Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable

The level of paradigm development—technical certainty and consensus—characterizing a field of study has numerous consequences for the social organization and operation of that field. These consequences, ranging from the ability to obtain resources to the ease of working collaboratively on research, have an impact on the subsequent development of the field (i.e., through a positive feedback loop). Although the degree of technical certainty or consensus is clearly affected by the fundamental nature of the subject of study, consensus is also produced by social practices that differentiate fields that are more or less paradigmatically developed. The study of organizations is arguably paradigmatically not well developed, in part because of values that emphasize representativeness, inclusiveness, and theoretical and methodological diversity. Although these values are attractive ideals, there are consequences for the field's ability to make scientific progress, which almost requires some level of consensus, as w...

[1]  J. Thompson,et al.  Strategies, Structures, and Processes of Organizational Decision , 1959 .

[2]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[3]  Peter B. Doeringer,et al.  Internal Labor Markets and Manpower Analysis , 2020 .

[4]  Janice Beyer Lodahl,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Functioning of University Graduate Departments. , 1972 .

[5]  T. Broadbent,et al.  Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge , 1972 .

[6]  Janice Beyer Lodahl,et al.  Differences between physical and social sciences in university graduate departments , 1973 .

[7]  Funding the Sciences in University Departments. , 1973 .

[8]  W. Yoels.  The Structure of Scientific Fields and the Allocation of Editorships on Scientific Journals: Some Observations on the Politics of Knowledge* , 1974 .

[9]  Janice M. Beyer,et al.  Objective Versus Subjective Indicators of Quality in Graduate Education. , 1974 .

[10]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The Bases and Use of Power in Organizational Decision Making: The Case of a University. , 1974 .

[11]  T. Ball.  From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science , 1976 .

[12]  Distinction, achievement, and editorial board membership. , 1976 .

[13]  T. M. Lodahl,et al.  A Comparative Study of Patterns of Influence in United States and English Universities. , 1976 .

[14]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The Effect of Uncertainty on the Use of Social Influence in Organizational Decision Making. , 1976 .

[15]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Publication and Prestige Mobility of University Departments in Three Scientific Disciplines. , 1976 .

[16]  Janice M. Beyer,et al.  Editorial Policies and Practices Among Leading Journals in Four Scientific Fields , 1977 .

[17]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Paradigm Development and Particularism: Journal Publication in Three Scientific Disciplines , 1977 .

[18]  Burt V. Bronk,et al.  Hierarchy of sciences , 1977 .

[19]  D. Morgan,et al.  Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. , 1983 .

[20]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The relationship between departmental power and faculty careers on two campuses: The case for structural effects on faculty salaries , 1980 .

[21]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Administrative Turnover as a Response to Unmanaged Organizational Interdependence , 1980 .

[22]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Average Tenure of Academic Department Heads: The Effects of Paradigm, Size, and Departmental Demography. , 1980 .

[23]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  Power in University Budgeting: A Replication and Extension. , 1980 .

[24]  Richard Whitley,et al.  The Establishment and Structure of the Sciences as Reputational Organizations , 1982 .

[25]  Susan E. Cozzens,et al.  Scientific establishments and hierarchies , 1982 .

[26]  Henry L. Tosi.  What to Study: Generating and Developing Research Questions , 1982 .

[27]  J. Pfeffer.  Organizations and Organization Theory , 1982 .

[28]  J. Howard,et al.  Public knowledge , 1984, Nature.

[29]  Raymond F. Zammuto,et al.  Coping With Disciplinary Fragmentation , 1984 .

[30]  John B. Miner,et al.  The Validity and Usefulness of Theories in an Emerging Organizational Science , 1984 .

[31]  M. Reed.  Redirections in Organizational Analysis , 1985 .

[32]  Lex Donaldson,et al.  In defence of organization theory : a reply to the critics , 1985 .

[33]  W. Diebold,et al.  The Second Industrial Divide , 1985 .

[34]  Paul Milgrom,et al.  An Economic Approach to Influence Activities in Organizations , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  Lowell L. Hargens,et al.  Scholarly Consensus and Journal Rejection Rates. , 1988 .

[36]  Johan P. Olsen,et al.  Rediscovering institutions: The organizational basis of politics , 1989 .

[37]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Just a Mirage: The Search for Dispositional Effects in Organizational Research , 1989 .

[38]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  Do You Get What You Deserve? Factors Affecting the Relationship between Productivity and Pay. , 1990 .

[39]  R. S. Meyers.  Managing With Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations , 1992 .

[40]  Richard Marsden.  The Politics of Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[41]  Jeffrey Pfeffer,et al.  The effect of wage dispersion on satisfaction, productivity, and working collaboratively: Evidence from college and university faculty. , 1993 .

[42]  James N. Baron,et al.  The Impact of Economics on Contemporary Sociology , 1994 .