The Re-Construction of Organization Studies: Wrestling with Incommensurability

This paper proposes a `re-construction' of organization studies in order to deal with the chronic incommensurability that characterizes the discipline. The paper begins by discussing the issue of incommensurability between organization studies schools of thought, arguing that it represents a significant problem with which the field must cope. Ambiguity of the key constructs that form the building blocks of organization studies schools is identified as one major reason for persistent inter-school incommensurability. To help deal with the problem, we recommend the creation of a dictionary that would include democratically produced definitions of key organization studies constructs. The procedures used by the Financial Accounting Standards Board to develop new accounting standards are presented as a possible model for the dictionary-building process. The role of the dictionary in reducing inter-school incommensurability is discussed, and possible disadvantages considered. While the need to formally create construct definitions is symptomatic of the low paradigm development of organization studies, the dictionary is envisioned as a tool for increasing the future paradigm development of the field.

[1]  Commentary: Mitroff's Ethical Management , 1998 .

[2]  B. McKelvey.  Perspective—Quasi-Natural Organization Science , 1997 .

[3]  Ajay Mehra,et al.  Postmodernism and Organizational Research , 1997 .

[4]  Robert P. Gephart,et al.  Postmodern Management and Organization Theory , 1996 .

[5]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Fear and Loathing in Organization Studies , 1995 .

[6]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Mortality, Reproducibility, and the Persistence of Styles of Theory , 1995 .

[7]  Nelson Phillips,et al.  Crossroads Understanding Language Games , 1995 .

[8]  H. Thomas,et al.  Rivalry and the Industry Model of Scottish Knitwear Producers , 1995 .

[9]  J. V. Maanen,et al.  Crossroads Style as Theory , 1995 .

[10]  C. Fiol.  Consensus, diversity, and learning in organizations. , 1994 .

[11]  S. Fuchs,et al.  What is Deconstruction, and Where and When Does it Take Place? Making Facts in Science, Building Cases in Law , 1994 .

[12]  Dennis A. Gioia,et al.  Paradigms Lost: Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry , 1994 .

[13]  Thomas W. Dunfee,et al.  Toward A Unified Conception Of Business Ethics: Integrative Social Contracts Theory , 1994 .

[14]  Ramona L. Paetzold,et al.  PFEFFER'S Barriers to The Advance Of Organizational Science: A Rejoinder , 1994 .

[15]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  Fools Rush in? The Institutional Context of Industry Creation , 1994 .

[16]  Mayer N. Zald,et al.  Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualization of the Foundations of the Field , 1993 .

[17]  J. Pfeffer.  Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable , 1993 .

[18]  H. Willmott.  Breaking the Paradigm Mentality , 1993 .

[19]  Mark A. Mone,et al.  The Uniqueness Value and its Consequences for Organization Studies , 1993 .

[20]  Hugh Willmott.  Paradigm Gridlock: A Reply , 1993 .

[21]  Norman Jackson,et al.  'Paradigm Wars': A Response to Hugh Willmott , 1993 .

[22]  Raymond F. Zammuto,et al.  Organization Science, Managers, and Language Games , 1992 .

[23]  Norman Jackson,et al.  In Defence of Paradigm Incommensurability , 1991 .

[24]  K. Weick.  Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination , 1989 .

[25]  Samuel B. Bacharach,et al.  Organizational Theories: Some Criteria for Evaluation , 1989 .

[26]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[27]  J. Freeman.  Data Quality and the Development of Organizational Social Science: An Editorial Essay. , 1986 .

[28]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness , 1985, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  M. Hannan,et al.  Structural Inertia and Organizational Change , 1984 .

[30]  Stephen Cole,et al.  The Hierarchy of the Sciences? , 1983, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  O. Williamson.  The Economics of Organization: The Transaction Cost Approach , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[32]  Bill McKelvey,et al.  The Comparative Description of Organizations: A Research Note and Invitation , 1981 .

[33]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  M. Hannan,et al.  The Population Ecology of Organizations , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  M. C. Jensen,et al.  Harvard Business School; SSRN; National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER); European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI); Harvard University - Accounting & Control Unit , 1976 .

[36]  J. Pennings,et al.  A Strategic Contingencies' Theory of Intraorganizational Power , 1971 .

[37]  Murray S. Davis,et al.  That's Interesting! , 1971 .

[38]  J. Platt.  Strong Inference: Certain systematic methods of scientific thinking may produce much more rapid progress than others. , 1964, Science.