The article presents a comparative analysis of various classifi cations of both sciences’ and management sciences’ paradigms in terms of their pragmatism and adequacy regarding organization research. Furthermore, the aim of the article is also to justify the thesis about the high usefulness of research model proposed by Keneth D. Strang. Strang’s model, based on the concept of researcher’s socio-cultural philosophy, allows on the one hand to overcome the theoretical incommensurability and on the other hand makes it possible for representatives of various paradigms to cooperate with each other. The article contains also refl ections on the paradigm as a key factor affecting both the development of management sciences and the practice of management. The choice of a specifi c paradigm, i.e. research ideology, has a decisive impact on the results of research, as well as the generalization of practice. The paradigm defi nes the research strategy, selection of research methods and inference rules. Furthermore, it infl uences the education process, and thus has an impact on shaping the worldview of scientists, entrepreneurs as well as managers.

The article attempts to prove that Darwinism in popular culture plays a role of a theory of everything. Bestselling authors of popular science such as Edward O. Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Bill Bryson have acquainted general public with the theory of evolution, and its newest facet — the Modern Synthesis. Darwinian paradigms, as defined by Thomas Kuhn, are also used in popular books on cosmology, sociobiology, psychology, and religious studies. Moreover, the Darwinian grand narrative of evolutional history shapes the way in which contemporary mass culture presents the history of our planet in numerous educational TV series. Last but not least, Charles Darwin himself has recently become a popular icon and the story of his life is remade in a growing number of fiction and non-fiction books and movies.

The aim of this paper is to discuss selected formal and pragmatic aspects of the Austro-Hungarian military name policy in the last quarter of the 19th and in the early 20th century. In the introductory section the proprial status of the names of military units (which constitute a part of military chrematonymy) is discussed. An attempt is made to outline the location of these names on the classificatory map of chrematonomastics as well. A brief discussion of the historical and terminological background of the Austro-Hungarian military unit names follows. The most important concepts of the theory of name and naming policy are outlined. The presentation of the analysed onymic material covers unit names included in the officer lists (Schematismen) of the Austro-Hungarian forces as well as names present in the paper seals (Verschlussmarken). On the basis of the material, polymorphism of the discussed names is shown in the sense that obligatory and facultative elements of the names may appear in different ways and within various syntactic name models, depending on the context (including continuous text within which a name is used). Two main syntactic models of the discussed names are proposed. The orthographic and syntactic rules of unit numbering and the ways of embedding geographical names and names of patrons and honorary regiment owners (Inhaber) into unit names are outlined. The meaning and spelling of the expressions imperial-royal (k.k. = kaiserlich-königlich) and imperial and royal (k.u.k. = kaiserlich und königlich) are explained.

From Methodology of the Pastoral Theology

Summary

Pastoral theology conducts four kinds of research: monodisciplinary, multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary research.

The first kind of research is characterized by the common aim and method, the second has the common aim but the methods are different, the third one has both different aims and methods, the forth one has the same methods but different aims. Contemporary pastoral theology requires multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary research, and the pastor of this theology needs to possess the necessary qualifications to do his job properly.

The paradigm of pastoral theology is based on the practical syllogism. In the construction of this syllogism, the major preamble of faith contains the general principles of the given case, while the minor preamble of faith contains the analysis of the contemporary reality; the conclusion is normative and timely. In each phase of the pastoral theology research, there are used various working methods.

In the first phase of the pastoral theology research (the ecclesiastical phase), apart from the deductive method, there are employed other methods such as: the comparative method, the positive method, exegesis, the interpretation of the text and analogy, etc. The second phase of the research (kairological) includes the historical and theological method, sociological and theological method, and the methods commonly used in the empirical science, such as: observation, interview, soundings, a study based on a questionnaire, and a study based on documents. The study of documents uses such methods as: the historical method, criticism and interpretation of the source material, comparisons, the analysis of the text etc. The third phase (praxeological) of the research of the pastoral theology paradigm, uses synthesis, interpretation and classification, etc.

Sulla metodologia di omiletica

Sommario

L’omiletica fa parte della teologia pratica. Essa ĺ una riflessione scientifica sulla predicazione della parola di Dio nella situazione d’oggi. L’omiletica viene suddivisa in fondamentale, materiale, formale e particolare. L’oggetto di studio omiletico sono: testi della Sacra Scrittura, documenti della Chiesa, testi teologici ed anche i testi delle omelie, prediche e conferenze, come anche, pi raramente, i dati dell’esperienza umana. I metodi della ricerca sono quelli applicati nelle scienze non teologiche; ále conclusioni derivati da questa ricerca hanno per sempre un carattere teologico.