Talk:Critical management studies
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Left wing
Is CMS exclusively left wing? Surely it encompasses a number of perspectives which might be described as liberal but not necessarily leftist?
Agreed, I dont see why CMS would be exclusive left wing, even thouhg some parts of it goes from the neo-marxistic point of view — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.252.221 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
History
This article has a subtle non-NPOV. I am modifying "These academics brought sophisticated theoretical tools and different political perspectives into business schools" to be more nuetral - 'sophisticated theoretical tools' implies that the business tools used oustside CMS are not or are less sophisticated.
Is CMS an starting critical perspective, that as the research goes on becomes more and more interperative?
Original research
[edit]I'm afraid this article appears to be almost entirely original research about meta-level topics, whereas what this article should contain is a summary of key theses of writers in CMS, and that is entirely lacking. The existing article should be published in a journal instead of in Wikipedia, and then it can be cited here. It should be replaced with something less meta.--greenrd (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with your evaluation, the number of references cited in text indicates that it is not (on the whole) research; however, I DO agree that more sources should be used to clarify the topic. It reads like a short chapter from a very general text book by a non expert in the field. I think the topic should be improved (by others that know the topic better than me!) but it should NOT be deleted. Paul haynes (talk) 16:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- disagree: I guess what constitutes the perfect entry level depends on ones contextual understanding. In my case, I appreciated this level of introduction - helps immediately, and much easier to read than some of the referenced expert literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.114.37.5 (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Critical management studies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050213201816/http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome/links_to_other_sites.htm to http://dialspace.dial.pipex.com/town/close/hr22/hcwhome/links_to_other_sites.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)