<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<channel rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11557">
<title>Non-traditional Outputs</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11557</link>
<description/>
<items>
<rdf:Seq>
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11604"/>
</rdf:Seq>
</items>
<dc:date>2013-05-21T18:48:43Z</dc:date>
</channel>
<item rdf:about="http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11604">
<title>Questioning Morals and Moral Questions in Organizations: Review and Response</title>
<link>http://hdl.handle.net/10453/11604</link>
<description>Questioning Morals and Moral Questions in Organizations: Review and Response
Clegg Stewart; Feldman S. P.

Steven Feldman¿s introduction is prefaced by a short remark from William James extolling the importance of prayer to the establishing of a self that is responsible to the `higher tribunals¿. From there on it becomes increasingly clear that Feldman¿s task is to direct us toward such higher tribunals. In the preface Feldman advises us that he establishes a theory of moral tradition, designed to investigate the historical and cultural context of moral commitment. It should be clear that this is theorizing with definite auspices: the religious beliefs that Feldman `professes¿ (and Weber¿s caustic remarks on the professing of religion in his essay `Science as a Vocation¿ are, I think, worth recalling here) are as central to the enterprise as they are absent. They are central in the grounding of the book as a moral project while they are absent because they are never spelled out clearly as a set of specific commitments.
</description>
<dc:date>2005-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
</item>
</rdf:RDF>
