Philosophy of Science, Social Theory, and Organizational Analysis: Paradigmatic Transformations since the Postmodern Turn

J. Hassard, J. Cox
{"title":"Philosophy of Science, Social Theory, and Organizational Analysis: Paradigmatic Transformations since the Postmodern Turn","authors":"J. Hassard, J. Cox","doi":"10.1108/978-1-78714-551-120191013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The premise for this volume is that there is “a need to develop a Handbook that takes scholars and practitioners through the paradigm change going on in the field of management and organizational inquiry.” In their invitation to contributors, the editors suggested we should comment on this transition and inform readers of theoretical and philosophical changes that have occurred in recent times. In this chapter, we attempt to do this by revisiting the influential concept of paradigm from the philosophy of science (Kuhn, 1962, 1970) and explore its relation to recent contributions to postmodern social theory in organizational analysis. In particular, the influential paradigm model of Burrell and Morgan (1979) is revisited through meta-theoretical analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in organization theory in recent decades, post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism. Proposing a retrospective paradigm for this movement we suggest that its research can be characterized as ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist, and methodologically reflexive; this also represents research that can be termed deconstructionist in its view of human nature. Consequently we demonstrate not only that organizational knowledge stands on meta-theoretical grounds, but also how recent intellectual developments rest on a qualitatively different set of meta-theoretical assumptions than established traditions of agency and structure.","PeriodicalId":237204,"journal":{"name":"The Emerald Handbook of Management and Organization Inquiry","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Emerald Handbook of Management and Organization Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/978-1-78714-551-120191013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The premise for this volume is that there is “a need to develop a Handbook that takes scholars and practitioners through the paradigm change going on in the field of management and organizational inquiry.” In their invitation to contributors, the editors suggested we should comment on this transition and inform readers of theoretical and philosophical changes that have occurred in recent times. In this chapter, we attempt to do this by revisiting the influential concept of paradigm from the philosophy of science (Kuhn, 1962, 1970) and explore its relation to recent contributions to postmodern social theory in organizational analysis. In particular, the influential paradigm model of Burrell and Morgan (1979) is revisited through meta-theoretical analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in organization theory in recent decades, post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism. Proposing a retrospective paradigm for this movement we suggest that its research can be characterized as ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist, and methodologically reflexive; this also represents research that can be termed deconstructionist in its view of human nature. Consequently we demonstrate not only that organizational knowledge stands on meta-theoretical grounds, but also how recent intellectual developments rest on a qualitatively different set of meta-theoretical assumptions than established traditions of agency and structure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
科学哲学、社会理论与组织分析:后现代转向以来的范式转变
这本书的前提是“有必要开发一本手册,让学者和实践者了解管理和组织探究领域正在发生的范式变化。”在对撰稿人的邀请中,编辑们建议我们应该对这一转变发表评论,并告知读者最近发生的理论和哲学上的变化。在本章中,我们试图通过重新审视科学哲学中有影响力的范式概念(库恩,1962年,1970年)来做到这一点,并探讨其与组织分析中后现代社会理论的最新贡献的关系。特别是,通过对近几十年来组织理论中出现的主要思想运动、后结构主义和更广泛的后现代主义的元理论分析,重新审视了Burrell和Morgan(1979)的有影响力的范式模型。我们提出了这一运动的回顾范式,我们认为其研究可以被描述为本体论上的相对主义、认识论上的关系主义和方法论上的反思;这也代表了可以被称为解构主义的研究,在其对人性的看法。因此,我们不仅证明了组织知识建立在元理论的基础上,而且还证明了最近的智力发展是如何建立在与既定的代理和结构传统不同的一套元理论假设之上的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Negotiating Academic Stories Every day: Science after the Narrative Turn in the Humanities Standing Conference for Management and Organization Inquiry: 1991–2016 Embodiment Enlivens 25 Years of a Critical Storytelling Conference Cybernetics andSystemicity The Future of the “Spiral Paradigm” in Climate Action Autism: Storytelling Systems
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1