002. eHR – victim of unrealistic expectations. Canadian HR Reporter, 15(5): 1. Bussler, L., & Davis, E. 2001. Information Systems: The Quiet Revolution in Human Resource Management Journal of Computer Information Systems, 42(2): 17-20. Dery, K., Hall, R., & Wailes, N. 2006. ER Ps as ‘technologies-in-practice’: social construction, materiality and the role of organisational factors. New Technology, Work and Employment, 21(3): 229-241. Grant, D., Dery, K., Hall, R., & Wailes, N. 2007. Human Resource Information Systems Usage in Australian Firms: a survey Mimeo: University of Sydney Grint, K., & Woolgar, S. 1997. The Machine at Work: Technology, Work and Organisation Cambridge: Polity Press. Gueutal, H. G. 2003. The Brave New World of E-HR. Advances in Human Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research 3: 13-36. Hannon, J., Jelf, G., & Brandes, D. 1996. Human resource information systems: operational issues and strategic considerations in a global environment. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 7(1): 245-269. Hendrickson, A. R. 2003. Human Resource Information Systems: Backbone Technology of Contemporary Human Resources. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3): 381-394. Hewitt Associates. 2007. 2nd European HR Barometer: Trends and Perspectives on the Human Resource Function in Europe 2006/07: Hewitt Associates and European Club for Human Resources, Huselid, M. A. 1995. The Impact of Human Resource Management Practices on Turnover, Productivity, and Corporate Financial Performance Academy of Management Journal, 38(3): 635-672. Hussain, Z., Wallace, J., & Cornelius, N. E. 2007. The use and impact of human resource information systems on human resource management professionals. Information & Management, 44(1): 74-89. Kavanagh, M. J., Gueutal, H. G., & Tannenbaum, S. I. 1990. Human resource information systems: development and application. Boston, Mass: PWS-Kent Publications Co. Kinnie, N. J., & Arthurs, A. J. 1996. Personnel specialists’ advanced use of information technology. Personnel Review, 25(3): 3- 19. Kovach, K. A., & Cathcart, J. C. E. 1999. Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS): Providing Business with Rapid Data Access, Information Exchange and Strategic Advantage, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 28: 275: International Public Management Association for Human Resources. Lawler, E. E., Levenson, A., & Boudreau, J. W. 2004. HR Metrics and Analytics: Use and Impact. Human Resource Planning, 27(4): 27-35. Lawler, E. E., & Mohrman, S. A. 2003. HR as a Strategic Partner: What Does It Take to Make It Happen? Human Resource Planning, 26(3): 15-29. Lengnick-Hall, M. L., & Moritz, S. 2003. The Impact of e-HR on the Human Resource Management Function. Journal of Labor Research, 24(3): 365-379. Martinsons, M. G. 1994. Benchmarking human resource information systems in Canada and Hong Kong. Information & Management, 26(6): 305-316. Ngai, E. W. T., & Wat, F. K. T. 2006. Human resource information systems: a review and empirical analysis. Personnel Review, 35(3): 297-314. Orlikowski, W. J. 2000. Using Technology and Constituting Structures: A Practice Lens for Studying Technology in Organizations. Organization Science, 11(4): 404-428. Orlikowski, W. J., & Barley, S. R. 2001. Technology and Institutions: What Can Research on Information Technology and Research On Organizations learn From Each Other? . MIS Quarterly, 25(2): 145-165. Pinch, T. J., & Bijker, W. E. 1984. The Social Construction of Facts and Artefacts: or How the Sociology of Science and the Sociology of Technology might Benefit Each Other. Social Studies of Science (Sage), 14(3): 399-441. Sheehan, C., Holland, P., & De Cieri, H. 2006. Current Developm ents in HRM in Australian Organisations Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(2): 132- 152. Tansley, C., & Watson, T. 2000. Strategic exchange in the development of Human Resource Information Systems (HRIS). New Technology, Work & Employment, 15(2): 108- 122. Towers Perrin. 2008. HR Technology: Demanding Change, Delivering Results. HR Service Deleivery Research Report Vol. 2007: Towers Perrin. Ulrich, D. 1997. Human resource champions: the next agenda for adding value and delivering results Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Walker, A. J. 2001. How the web and other key trends are changing human resources. In A. J. Walker, & T. Perrin (Eds.), Web-based human resources: the technologies and trends that are transforming HR xiii-xxviii. New York: McGraw-Hill. Williams, R., & Edge, D. 1996. The Social Shaping of Technology. Policy Research, 25(1): 865899. Yin, R. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage. Youndt, M. A., Snell, S. A., Dean, J. J. W., & Lepak, D. P. 1996. Human Resource Management, Manufacturing Strategy, and Firm Performance Academy of Management Journal, 39(4): 836-866.

Specialization in Undergraduates

Brady Brajavich Specialization: does it belong in higher education? Some say yes, because it creates much more intelligent individuals in their respective fields. Others say no, because without the liberal arts, individuals will lack the necessary skills to succeed in today’s work environment. Both sides have well supported arguments, and often when one begins to think they’ve made a decision on which they agree with, they are swayed the other way. After reading, â€Å"Should Undergraduates Specialize? † by Patrick Allit, and, â€Å"Liberal Arts: A Practical View. by Mark Jackson, I have formed my opinion and what I feel like is a suitable answer to the question above. I believe that students should have a choice. If they feel like they’re ready to dive into what they know they want to do, let them. But if the student feels like they aren’t one hundred percent sure, they should be able to take a wide variety of courses that allow them to eventually choose a major to specialize. Patrick Allitt is the author of the essay, â€Å"Should Undergraduates Specialize? † In this essay he compares and contrasts his own experiences in college with those of his college-bound daughter.By comparing the two, he provides evidence to his belief that having the option to specialize as an undergraduate will benefit students. This is shown in his conclusion, â€Å"Students with the right frame of mind thrive on studying diverse subjects until they’re ready, sometimes at age twenty or older, to make a stronger commitment. But let’s get rid of the idea that liberal arts is for everyone. America’s commitment to equality and to universal education is noble and invigorating. But it shouldn’t mean that one size fits all† (Allitt 7).Here Patrick is summarizing his essay, and essentially says that liberal arts may benefit some students, but there is a certain percentage that would prefer to get busy with their ma jor and specialize. Mark Jackson, a graduate from the University of Cincinnati, thinks that all students should take some liberal arts courses to supplement their professional education, but not because they are forced too, but because they want to. Jackson wrote his essay on why he thinks students, â€Å"†¦question the reasoning behind a liberal arts education† (Jackson 233).Jackson stands behind the belief that educating students on why a liberal arts education is important is just as vital as actually teaching them the liberal arts. He says that, â€Å"If educators really want to increase the number of liberal arts courses that each student takes, they must first increase the popularity of such studies† (235). In other words, no student wants to take a class that they don’t see a point for taking. He backs his statements up by using personal experiences. Jackson explains how he had an argument with his high school counselor because he didn’t want to take a third year of Spanish. I was an A student in Spanish II, but I hated every minute of the class†¦ I told him that I took two years of a foreign language so that I would be accepted to college, but that I did not want to take a third year† (234). In response to his argument, his counselor would reply that he needed to be a â€Å"well-rounded student†, which is exactly why Jackson is so adamant in his reasoning. In relation to that response, Jackson wraps up the essay by saying, â€Å"It is difficult to persuade some college students that becoming a better person is an important goal of higher education.Many students want a college education so that they can make more money and have more power† (235). To finish, he reiterates his point; if students don’t see a point in the taking the course, they won’t want to sign up for it. In the two preceding essays, the two authors give their arguments on where they think specialization belongs in t he education system. Allitt states that having a choice on whether or not to specialize as an undergraduate, and not deal with the liberal arts can be a benefit to students.Jackson believes that students should want to take liberal arts courses, and that if educators want students to do so, they have to do a better job of explaining why they are important and making the courses more attractive. A point of common ground for the two authors, based on the previous statements, is that specialization is important. Without it students will be at a disadvantage. There isn’t an exact point of disagreement between Allit and Jackson. They both outline the pros and cons throughout their essays. That being said, there are differences.Allit is more in favor of specialization, â€Å"The early specialization†¦enabled us to learn one discipline really well, to become far more deeply engaged with it than was possible for our American counterparts† (Allitt 6), but at the same time, understands why a liberal education can be beneficial, â€Å"Its (specialization) great and equal drawback was that it forced some students to choose too soon, before they were ready† (6). Jackson thinks that students should want to take liberal courses to complement their vocational studies. Towards the end of his essay, Jackson ays that, â€Å"Students who want to make the most of their college years should pursue a major course of study while choosing electives or a few minor courses of study from the liberal arts† (Jackson 235). I believe that students should have an option to specialize. Being able to dive right in as an undergrad can be hugely beneficial, and allow a student to separate themself from the rest of the competition. The liberal arts can do the same thing. Specializing brings depth of knowledge and a different, higher level of understanding, while the liberal arts allow students to increase the width of their knowledge. The irony of the emphasis bein g placed on careers is that nothing is more valuable for anyone who has had a professional or vocational education than to be able to deal with abstractions or complexities, or to feel comfortable with subtleties of thought or language, or to think sequentially† (Cousins 31). Jackson used this quote in his essay and I absolutely love it. If I had to back up my opinion with any one statement, this would be it. Vocational education is useless without being able to think abstractly and think on the go, while being able to think abstractly and on the go is useless without a vocational education.Personally, I’d take Jackson’s advice: go right into professional studies, but take classes I felt would make me a more attractive hire. I say that because the reason why I’m in college is so I can get a good-paying job to support myself and one day a family. In order for me to do that, I’m going to have to do all I can to distinguish myself from the group. The u niversity has the intention to do that, but it’s damn near impossible for them to know what is best for each individual student. All of my academic career, I’ve been told that I was being prepared for college, and I was, but now I want to put those tools into practice.Being told what classes to take, and what classes will make me a better student isn’t letting me use what I’ve learned, and is suppressing my ability to make my own decisions. In essence, we’re big kids now. We should have to and want to make the big kid decision on whether or not taking a GEO 106 class will benefit us. Guidance is always welcome, and without the help and suggestions from our advisors we’d be lost, especially as freshman, but that doesn’t mean I should have to take a class that won’t help me achieve my life goals. But some students don’t have the know-how or motivation to take necessary liberal classes, so the university has to force studen ts to take them. † My roommate made this point to me while we were talking about my essay, and I imagine there are many others that feel the same way. My response is this, if a student has yet to take responsibility of his or her own academic career, are they really deserving of a degree? If they can’t make their own decisions on something as simple as which supplementary classes to take, how are they going to function once they hit the real world?Or rather when the real world hits them? Another fantastic argument brought to my attention was: how are students that choose to not specialize right off the bat going to keep up with the ones that do? At this point in every student’s life, we need to stop thinking of us as a whole. We are individuals, and just because Rafiki doesn’t know what to do with his life doesn’t mean the rest of us should suffer. I firmly believe that college marks the beginning of adulthood and the toned-down real world, which me ans that we all as students need to take more responsibility for our own lives.Specialization: does it belong in higher education? I say yes†¦ as long as it is balanced with proper liberal courses. Specialization can give a student essential skills and an intense education that can help them get the edge on someone else competing for the same job, and the liberal arts only increases one’s attractiveness. For all those naysayers out there, I just ask you respect what I have to say, to take my views into consideration, and, as the noble Andre 3000 once said, â€Å"Lend me some suga. I am your neighbor. †