The Copenhagen Project: Spectres of Learning and Participation in the Course That Was/n’t

  • Annouchka Bayley


This chapter discusses a second international project that followed on the heels of The Venice Project. It was funded by the proceeds of the Warwick Award for Teaching Excellence 2014 and took place at Copenhagen Business School. The chapter looks at:
  • Following an aesthetic ‘hunch’ to create pedagogy and performance (in the spirit of Kershaw’s discussion on PaR processes)

  • Diffraction and creating transdisciplinary course design for masters level students of organisation studies

  • Tyrannies of measurement haunting higher education

  • What happens when a project ‘fails’?


  1. Barad, K. (2007) Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning, Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beyes, T. and Steyaert, C. (2011). Spacing organization: non-representational theory and performing organizational space. Organization, 19(1), pp. 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Deleuze, G., and Guattari, F. (1987). A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  4. Derrida, J., (1994). Specters of Marx: The state of the debt, the work of mourning, and the new international, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Ellsworth, E. (2005). Places of Learning: Media, architecture, pedagogy, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Frayn, M. (1998). Copenhagen, London: Metheun.Google Scholar
  7. Giannachi, G., & Kaye, N. (2011). Performing Presence: Between the live and the simulated, Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gray, D., Micheli, P., and Pavlov, A., (2015). Measurement Madness: Recognizing and avoiding the pitfalls of performance measurement. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  9. Gregg, M., & Seigworth, G. J. (2010). The Affect Theory Reader, Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Grosz, E. and Eisenman, P. (2001). Architecture from outside. Cambridge, Massachusettes: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  11. Law, J. (2004) After Method: Mess in Social Science Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Le Feuvre, L. (2010). Failure. London: Whitechapel Gallery.Google Scholar
  13. Mack, K. (2013). Taking an aesthetic risk in management education: Reflections on an artistic-aesthetic approach. Management Learning, 44(3), pp. 286–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McCormack, D. P. (2007) ‘Molecular Affects in Human Geographies’, Environment and Planning A 39(2):359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McCormack, D. P. (2013). Refrains for moving bodies: experience and experiment in affective spaces, Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nelson, R., (2013). Practice as Research in the Arts: Principles, protocols, pedagogies, resistances. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Pink S (ed.) (2012) Advances in Visual Methodology. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  18. Rancière J (2004) The Politics of Aesthetics: The Distribution of the Sensible (trans.G Rockhill). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  19. White DA (1996) It’s working beautifully. Organization 3(2): 195–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Annouchka Bayley
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK

Personalised recommendations