Outline

Overview

tbc

Unit details and rules

Academic unit	Project Management
Credit points	6
Prerequisites ?	None
Corequisites ?	None
Prohibitions ?	None
Assumed knowledge ?	None
Available to study abroad and exchange students	No

Teaching staff

Coordinator	Stewart Clegg, stewart.clegg@sydney.edu.au
Lecturer(s)	Stewart Clegg, stewart.clegg@sydney.edu.au

Assessment

The census date for this unit availability is 31 March 2025

Details
Criteria

Type	Description	Weight	Due	Length
Assignment	Assignment 1 an essay on a topic chosen from a list of possible topics.	20%	Week 04 Due date: 17 Mar 2025 at 23:59 Closing date: 31 Mar 2025	3000
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Assignment 2 An essay chosen from a list of possible topics	40%	Week 06 Due date: 07 Apr 2025 at 23:59 Closing date: 21 Apr 2025	5000 words
Outcomes assessed:
Assignment	Assignment 3 An essay chosen from a list of topics	40%	Week 09 Due date: 28 Apr 2025 at 23:59 Closing date: 12 May 2025	5000
Outcomes assessed:
= AI allowed ?

Assessment summary

This unit has 3 assessment tasks. Final submission via Turnitin to stewart.clegg@sydney.edu.au on specified dates as a Word Document – not PDF.

Assessment Task 1: Essay/Research paper (20%): Around 3000 words. Due date: March 17.

Assessment Task 2: Essay/Research paper (40%): An extended essay of around 5000 words on a central debate that will be read during the semester. Due date: April 7.

Assessment Task 3: Essay/Research paper (40%): Around 5000 words. Due date: April 28.

It is compulsory to submit all assignments, students who fail to submit all assignments may fail the unit.

Confidential Peer Evaluation:

As part of the assessment process for group work, collaborative and self-peer evaluation tools (e.g., SparkPlus) may be utilised, either confidentially or non-confidentially, to assess contributions and interactions among group members. Based on the outcomes of the peer evaluation process, individual team member marks may be adjusted accordingly.

Reliability of Canvas Marks:

Canvas will be used in this unit for the submission of key assessments; however, it should not be relied upon to determine or predict a student’s final marks. Not all assessment results may be visible to students, and group or team marks may be adjusted for individual members based on peer evaluations

Mark Moderation:

Statistically defensible moderation may be applied when combining marks from individual assessment components to ensure consistency between markers and alignment of final grades with the unit outcomes.

Assessment criteria

Students should consult Coursework Policy 2021, Schedule 1

Result name	Mark range	Description
High distinction	85 - 100	Upper end Outstanding, demonstrating independent thought throughout, a flair for the subject, and research achievement of a kind that produces work of higher degree standard of a potentially publishable standard in a serious academic journal. Lower end Showing a command of the field both broad and deep, independent intellectual argument and a significant degree of original thought.
Distinction	75 - 84	Upper end Clear but not deeply elaborated or referenced. General excellence in understanding of material without major error or naiveté; breadth of knowledge; clear familiarity with and ability to use appropriate methodologies and theories; clear evidence of independence of thought in the subject area. Superior written style, clarity and creativity. Lower end Demonstrates breadth and initiative in research and reading, complex understanding and some original analysis. Makes good attempt to ‘get behind’ the evidence and engage with its underlying assumptions, takes a critical, interrogative stance in relation to argument and interpretation. Properly documented, writing characterised by style, clarity and some creativity.
Credit	65 - 74	Upper end Sound grasp of subject area, with extensive reading and research; ability to use methodology and theory, evidence of careful and thorough discovery and original use of appropriate sources; competent analysis and evaluation of material; ability to present material clearly and succinctly with a well-thought out argument Lower end Some evidence of ability to think theoretically as well as empirically, and to conceptualise and problematise issues. Weaknesses include gaps in research, important unresolved problems and inconsistencies within the argument, deficiencies in clarity, and stylistic lapses.
Pass	50 - 64	Work barely adequate, with significant defects in several of the qualities expected at this level. Examples of such defects include insufficient or too narrowly focused research, unpersuasive interpretation, argument that suffers from weaknesses in clarity or structure, and writing that exhibits serious problems with grammar and expression.
Fail	0 - 49	When you don’t meet the learning outcomes of the unit to a satisfactory standard.

For more information see guide to grades.

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

Except for supervised exams or in-semester tests, you may use generative AI and automated writing tools in assessments unless expressly prohibited by your unit coordinator.

For exams and in-semester tests, the use of AI and automated writing tools is not allowed unless expressly permitted in the assessment instructions.

The icons in the assessment table above indicate whether AI is allowed – whether full AI, or only some AI (the latter is referred to as “AI restricted”). If no icon is shown, AI use is not permitted at all for the task. Refer to Canvas for full instructions on assessment tasks for this unit.

Your final submission must be your own, original work. You must acknowledge any use of automated writing tools or generative AI, and any material generated that you include in your final submission must be properly referenced. You may be required to submit generative AI inputs and outputs that you used during your assessment process, or drafts of your original work. Inappropriate use of generative AI is considered a breach of the Academic Integrity Policy and penalties may apply.

The Current Students website provides information on artificial intelligence in assessments. For help on how to correctly acknowledge the use of AI, please refer to the  AI in Education Canvas site.

Late submission

In accordance with University policy, these penalties apply when written work is submitted after 11:59pm on the due date:

Deduction of 5% of the maximum mark for each calendar day after the due date.
After ten calendar days late, a mark of zero will be awarded.

This unit has an exception to the standard University policy or supplementary information has been provided by the unit coordinator. This information is displayed below:

Late Penalty: For every calendar day up to and including ten calendar days after the due date, a penalty of 5% of the maximum awardable marks will be applied to late work. The penalty will be calculated by first marking the work, and then subtracting 5% of the maximum awardable mark for each calendar day after the due date. Example: Consider an assignment's maximum awardable mark is 10; the assignment is submitted 2 days late, and the assignment is marked as 7/10. After applying the penalty, marks will be: 7 - (0.5 x 2) = 6/10. For work submitted more than ten calendar days after the due date a mark of zero will be awarded. The marker may elect to but is not required to, provide feedback on such work. Refer to section 7A of Assessment procedures policy available at: http://sydney.edu.au/policies/showdoc.aspx?recnum=PDOC2012/267&RendNum=0

Academic integrity

The Current Student website provides information on academic integrity and the resources available to all students. The University expects students and staff to act ethically and honestly and will treat all allegations of academic integrity breaches seriously.

We use similarity detection software to detect potential instances of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breach. If such matches indicate evidence of plagiarism or other forms of academic integrity breaches, your teacher is required to report your work for further investigation.

Learning support

Simple extensions

If you encounter a problem submitting your work on time, you may be able to apply for an extension of five calendar days through a simple extension.  The application process will be different depending on the type of assessment and extensions cannot be granted for some assessment types like exams.

Special consideration

If exceptional circumstances mean you can’t complete an assessment, you need consideration for a longer period of time, or if you have essential commitments which impact your performance in an assessment, you may be eligible for special consideration or special arrangements.

Special consideration applications will not be affected by a simple extension application.

Using AI responsibly

Co-created with students, AI in Education includes lots of helpful examples of how students use generative AI tools to support their learning. It explains how generative AI works, the different tools available and how to use them responsibly and productively.

Support for students

The Support for Students Policy reflects the University’s commitment to supporting students in their academic journey and making the University safe for students. It is important that you read and understand this policy so that you are familiar with the range of support services available to you and understand how to engage with them.

The University uses email as its primary source of communication with students who need support under the Support for Students Policy. Make sure you check your University email regularly and respond to any communications received from the University.

Learning resources and detailed information about weekly assessment and learning activities can be accessed via Canvas. It is essential that you visit your unit of study Canvas site to ensure you are up to date with all of your tasks.

If you are having difficulties completing your studies, or are feeling unsure about your progress, we are here to help. You can access the support services offered by the University at any time:

Support and Services (including health and wellbeing services, financial support and learning support)
Course planning and administration
Meet with an Academic Adviser

Weekly schedule

WK	Topic	Learning activity
Multiple weeks	Reading and assignments.	Independent study (100 hr)
Week 02	Organization and social theory for project management	Workshop (6 hr)
Week 05	Organization and social theory for project management	Workshop (6 hr)
Week 08	Organization and social theory for project management	Workshop (6 hr)
Week 10	Organization and social theory for project management	Workshop (6 hr)

Attendance and class requirements

As per the Faculty of Engineering Coursework Awards Resolutions, students are expected to attend and actively engage in all timetabled activities of their respective units of study.

For this unit of study, students are expected to attend a minimum of 85 percent of timetabled activities. Exceptions to this requirement may be granted only by the Dean or the Head of School.

Failure to meet the minimum attendance requirement may result in a fail grade.

Heads of School, Program Directors and / or Unit of Study Coordinators may set additional assessment items where the attendance requirement differs from 85 percent.

Workshop Participation:

Students are required to engage in a professional manner during workshops. This includes being fully prepared by thoroughly reviewing and engaging with all materials provided by the Unit of Study Coordinator and / or teaching team prior to the workshop where applicable. Active participation in class activities, discussions, and team-based tasks is expected to ensure meaningful contributions and effective collaboration.

Students participating in learning activities, including workshops conducted remotely or online, are strongly encouraged to have their cameras turned on for the duration of the session. Failure to comply may result in a request to show cause. Continued non-compliance may be deemed as non-participation, which could impact assessment outcomes.

Study commitment

Typically, there is a minimum expectation of 1.5-2 hours of student effort per week per credit point for units of study offered over a full semester. For a 6 credit point unit, this equates to roughly 120-150 hours of student effort in total.

Required readings

Pre-unit assignment:

1. The first day is an intensive introduction to one approach that is widely used in looking at the nature of work and organizations as well as to some very basic ideas of qualitative research. It requires the researchers to have done the following prior to the first workshop.

2. Read Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-Symbolic Work Shapes Selves, Organizations and Institutions by Thomas B. Lawrence and Nelson Phillips. Oxford: Oxford University Press and the short book, Américo, B., Clegg, S. R. & Tureta, S. (2022) Qualitative Management Research in Context: Data Collection, Interpretation and Narrative. London Routledge. Students that find the latter interesting could progress to Silverman, D. (2024) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.

3. Write a review of these two books that assesses their use in researching project work, elaborating you point of view in approximately 500 words devoted to each book, with a general conclusion. you will present these ideas in the first class as a point of departure.

Session 1:

The first day is an intensive introduction to one approach that is widely used in looking at the nature of work and organizations as well as to some very basic ideas of qualitative research. It requires the researchers to have done the following prior to the first workshop.
Read Constructing Organizational Life: How Social-Symbolic Work Shapes Selves, Organizations and Institutions by Thomas B. Lawrence and Nelson Phillips. Oxford: Oxford University Press and the short book, Américo, B., Clegg, S. R. & Tureta, S. (2022) Qualitative Management Research in Context: Data Collection, Interpretation and Narrative. London Routledge. Students that find the latter interesting could progress to Silverman, D. (2024) Interpreting Qualitative Data. London: Sage.
Write a review of these two books that assesses their use in researching project work, elaborating you point of view in approximately 500 words devoted to each book, with a general conclusion.
Students will be asked randomly to discuss their key learning from what they have read.
Students might want to participate in the asynchronous seminar produced to accompany the Lawrence & Phillips book: https://socialsymbolicwork.net/online-asynchronous-seminar-on-social-symbolic-work/
Researchers will strive to relate the issues raised in their reading to the research topis that concern them; they should bring any questions or issues raised from their reading to the workshop where we will discuss them collectively, interrogatively and constructively.
If there are any aspects of sections of the four seminars that comprise the unit that need to be clarified prior to our discussion, please identify them so that we can discuss them collectively in the first workshop.

ChatGPT was asked the question “What strategies can I adopt as an instructor to assess my university students use of AI?”

From the response that I received, as well as drawing on some other ideas (see: Geraldi, J., Locatelli, G., Dei, G, Söderlund , J & Clegg, S. (2024) AI for Management and Organization Research: Examples and Reflections from Project Studies, Project Management Journal, 55(4) 339–351; Clegg, S. & Sarkar, S. (2024) Artificial intelligence and management education: A conceptualization of human-machine interaction, The International Journal of Management Education 22, 101007), I came up with the following guidelines that you will find useful in any use you make of AI in the course of the semester:

As AI tools become more integrated into academic work, it’s essential to design assessment strategies that ensure students are engaging with technology in a way that aligns with learning objectives while preventing misuse. Note that I have assigned projects too complex for AI to handle entirely without human input, and that require a personalized approach based on your specific interests or understanding. Please note the italicised sections, especially:

1. Explicitly Define AI Usage in Assignments

Clear Guidelines: Clearly state when and how AI tools can be used in your assignments. For instance, allow AI tools like ChatGPT for brainstorming or drafting, but do not use them for writing entire papers – this is not ethical, and it is not learning.

2. Contextual Application: Tasks have been designed for which students must apply AI-generated content in a specific context that requires deeper reflection. Students should analyse AI suggestions, critique their limitations, or expand on its output with their own insights.

3. Incorporate Oral Examinations or Presentations

Verbal Explanation: Students will be asked to explain their thought processes and, if they integrated AI into their work, how they did so: what prompts were used, for instance? This helps assess whether you understand the content or simply relied on the tool without grasping the underlying concepts.

4. Focus on Process Over Product

Draft Submissions: Students should submit drafts, outlines, or intermediate steps in addition to final products to provide insight into their thought processes. Thes can be rough drafts, notes on sources, including AI. Students should write short reflections on how they used AI in their work, explaining how they have thought critically about their engagement with the technology. The should explain how AI contributed to your final submission and the limitations encountered with the AI tools used.

5. Use of AI Detection Tools

Plagiarism and Authorship Detection: Tools like Turnitin or specific AI plagiarism detectors (such as GPTZero) can help identify if a significant portion of an assignment was generated by AI. Where there are suspicions on my part that this is the case then they will be used.

Cross-Referencing: I will be careful about looking for discrepancies that might suggest over-reliance on AI, especially for students who consistently submit "polished" work that is above their apparent skill level in the use of English as the medium of communication.

6. Peer Review

Collaborative Assessment: Students are encouraged to peer-review each other’s work, focusing on how AI was used. Peer review encourages accountability and gives students an opportunity to learn how their classmates, fostering transparency and ethical practices.

Detailed Introduction to Session 1: March 5

The first session is dedicated to introducing the group of researchers to each other. Participants will present their view of the two books and its possible relation to their research interests. Discussion will ensue and work will be allocated for the semester. Students will need to have familiarised themselves with the subject outline herein to make rehearsed and informed choices.

At the end of the first session readings for the second session will be allocated. The readings are taken from a book edited by Stewart Clegg and Miguel Pina e Cunha, called Management, Organizations and Contemporary Social Theory. London: Routledge, 2019.

The book consists of chapters that relate major social theoretical positions to the analysis of organizational life. Being able to do this is a significant part of becoming a well-prepared doctoral scholar.

The book contains chapters (some of which are emboldened as most suitable for PM students) on:

1 Management, organizations and contemporary social theory 1

STEWART CLEGG AND MIGUEL PINA E CUNHA

2 Ethnomethodology 19

ANDREA WHITTLE AND FRANK MUELLER

3 Actor-network theory: Michel Callon, Bruno Latour, John Law 39

DAMIAN O’DOHERTY

4 Giddens and structuration theory 60

IRA CHATTERJEE, JAGAT KUNWAR AND FRANK DEN HOND

5 Morphogenesis and reflexivity: Margaret Archer, critical realism and organizational analysis 80

ALISTAIR MUTCH

6 Pierre Bourdieu and elites: making the hidden visible 98

MAIRI MACLEAN AND CHARLES HARVEY

7 Theodor Schatzki’s theory and its implications for organization studies 115

GEORG LOSCHER, VIOLETTA SPLITTER AND DAVID SEIDL

8 Mary Douglas and institutions 135

DEAN PIERIDES AND GRAHAM SEWELL

9 Norbert Elias and organizational analysis: towards process-figurational theory 158

ROBERT VAN KRIEKEN

10 Luhmann and organizations as social systems 185

XAVIER DEROY

11 Organizing Foucault: power, knowledge and governmentality 203

ALAN MCKINLAY AND ERIC PEZET

12 The Frankfurt School and critical theory 223

EDWARD GRANTER

13 Judith Butler and performativity 244

KATE KENNY

14 Castells and informationalism 256

CÁTIA MIRIAM COSTA, TIAGO LIMA QUINTANILHA AND SANDRO MENDONÇA

15 Liquefying modernity: Zygmunt Bauman as organization theorist 271

STEWART CLEGG AND MIGUEL PINA E CUNHA

16 Management, organizations and contemporary social theory:

an index of possibilities 290

MIGUEL PINA E CUNHA AND STEWART CLEGG

To eliminate duplication in choices, once any two chapters are selected for discussion they will cease to be available to others. Please do your homework in advance and prepare yourself for making an informed choice at the end of the first semester. Should anyone have difficulty getting hold of the book, email me at strewart.clegg@sydney.edu.au and I can make an annotated proof copy available.

Session 2: March 26

In this second session students will be introduced to some leading social theorists and some leading theories for theorizing organisations and management. You will have chosen two theorists from the range discussed in Clegg & Cunha (2018) Management, Organizations and Contemporary Social Theory. London: Routledge and review the contributions of any two, comparing, contrasting and analysing what you take to be their distinctive contributions to our understandings of managing and organizing projects.

This paper will be prepared in advance of the class. Come to class with a fully written paper and PowerPoint presentation.

It is expected that you will have addressed the following elements in the paper:

What points of comparison have been highlighted between the comparisons? This will entail a theoretical, methodological,
epistemological and philosophy of science comparison.
An account of the key concepts in their work
Major impact of the authors and their theories on the field and limitations of their approaches
Limited biographical details concerning the authors and their major work.

The manifest function of this exercise is to introduce you to a broad range of theories; the latent function is to see how well you can access literature and discuss it in your presentation. You are expected to have sourced contemporary references from credible journals that relate to what you have chosen to discuss.

Session 3 April 17

In session 3, we will encounter some of the key approaches that dominate current issues of top journals. It is important that you are up to date with these as their mastery is essential for participants having ambitions to publish – and that should be all of you! Pick one or other of the following key terms and research its contemporary contours[1]:

Organizations as communication
Sensemaking
Process perspectives
Social systems theory
Discourse analysis
Paradox approaches
Process approaches
Power approaches

In your understanding:

What are the specific strengths and weaknesses of the theories you have chosen?
What kinds of questions are they best able to address?
What methods seem most suited to researching these questions?
Why are the topics important for analysis of projects, management and organizations?
What are some of the most significant ways in which it has been researched?
Highlight the qualitative research methods used. With respect to your own research interests how might you study it?

It is assumed that your research will have familiarized you with current work. Reference should be made to relatively current quality journal articles. You will individually write up as per the requirements of Assessment.

[1] Students may propose and discuss alternate topics with Professor Clegg, who will exercise his discretion as to whether it is appropriate.

Session 4: May 8

Doing Exemplary Project Management Research.

In the final seminar you will have selected one of the following papers that have been chosen as exemplars of project management research to discuss. These papers will be the substantive focus of a forthcoming book on Doing Exemplary Project Management Research, edited by Stewart Clegg and Julien Pollack (Elgar, forthcoming), in a format loosely based on Doing Exemplary Research, by Peter Frost and Ralph Stablein, (Sage, 1992). Each paper has been chosen by peer review and from the choices made the editors sought to select papers whose exemplary status satisfied different criteria, in order to get a spread of issues and approaches. You will choose one of these papers and proceed to critically assess what, in your analysis, makes it an exemplar from which students could learn. Once you have made you choice you will advise Professor Clegg, and he will supply you with access to the commentary on that paper, consisting of critical review by experts as well as the author’s reflections on the research processes and journey that led to the paper’s publication. These commentaries, collectively, comprise the book. Each has many useful lessons from which to benefit.

Lenfle, S., & Söderlund, J. (2022). Project-oriented agency and regeneration in socio-technical transition: Insights from the case of numerical weather prediction (1978–2015). Research Policy, 51(3), 104455.
Lehtimäki, H., Jokinen, A., & Pitkänen, J. (2023). Project-based practices for promoting a sustainability transition in a city organization and its urban context. International Journal of Project Management, 41(7), 102516.
Sydow, Jörg, & Windeler, Arnold. (2020). Temporary organizing and permanent contexts. Current Sociology, 68(4), 480-498.
Davis, K., Pinto, J.K., 2024. The Corruption of Project Governance Through Normalization of Deviance. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 71, 2447–2461.
Van Marrewijk, A.H. and A.L. Van den Ende, A.L. (2022). Shaping interorganizational strategic projects through power relations and strategic practices. International Journal of Project Management. 40(4), 426-438.
Biygautane, M., Neesham, C., & Al-Yahya, K. O. (2019). Institutional entrepreneurship and infrastructure public-private partnership (PPP): Unpacking the role of social actors in implementing PPP projects. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 192-219.

The participants in the workshop will also keep and submit with their last piece of work, a learning journal, in which they will record what they have read and learnt, as well as issues and questions that it has raised for them. For some idea of what this might entail read C. W. Mills’ (1959) Appendix on Intellectual Craftsmanship: https://www.miguelangelmartinez.net/IMG/pdf/1959_Mills_on_intellctual_craftmanship.pdf

Issues and questions raised will provide material for discussion in the final workshop

If intrigued by Mills’ ideas, there are many references to it in the subsequent literature: see https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=C.+W.+Mills%E2%80%99+%281959%29+Appendix+on+Intellectual+Caftsmanship&btnG=

The final session will be a chance for a reflective glance back at what has been discussed and ways to think about future projects.

[1] Students may propose and discuss alternate topics with Professor Clegg, who will exercise his discretion as to whether it is appropriate.

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are what students know, understand and are able to do on completion of a unit of study. They are aligned with the University's graduate qualities and are assessed as part of the curriculum.

Outcomes
Graduate qualities

At the completion of this unit, you should be able to:

LO1. Explain different methodological and theoretical approaches to organisation and management theory
LO2. Critically evaluate contemporary issues in theorizing, organisation and management, with reference to the broad field of project management.
LO3. Review processes of theory construction
LO4. Examine types of arguments and evidence used to justify and elaborate different types of theorising, research and writing practices, including the use of AI.

Graduate qualities

The graduate qualities are the qualities and skills that all University of Sydney graduates must demonstrate on successful completion of an award course. As a future Sydney graduate, the set of qualities have been designed to equip you for the contemporary world.

GQ1	Depth of disciplinary expertise Deep disciplinary expertise is the ability to integrate and rigorously apply knowledge, understanding and skills of a recognised discipline defined by scholarly activity, as well as familiarity with evolving practice of the discipline.
GQ2	Critical thinking and problem solving Critical thinking and problem solving are the questioning of ideas, evidence and assumptions in order to propose and evaluate hypotheses or alternative arguments before formulating a conclusion or a solution to an identified problem.
GQ3	Oral and written communication Effective communication, in both oral and written form, is the clear exchange of meaning in a manner that is appropriate to audience and context.
GQ4	Information and digital literacy Information and digital literacy is the ability to locate, interpret, evaluate, manage, adapt, integrate, create and convey information using appropriate resources, tools and strategies.
GQ5	Inventiveness Generating novel ideas and solutions.
GQ6	Cultural competence Cultural Competence is the ability to actively, ethically, respectfully, and successfully engage across and between cultures. In the Australian context, this includes and celebrates Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures, knowledge systems, and a mature understanding of contemporary issues.
GQ7	Interdisciplinary effectiveness Interdisciplinary effectiveness is the integration and synthesis of multiple viewpoints and practices, working effectively across disciplinary boundaries.
GQ8	Integrated professional, ethical, and personal identity An integrated professional, ethical and personal identity is understanding the interaction between one’s personal and professional selves in an ethical context.
GQ9	Influence Engaging others in a process, idea or vision.

Outcome map

Learning outcomes	Graduate qualities
Learning outcomes

Responding to student feedback

This section outlines changes made to this unit following staff and student reviews.

In response to students feedback measures have been introduced to constrain the likelihood of duplicate choices of topics from participating students.

Additional information

It is important to read this carefully before the first class.

Theorizing Organizations and Management is a subject designed to prepare researchers to engage critically with contemporary theory and research in management and organization studies that can be applied to Project Management research. In a way that is meant to stretch you, it seeks to make you “Research Work Ready”. The subject enables participants to situate their own research work within the broader and methodological, theoretical domains within which it can be located and/or contrasted. As well as providing the knowledge of methods, theory and scholarship, the workshop offers a broader education in the varied landscape of research and theory.

The workshop involves considerable reading and writing. It is an academic boot camp for researchers. If you are not prepared to work hard, think deep and apply yourself consistently, this workshop will not be for you. If you do these things, you will succeed and enjoy the time spent there.

Thinking theoretically is not easy which is why so few really do it; you will be required to do so. Thinking of thinking, A. N. Whitehead, the distinguished philosopher of science, articulated some principles early in the twentieth century when he said of the university as an institution:

The university imparts information, but it imparts it imaginatively … This atmosphere of excitement, arising from imaginative consideration, transforms knowledge. A fact is no longer a fact: it is invested with all its possibilities. It is no longer a burden on the memory: it is energising as the poet of our dreams, and as the architect of our purposes.

What does this statement mean? Think about it: It is the first of many statements that you will be asked to consider in the context of this workshop.

I think there are several implications that flow from being imaginative:

Your imagination is yours, and yours alone: it is what you make of what you learn that is important
Imagination entails intellectual and creative powers premised on a capacity to think, understand, interpret and judge.
Your imagination, if it cannot be elegantly, aesthetically and purposefully communicated in arguments both verbal and written is as naught; communicative competence is essential.
Imagination connects: the workshop will provide you with some (limited – in terms of the bodies of knowledge) resources but the task of making them work is yours; it is for you to solve problems; pose questions; posit relations and develop theses

In short, if you are not prepared to be enquiring, analytical and creative, if you cannot cultivate independent judgement and critical self-awareness, then you will not derive the satisfaction that is to be had from this workshop. The structure of the workshop is a frame, a scaffolding within which you can construct what you wish. If the frame needs bending or stretching to accommodate specific interests that you have that are not represented there, please let us discuss it and I am sure we can accommodate you.

Learning strategies

Clearly, the work demands are heavy, as you will see. It may be advisable for you to work smart – work collectively as a group and divvy up reading amongst you. This way you will cover more things even if you have not read something yourself – you can work out from the coverage of others if it is worth looking at. It might help to meet collectively and determine a common template for your reading strategy – what questions do you want to ask of the texts that you cover in addressing the question for the session?

For each topic I would suggest the following norms:

Use Google Scholar. Put “inverted commas” around the topic that you are interested in – try and use more than one term and search in two ways. First, do an ‘any time’ search. See what is cited most – this is probably foundational. Second, tighten the temporal parameters to perhaps the last 3 or 2 years. Choose what seems current and relevant.
Scan papers or chapters – chose those that interest you most – use the abstracts as a guide. If it looks interesting, check the conclusions; if it still looks interesting read and use it. Aim to have read at least six per session – You will be asked what you have been reading!
Six papers – average reading time = one per hour.

Requests for References from Teaching Staff:

Unit of Study Coordinators and the teaching team for this unit are not obligated to, and typically will not, provide personal references for students.

Students requiring a letter of good standing should direct their request to the Student Centre as the first point of contact.

Support with Administrative / Enrolment Matters:

The Student Centre is the primary point of contact for students seeking assistance with administrative, enrolment, or timetable matters.

In certain cases, the School’s Administrative Team may be able to provide additional support and can be contacted at: project.management@sydney.edu.au.

Additional costs

N/A

Site visit guidelines

N/A

Work, health and safety

We are governed by the Work Health and Safety Act 2011, Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 and Codes of Practice.

Everyone has a responsibility for health and safety at work. The University’s Work Health and Safety policy explains the responsibilities and expectations of workers and others, and the procedures for managing WHS risks associated with University activities.

Disclaimer

The University reserves the right to amend units of study or no longer offer certain units, including where there are low enrolment numbers.

To help you understand common terms that we use at the University, we offer an online glossary.

Current students

Overview

Overview

Unit details and rules

Teaching staff

Assessment

Assessment

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

Late submission

Academic integrity

Learning support

Learning support

Simple extensions

Special consideration

Using AI responsibly

Support for students

Weekly schedule

Weekly schedule

Attendance and class requirements

Study commitment

Required readings

Pre-unit assignment:

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes

Graduate qualities

Outcome map

Responding to student feedback

Responding to student feedback

Additional information

Additional information

It is important to read this carefully before the first class.

Learning strategies

Additional costs

Site visit guidelines

Work, health and safety

Disclaimer

On this page

Useful links

PMGT8100: Advanced Organisation Theorising

Semester 1, 2025 [Block mode] - Camperdown/Darlington, Sydney

Overview

Overview

Unit details and rules

Teaching staff

Assessment

Assessment

Assessment summary

Assessment criteria

Use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) and automated writing tools

Late submission

Academic integrity

Learning support

Learning support

Simple extensions

Special consideration

Using AI responsibly

Support for students

Weekly schedule

Weekly schedule

Attendance and class requirements

Study commitment

Required readings

Pre-unit assignment:

Learning outcomes

Learning outcomes

Graduate qualities

Outcome map

Responding to student feedback

Responding to student feedback

Additional information

Additional information

It is important to read this carefully before the first class.

Learning strategies

Additional costs

Site visit guidelines

Work, health and safety

Disclaimer

On this page

Useful links