Revisiting Paradigm(s) in Management Research: A Rhetorical Analysis of the Paradigm Wars

Abstract

Kuhn's concept of paradigm and Burrell and Morgan's paradigms continue to exert considerable influence on contemporary thinking in business and management research. Indeed, recent contributions to the 'paradigm wars' have provoked scholars to remark upon the longevity of this debate. Consequently, this paper argues that it is timely to revisit the concepts of paradigm(s) and the controversy surrounding them. It begins by discussing how Kuhn's and Burrell and Morgan's paradigm(s) are underpinned by structural linguistics and how scholars have argued this is problematized by deconstruction. Next, the methodology describes the literature search, offers a brief introduction to rhetoric, and introduces the form of rhetorical analysis employed in this study. Moving on, a rhetorical analysis of key articles from the paradigm wars is presented. This develops understanding of this dispute by illustrating how it is inherently dialogic; arguments for paradigm incommensurability, paradigm integration, paradigm pluralism and paradigm dissolution are constructed to counter each other. The paper identifies three main rhetorical strategies employed by scholars in these arguments: constructing identities for individuals and groups by attributing assumptions, values and interests to them; transferring agency to concepts; and managing accountability for their claims. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the analysis for understanding of the paradigm wars, the concept of paradigm incommensurability, and the practice of reflecting on one's own metatheoretical assumptions. Finally, potential applications of rhetorical analysis to contemporary debates in management research are identified.

Barriers to Effective Eutrophication Governance: A Comparison of the Baltic Sea and North American Great Lakes

“…These philosophies of governance inspire particular sets of evaluation principles and empirical analysis, but there is no direct one to one correlation. As such, these philosophies cannot be substantiated but are key to understanding how governance barriers are conceived [11]. These philosophies are termed: the optimists, the realists, and the pessimists.…”

“…Governance barriers are not seen as such, but as conflicts, impasses, or struggles that arise from governing wicked or complex problems [11]. This results in setbacks, reversals, and miscommunications, with government no longer as the key leader of society.…”

“…This results in setbacks, reversals, and miscommunications, with government no longer as the key leader of society. Governance consists of interaction processes between governmental and non-governmental actors and formal and informal rules of institutions that guide these interactions [11]. This approach assumes that complexities cannot be reduced but embraced through management, leadership, and communication, as these prevent the conflicts and impasses from getting worse [11].…”

“…The aim of governance is to take measures to limit the scope, number, and harmful impact of system failures. As such, governance barriers are perceived as the explanatory features of governance failure [11]. In this philosophy of governance, researchers investigate the sources of barriers that lead to failures in the governance of eutrophication, through the learning process of experimentation and trial and error.…”

“…Despite this, there has been a gap in the literature on the different analytical lenses that guide the scientific research and policy practice on the governance of eutrophication. As such, this paper examines the barriers to eutrophication governance through four analytical lenses, using the analytical framework from the climate adaptation literature [7,11]. It looks at how the different barriers are derived from four different analytical lenses which perceive governance as (i) problem solving, (ii) competing values and interests, and (iii) an institutional interaction and as dealing with structural constraints.…”