Thesis (M.A.)--George Mason University, 2008. / Vita: p. 105. Thesis director: Denise Albanese. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in English. Title from PDF t.p. (viewed Mar. 17, 2009). Includes bibliographical references (p. 94-104). Also issued in print.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Drexel University, 2005. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-92).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Drexel University, 2005. / Includes abstract and vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 87-92).

This thesis represents a scholarly journey towards an understanding of corporate governance. Unlike the vast majority of writings on governance, this work attempts to take a step back, and to consider why and how we should study corporate governance. These critical questions have been largely ignored during the frenzy of governance research in the past few decades. The thesis argues that corporate governance theory and practice reflects a Tower of Academic Babel¹ reality as writers from diverse backgrounds use different approaches, invent terminology and proclaim a new 'theory'. The thesis analyses the extent of this conceptual confusion about corporate governance and why this arises. It also considers some possible reasons for the increasing disillusionment with the legal, ethical, cultural, institutional, regulatory and other contexts of corporate governance. The corporate governance literature indicates that much uncertainty has arisen over the nature of corporate governance. Both, denotative and connotative meanings of corporate governance have been ambiguous, often because of poorly defined concepts. This ambiguity is compounded by confusion over methodological concepts such as "paradigm", "system", "model" and "theory", the key constructs employed by many legal, and other, writers. Moreover, much of the literature on corporate governance is founded on ethnocentric concepts that are often "chauvinistic in the extreme".² This confusion has been intensified by the added complexity of unique phenomenology, demonstrated by numerous writers with "scholarship and advocacy that is culturally and economically insensitive"³ This thesis argues that the search for corporate efficiency and effectiveness is often misguided, both because of biased performance criteria and a lack of a clear conceptual domain. Consequently, the corporate governance discourse fails meaningfully to address the enigma of what is the range of corporate governance influence on corporate activities? The overarching argument made in this thesis is that our understanding of corporate governance requires a clarification of methodological approach and a comparative perspective. By recasting corporate governance research within consistent models, theories and applications this thesis lays the foundation for future research by which we may investigate the causal relationships that determine corporate efficiency, effectiveness and the optimum structures for good corporate governance. practitioners from most cultures.

Among the most notable trends of the last several decades in the United States have been the rise of corporate power, the entrenchment of neoliberalism, the rise in inequality, along with discussions regarding the ‘culture wars’ and the phenomenon of polarization. The onset of the neoliberal era has been accompanied and facilitated by a decades-long marketing campaign propagating the consistent narrative of individualism over the collective, that government is the problem rather than a solution to problems, while associating freedom exclusively with the market. This thesis project draws on critical theory, Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic power, discourse, narrative and communications theory, along with some insights from social psychology to examine the discursive shifting of the political spectrum that has occurred over the last four decades and has helped to entrench market fundamentalism as a hegemonic common sense. The thesis pays particular attention to the weaponization of the word ‘liberal’ and how this strategy has affected the understanding of the political spectrum and how the centre is currently framed. The research design I use to interrogate this entails a qualitative content analysis of various media sources noting how ‘common sense’ populist discourse, such as terms like ‘liberal’, are utilized by Republican operatives and conservative commentators, as well as by the mainstream media and the general public. Using a multi-disciplinary theoretical approach and a methodological framework provided by Stone and Parker, I deconstruct and analyze the narrative that has been built up around neoliberalism and how it can serve to reinforce neoliberalism as a little-questioned hegemonic paradigm, often by-passing cognition. Neoliberal logics reject the political in terms of participatory democracy, while still requiring a strong state to stabilize the economic order. The resulting erosion of democracy augurs the possibility of right-wing authoritarianism, exacerbates inequality, and promotes a growth model that is unsustainable ecologically / Graduate

In what French philosopher Gilles Deleuze labelled Control Societies, mechanisms reminiscent of censorship – that is, restriction of information that administrators of power wish to regulate the spreading of – are present in the concept of copyright. This kind of censorship has theadvantage of not being scrutinized by public eyes in the way that the work of institutionalized censorship agencies such as the Swedish Statens Biografbyrå was. It is not unlikely that expanded possibilities for punishing anyone who spreads copyrighted material will result in larger and larger areas that may not be accessed, as the avoiding of conflict and repressive actions will emphasize the behaviour to take detours around information that is deemed taboo and therefore suspicious and dangerous. The ACTA trade agreement is one proposed tool for such extended possibilities for punishment. This essay does not however claim that copyright and censorship are the same – but rather that the institutional execution of power that was previously a matter of state censorship has a lot of similarities with current and prognosticated application of copyright laws by corporations. While claiming to protect the individual, the disciplinary power executed actually aims to protect the one executing it; the purpose of the power structure is to replicate itself.

In what French philosopher Gilles Deleuze labelled Control Societies, mechanisms reminiscent of censorship – that is, restriction of information that administrators of power wish to regulate the spreading of – are present in the concept of copyright. This kind of censorship has the advantage of not being scrutinized by public eyes in the way that the work of institutionalized censorship agencies such as the Swedish Statens Biografbyrå was. It is not unlikely that expanded possibilities for punishing anyone who spreads copyrighted material will result in larger and larger areas that may not be accessed, as the avoiding of conflict and repressive actions will emphasize the behaviour to take detours around information that is deemed taboo and therefore suspicious and dangerous. The ACTA trade agreement is one proposed tool for such extended possibilities for punishment. This essay does not however claim that copyright and censorship are the same – but rather that the institutional execution of power that was previously a matter of state censorship has a lot of similarities with current and prognosticated application of copyright laws by corporations. While claiming to protect the individual, the disciplinary power executed actually aims to protect the one executing it; the purpose of the power structure is to replicate itself.

Thesis (M.A.)--Bowling Green State University, 2009. / Document formatted into pages; contains xi, 239 p. : ill. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Dept. of Psychology. University of Missouri--Kansas City, 2004. / "A dissertation in community psychology." Advisor: Joseph B. Hughey. Typescript. Vita. Title from "catalog record" of the print edition Description based on contents viewed Frb. 23, 2006. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 355-370). Online version of the print edition.

In this discussion paper we review and contrast alternative theories of consumption in terms of the intellectual basis they provide for understanding sustainable behaviours. A defining aspect of the modern literature in this field is the emphasis on the individual as a volitional agent who engages wilfully in the decision to consume. This is in stark contrast to earlier literature that concentrated on the structural lock-in of individuals to undesirable consumption patterns and the powers of corporations in creating consumer demand for their products and services. We argue that, in order to unravel consumption in its full complexity, and as a matter of utmost importance, understanding must include both the buy-in of individual agents, whose consumption activities contribute to their self-identity, and the structure imposed by the institutions of society, that frame the context of actors' decisions. More than this, any move away from the current unsustainable consumption patterns prevalent in modern societies requires a richer conceptualisation of consumption that involves an awareness and examination of the political economy in which humans live. / Series: SRE - Discussion Papers