A Critical Theory of Organization Science

Steffy, Brian D.; Grimes, A. J.

doi:10.5465/amr.1986.4283115

Cited by 113 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…'Radical' schools of organizational analysis include Critical Theory (e.g. Benson 1977;Jermier 1981;Alvesson 1985;Steffy and Grimes 1986) and 'radical' readings of Weber (e.g. Mouzelis 1975;Salaman 1978;McNeil 1978).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Willmott

1993

Organization Studies

234

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reflects critically upon the core argument of Burrell and Morgan's highly influential Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis and evaluates responses to it. Although Burrell and Morgan were explicitly concerned to open up a wider field of vision to students of organization, their book simultaneously declared a new dogma: the mutual exclusivity of paradigms. The specific target of the paper is Burrell and Morgan's sharp division of 'subjectivist' and 'objectivist' forms of analysis. To challenge this dogma, attention is given to Kuhn's understanding that there is continuity as well as incommensurability in the process of theory development. In contrast to the 'pluralist strategy' favoured by Reed (1985) and the defence of paradigm incommensurability recently made by Jackson and Carter (1991), the paper follows Kuhn in commending a process of reflection committed to the identification and remedying of anomalies within existing theories. This argument is illustrated by examining the process of theoretical development within one branch of organizational analysis: labour process theory, where anomalies within the orthodox formulation of the dynamics of social reproduction have been identified by Burawoy and others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Willmott

1993

Organization Studies

234

184

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As Stablein and Nord also recognize, hermeneutic and phenomenological organizational symbolism often do not deal explicitly with ideological traps, psychic prisons and similar aspects of primary interest from an emancipatory point of view (see also Steffy and Grimes, 1986, for an analysis of the relationship between these types of philosophy of science and critical theory). There are also signs indicating that organizational culture and symbolism's potential for breaking free from mainstream organization theory, with its heavy functionalistic and objectivistic bias, has only succeeded to a limited degree and that functionalistic and pragmatic concerns are clearly dominant within the research area (Alvesson, 1989;Barley et al, 1988;Smircich and C a l h , 1987).…”

Section: Organizational Symbolism and The Emancipatory Cognitive Intementioning

confidence: 95%

Organizational Symbolism and Ideology*

Alvesson

1991

J Management Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this article is to discuss organizational symbolism research from a critique of ideology perspective. Various aspects of ideology as a metatheoretical concept are discussed. Criteria governing when it might be appropriate to conduct a critical analysis of ideological elements in research texts are also suggested. These include restricted social autonomy of researchers, socio-political relevance and ideological usefulness of research products, social fashionability of research areas, pseudo-objective style, absence of indicated self-reflection and lack of manifested awareness of the social context of research in research publications.The organizational symbolism research field is discussed in relation to ideology and some influential texts are interpreted in the light of ideology-critique. The criteria for a sensitive reading of research texts in terms of problematical ideological elements are applied and their relevance illustrated. The article also discusses the field of organizational symbolism in terms of Habermas' concepts of cognitive interests, emancipation and undistorted communication.

show abstract

“…This challenge comes from those who can be labeled critical theorists (e.g., Alvesson & Deetz, 1996;Burrell, 1996;Burrell & Morgan, 1979;Clegg, 1989;Frost, 1980;Steffy & Grimes, 1986). For example, according to two such theorists,…”

Section: Later Reactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Still Servants of Power

Brief

2000

Journal of Management Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Baritz's historical analysis demonstrated that in the first half of the 20th century, groups of social scientists in the service of management emerged, with their offerings being received warmly in general. The author's reactions to an initial reading of Baritz's story in the 1970s and a recent reading in the 1990s are presented. The principal intent of doing so is to stimulate other management researchers to question who they should serve.

show abstract

A Critical Theory of Organization Science

Cited by 113 publications

References 30 publications

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Breaking the Paradigm Mentality

Organizational Symbolism and Ideology*

Still Servants of Power

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About