SUBJECTIVITY, SOPHISTRY AND SYMBOLISM IN MANAGEMENT SCIENCE

W. Graham Astley

Journal of Management Studies, 1984, vol. 21, issue 3, 259-272

Abstract: Three common criticisms of management science are highlighted: first, the tendency of researchers to subjectively bias substantive approaches, methodologies and research findings; second, the failure to establish within the discipline a core of consensually validated knowledge or commonly accepted body of truth about the nature of management; and three, the inability of management theory to provide tools and techniques of greater pragmatic relevance to corporate decision‐makers. Though a basis for these characterizations of management science is confirmed, their significance is reinterpreted. Instead of being regarded as pathologies, they are viewed as inevitable, and not necessarily dysfunctional, concomitants of the emergence and development of management science as a field of intellectual activity possessing reality and significance in its own right.

Date: 1984
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (8)

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00410.x

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:bla:jomstd:v:21:y:1984:i:3:p:259-272

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.blackwell ... s.asp?ref=00022-2380

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of Management Studies is currently edited by Timothy Clark, Steven W. Floyd and Mike Wright

More articles in Journal of Management Studies from Wiley Blackwell
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().