Presidential Vision or Congressional Derision? Explaining Budgeting Outcomes for NASA, 1958–2008

Conley, Richard S.; Cobb, Wendy Whitman

doi:10.1080/07343469.2011.640383

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Given the length of timescales that apply to the technologies and the programs at NASA, applying short-term temporal frames as a gauge to evaluate organization change success or failure at this organization would be premature and overly narrow. The disjuncture between decadeslong timeframes for projects, and the short-term timeframe of recurrent funding appropriations (Conley and Cobb, 2012) compounds the temporal complexity at NASA, necessitating ways to manage these competing temporal perspectives. For example, the "temporal brokerage" practices identified by Reinecke and Ansari (2015) enabled the organization to develop "ambitemporality," the ability to manage plural timeframes.…”

Section: Vignette: Temporality At Nasamentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating Wonderland

Heracleous

Bartunek

2020

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organization change failure has typically been viewed as occurring when expected outcomes of change have not been met. This view downplays key, but frequently hidden organizational dimensions such as deep structures and temporality. In this article, drawing inspiration from the story of Alice in Wonderland, we distinguish between surface-level intervention approaches to change, deeper process approaches and, deeper yet, structuration approaches, and suggest the different ways they approach change failure as well as the implications of these. On the basis of our exploration we propose a three-fold way forward: adopting a process-based, empirically grounded and reflective approach to understanding change and its often-failed outcomes; adopting methodologies that can capture deep structures and temporal dimensions; and incorporating expanded conceptions of time as a multi-level, nested construct. We illustrate our ideas of deep structures and temporality by drawing from a particularly important illustration of long-term successful change that includes multiple short-term failures, that of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in the United States (NASA).

show abstract

Section: Vignette: Temporality At Nasamentioning

confidence: 99%

Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating Wonderland

Heracleous

Bartunek

2020

Human Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Managing Uncertainty in Crisis

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions

Quigley

Silver

2022

Environ Syst Decis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract‘Science’ is a proportionately small but recurring constituent in the rhetorical lexicon of political leaders. To evaluate the use of science-related content relative to other themes in political communications, we undertake a statistical analysis of keywords in U.S. Presidential State of the Union (SOTU) addresses and Presidential Budget Messages (PBM) from Truman (1947) to Trump (2020). Hierarchical clustering and correlation analyses reveal proximate affinities between ‘science’ and ‘research’, ‘space’, ‘technology’, ‘education’, and ‘climate’. The keywords that are least correlated with ‘science’ relate to fiscal (‘inflation’, ‘tax’) and conflict-related themes (‘security’, ‘war’, ‘terror’). The most ubiquitous and frequently used keywords are ‘economy’ and ‘tax’. Science-related keywords are used in a positive (promotional) rhetorical context and thus their proportionality in SOTU and PBM corpora is used to define fields of science advocacy (public perception advocacy, funding advocacy, advocacy) for each president. Monte Carlo simulations and randomized sampling of three elements: language (relative frequency of usage of science-related keywords), funding (proposed funding and allocated discretionary funding of science agencies), and actions (e.g. expediency of science advisor appointments, (dis-) establishment of science agencies) are used to generate a science advocacy score (SAS) for each president. The SAS is compared with independent survey-based measures of political popularity. A myriad of political, contextual, and other factors may contribute to lexical choices, policy, and funding actions. Within this complex environment ‘science’ may have political currency under certain circumstances, particularly where public and political perceptions of the value of science to contribute to matters of priority align.

show abstract

Presidential Vision or Congressional Derision? Explaining Budgeting Outcomes for NASA, 1958–2008

Cited by 5 publications

References 25 publications

Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating Wonderland

Organization change failure, deep structures and temporality: Appreciating Wonderland

Managing Uncertainty in Crisis

Science advocacy in political rhetoric and actions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About