Charting Contested Territory: Paradigmatic Conflicts in Critical Management and Organization Studies Discourse

Severin Hornung () and Thomas Hoge ()
Additional contact information
Severin Hornung: University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria
Thomas Hoge: University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria,

Scientia Moralitas Conference Proceedings from Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies

Abstract: Drawing on the philosophy of science, this essay addresses ideological and epistemological heterogeneity in management and organization studies scholarship. The presented review and application of the meta-theory of scientific paradigms establish connections with prior controversies to delineate, deconstruct, and reappraise the current discourse in the pluralistic field of management and organization studies. Representing theories of society focusing on regulation (order) vs. radical change (conflict), and conceiving social science as concerned with objective vs. subjective realities, a classic taxonomy differentiates functionalist, radical structuralist, interpretive, and radical humanist paradigms. Scientific progress has transformed these into ontological, epistemological, and axiological configurations of post-positivist (normative, mainstream), interpretative (constructivist, hermeneutic), postmodern (dialogic, poststructuralist), and critical (dialectic, antagonistic) approaches. Associated meta-theorizing is applied to academic disputes involving critical management studies. Distinguishing degree and location, four fundamental and foundational inter- and intra-paradigmatic conflicts are analyzed: a) the evidence-debate between critical scholars and mainstream (post-)positivist functionalists; b) the performativity-debate within the field of critical management studies; c) the managerialism-debate between radical critical structuralists and poststructuralists; and d) the ideology-debate representing influences on adjacent fields, exemplified by an emerging critical paradigm in work and organizational psychology. Underlying dynamics are framed as fermenting and fragmenting forces, driving paradigm delineation, differentiation, disintegration, and dissemination. The developed meta-theoretical perspective facilitates self-reflexive scholarship, meaning-making, and knowledge-creation, promoting a deeper understanding and better navigation of the organizational literature as an ideologically contested terrain of social science.

Keywords: Philosophy of science; research paradigms; academic discourse; critical management studies; critical work and organizational psychology; dialectic analysis; epistemological critique (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Pages: 17 pages
Date: 2024-02
New Economics Papers: this item is included in nep-hme and nep-hpe
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Published in the Scientia Moralitas Conference Proceedings, February 15-16, 2024, pages 1-17

Downloads: (external link)
https://scientiamoralitas.education/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/01279.pdf Full text (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:smo:scmowp:01279

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in Scientia Moralitas Conference Proceedings from Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Eduard David ().