Analyzing Current Debates in Management and Organization Studies: A Meta-theoretical Review and Dialectic Interpretation

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

Scientia Moralitas Journal, 2024, vol. 9, issue 1, 1-32

Abstract: Drawing on concepts from the philosophy of science, dialectically synthesized are academic conflicts grounded in ideological and epistemological heterogeneity in management and organizational scholarship. The presented review and application of the meta-theory of scientific paradigms highlights connections and continuities with prior controversies to delineate, deconstruct, and reappraise current discourses in the pluralistic field of management and organization studies. Differentiating between theories of society emphasizing regulation vs. radical change, and scientific assumptions regarding objective vs. subjective realities, delineates functionalist, interpretive, radical structuralist, and radical humanist paradigms. Subsequent developments have transformed these ontological, epistemological, and axiological configurations into post-positivist (normative, mainstream), interpretive (constructivist, hermeneutic), postmodern (dialogic, poststructuralist), and critical (dialectic, antagonistic) research approaches. Associated meta-theorizing is applied to academic disputes involving critical management studies. Distinguishing degree and location yields four fundamental and foundational inter- and intra-paradigmatic conflicts: 1) the evidence-debate between critical scholars and mainstream functionalists; 2) the performativity-debate within critical management studies; 3) the managerialism-debate between radical structuralists and poststructuralists; and 4) the ideology-debate representing influences on adjacent fields, exemplified by an emerging critical paradigm in work and organizational psychology. Interdependent dynamics underlying these conflicts are framed as fermenting and fragmenting forces, driving paradigm delineation, differentiation, disintegration, and dissemination. The developed meta-theoretical perspective aims to facilitate more self-reflexive scholarship, meaning-making, and knowledge-creation by promoting deeper understanding and more proficient navigation of the organizational literature as an ideologically contested terrain of social science. Theorizing on research paradigms is helpful to make sense of underlying ontological, epistemological, and axiological fault lines. Trajectories of future developments are speculated about with a focus on dialectics between critical management studies and the emerging paradigm of critical work and organizational psychology.

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)
Date: 2024
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.scientiamoralitas.com/index.php/sm/article/view/260 (application/pdf)
https://www.scientiamoralitas.com/index.php/sm/article/view/260/166 (text/html)

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:journl:v:9:y:2024:i:1:p:1-32

Access Statistics for this article

Scientia Moralitas Journal is currently edited by Ioan-Gheorghe Rotaru

More articles in Scientia Moralitas Journal from Scientia Moralitas, Research Institute
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Eduard David ().