Revisiting paradigm(s) in management research: A rhetorical analysis of the paradigm wars

International Journal of Management Reviews

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 225-244

  Shepherd, Craig ^a   Challenger, Rose ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875807028     PISSN: 14608545     EISSN: 14682370     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/ijmr.12004     Document Type: Article

References (138)

1. Alvesson, M. and Karreman, D. (2000). Varieties of discourse: on the study of organizations through discourse analysis. Human Relations, 53, pp. 1125-1149.
2. Ball, K. and Wilson, D.C. (2000). Power, control and computer-based performance monitoring: repertoires, resistance and subjectivities. Organization Studies, 21, pp. 539-565.
3. Billig, M. (1996). Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4. Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Chesham: Acumen.
5. Bouchikhi, H. (1998). Living with and building on complexity: a constructivist perspective on organizations. Organization, 5, pp. 217-232.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press.
7. Brannen, M.Y. and Doz, Y.L. (2010). From a distance and detached to up close and personal: bridging strategic and cross-cultural perspectives in international management research and practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 26, pp. 236-247.
8. Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin Hyman.
9. Bryman, A. and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Burrell, G. (1996). Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and geneologies of analysis. In Nord, W.R. (ed.), Handbook of Organization Studies. London: Sage, pp. 642-658.
11. Burrell, G. (1997). Organization paradigms. In Sorge, A. and Warner, M. (eds), The IEBM Handbook of Organizational Behavior. London: International Thompson Business Press, pp. 33-47.
12. Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. London: Heineman.
13. Calás, M.B. and Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of Management Journal, 24, pp. 649-671.
14. Cannella, A. and Paetzold, R. (1994). Pfeffer's barriers to the advance of organizational science: a rejoinder. Academy of Management Review, 19, pp. 331-341.
15. Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What Is This Thing Called Science? Buckingham: Open University Press.
16. Cox, J.W. and Hassard, J. (2005). Triangulation in organizational research: a re-presentation. Organization, 12, pp. 109-133.
17. Czarniawska, B. (1998). Who is afraid of incommensurability? Organization, 5, pp. 273-275.
18. Czarniawska, B. (2000). Having hope in parology. Human Relations, 54, pp. 13-21.
19. Dachler, P.H. (1997). Does the distinction between qualitative and quantitative methods make sense? Organization Studies, 18, pp. 709-724.
20. Daymon, C. (2000). Culture formation in a new television station: a multi-perspective analysis. British Journal of Management, 11, pp. 121-135.
21. De Cock, C. (2000). Essai: reflections on fiction, representation, and organization studies: an essay with special reference to the work of Jorge Luis Borges. Organization Studies, 21, pp. 589-609.
22. De Cock, C. and Jeanes, E.L. (2006). Questioning consensus, cultivating conflict. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15, pp. 18-30.
23. De Cock, C. and Rickards, T. (1995). A rejoinder to and reply from Weaver and Gioia. Organization Studies, 16, pp. 699-705.
24. Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organization science: rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, pp. 191-207.
25. Deetz, S. (2000). Putting the community into organizational science: exploring the construction of knowledge claims. Organization Science, 11, pp. 732-738.
26. Deetz, S. (2009). Organizational research as alternative ways of attending to and talking about structures and activities. In Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman, A. (eds), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Research Methods. London: Sage, pp. 21-38.
27. Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
28. Donaldson, L. (1985). In Defence of Organisation Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. Donaldson, L. (1988). In successful defence of organization theory: a routing of the critics. Organization Studies, 9, pp. 28-32.
30. Donaldson, L. (1995). Anti-Management American Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
31. Donaldson, L. (1996). The normal science of structural contingency theory. In Clegg, S., Hardy, M.A. and Nord, G.D. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 57-76.
32. Donaldson, L. (1998). The myth of paradigm incommensurability in management studies: comments by an integrationist. Organization, 5, pp. 267-272.
33. Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R. and Jackson, P. (2012). Management Research. London: Sage.
34. Elsbach, K.D., Sutton, R.I. and Whetten, D.A. (1999). Perspectives on developing management theory, circa 1999: moving from shrill monologues to (relatively) tame dialogues. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 627-633.
35. Fabian, H.F. (2000). Keeping the tension: pressures to keep the controversy in the management discipline. Academy of Management Review, 25, pp. 350-371.
36. Feyerabend, P. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.
37. Finlay, L. (2002). 'Outing' the researcher: the provenance, process and practice of reflexivity. Qualitative Health Research, 12, pp. 531-545.
38. Finlay, L. and Gough, B. (2003). Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Heath and Social Sciences. Oxford: Blackwell.
39. Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
40. Geels, F.W. (2009). Foundational ontologies and multi-paradigm analysis, applied to the socio-technical transition from mixed farming to intensive pig husbandry (1930-1980). Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 21, pp. 805-832.
41. Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.
42. Gill, A. and Whedbee, K. (1997). Rhetoric. In Van Dijk, T. (ed.), Discourse: Structure and Process. London: Sage, pp. 157-184.
43. Gill, J. and Johnson, P. (2010). Research Methods for Managers. London: Sage.
44. Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990). Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building. Academy of Management Review, 15, pp. 584-602.
45. Gioia, D.A., Donnellon, A. and Sims, H.P., Jr (1989). Communication and cognition in appraisal: a tale of two paradigms. Organization Studies, 10, pp. 503-530.
46. Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C. and Cardinal, L.B. (2007). Making a life in the field of organization science. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, pp. 817-835.
47. Glick, W.H., Miller, C.C. and Cardinal, L.B. (2008). Reality check on career success and weak paradigms: chance still favors the hearty soul. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp. 715-723.
48. Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
49. Grimes, A.J. and Rood, D.L. (1995). Beyond objectivism and relativism: descriptive epistemologies. In Natter, W., Schatzki, T.R. and Jones Iii, J. (eds), Objectivity and Its Other. New York, NY: Guildford Press, pp. 161-178.
50. Hallebone, E. and Priest, J. (2009). Business and Management Research: Paradigms and Practices. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
51. Hammersley, M. (1996). The relationship between qualitative and quantitative research: paradigm loyalty versus methodological eclecticism. In Richardson, T.E. (ed.), The Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences. London: Blackwell, pp. 159-174.
52. Hartelius, E.J. and Browning, L.D. (2008). The application of rhetorical theory in managerial research - a literature review. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, pp. 13-39.
53. Hassard, J. (1988). Overcoming hermeticism in organization theory - an alternative to paradigm incommensurability. Human Relations, 41, pp. 247-259.
54. Hassard, J. (1991). Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis - a case study. Organization Studies, 12, pp. 275-299.
55. Hassard, J. (1993). Sociology and Organization Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
56. Hassard, J. and Kelemen, M. (2002). Production and consumption in organizational knowledge: the case of the 'paradigms debate. Organization, 9, pp. 331-355.
57. Heracleous, L. and Barrett, M. (2001). Organizational change as discourse: communicative actions and deep structures in the context of information technology implementation. Academy of Management Journal, 44, pp. 475-778.
58. Howarth, D.R. (2000). Discourse. Buckingham: Open University Press.
59. Hunt, S.D. (1991). Positivism and paradigm dominance in consumer research - toward critical pluralism and rapprochement. Journal of Consumer Research, 18, pp. 32-44.
60. Hunt, S.D. (1993). Objectivity in marketing theory and research. Journal of Marketing, 57, pp. 76-91.
61. Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1991). In defense of paradigm incommensurability. Organization Studies, 12, pp. 109-127.
62. Jackson, N. and Carter, P. (1993). Paradigm wars: a response to Hugh Willmott. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 721-725.
63. Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies, 40, pp. 1279-1303.
64. Johnson, P., Buehring, A., Cassell, C. and Symon, G. (2006). Evaluating qualitative management research: towards a contingent criteriology. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8, pp. 131-190.
65. Jones, C. and Livne-Tarandach, R. (2008). Designing a frame: rhetorical strategies of architects. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, pp. 1075-1099.
66. Kavanagh, D. (2004). Ocularcentrism and its others: a framework for metatheoretical analysis. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 445-464.
67. Kelemen, M. and Bansal, R. (2002). The conventions of management research and their relevance to management practice. British Journal of Management, 13, pp. 97-108.
68. Kuhn, T.S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
69. Kuhn, T.S. (1983). Commensurability, comparability, communicability. In Asquith, P.D. and Nickles, T. (eds), PSA 1982. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 2-13.
70. Kuhn, T.S. (1990). Dubbing and redubbing: the vulnerability of rigid designation. In Smith, C.W. (ed.), Scientific Theories. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 298-318.
71. Kuhn, T.S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72. Kupers, W. and Weibler, J. (2008). Inter-leadership: why and how should we think of leadership and followership integrally? Leadership, 4, pp. 443-475.
73. Lecompte, M. and Goetz, J. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 52, pp. 31-60.
74. Lee, A.S. (1991). Integrating positivist and interpretivist approaches to organizational research. Organization Science, 2, pp. 342-365.
75. Lewis, M.W. and Grimes, A.J. (1999). Metatriangulation: building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 672-690.
76. Lewis, M.W. and Kelemen, M. (2002). Multiparadigm inquiry: exploring organisational pluralism and paradox. Human Relations, 55, pp. 251-275.
77. Locke, K. and Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: structuring intertextual coherence and 'problematizing' in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40, pp. 1023-1062.
78. Lukka, K. (2010). The roles and effects of paradigms in accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21, pp. 110-115.
79. Lynch, M. (2000). Against reflexivity as an academic virtue and source of privileged knowledge. Theory, Culture & Society, 17, pp. 26-54.
80. Marsden, R. (1993). The politics of organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 93-124.
81. Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59-89.
82. McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organization science. Organization Science, 8, pp. 352-380.
83. McKelvey, B. (2003). From fields to science: can organization studies make the transition? In Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 47-73.
84. McKinley, W. (1995). Comment. Advances in Strategic Management, 12A, pp. 249-260.
85. McKinley, W. and Mone, M.A. (1998). The re-construction of organization studies: wrestling with incommensurability. Organization, 5, pp. 169-189.
86. McKinley, W., Mone, M.A. and Moon, G. (1999). Determinants and development of schools in organization theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 634-648.
87. Merchant, K.A. (2010). Paradigms in accounting research: a view from North America. Management Accounting Research, 21, pp. 116-120.
88. Miner, J.B. (1984). The validity and usefulness of theories in an emerging organizational science. Academy of Management Review, 9, pp. 296-306.
89. Modell, S. (2010). Bridging the paradigm divide in management accounting research: the role of mixed methods approaches. Management Accounting Research, 21, pp. 124-129.
90. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of Organization. London: Sage.
91. Morgan, G. and Smircich, L. (1980). The case for qualitative research. Academy of Management Review, 5, pp. 491-500.
92. Mueller, F., Sillince, J., Harvey, C. and Howorth, C. (2004). 'A rounded picture is what we need': rhetorical strategies, arguments, and the negotiation of change in a UK hospital trust. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 75-93.
93. Newton, T. (2010). Knowledge and practice: organization studies within a historical and figurational context. Organization Studies, 31, pp. 1369-1395.
94. Parker, M. and Mchugh, G. (1991). Five texts in search of an author: a response to John Hassard's 'Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis'. Organization Studies, 12, pp. 451-456.
95. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the advance of organizational science - paradigm development as a dependent variable. Academy of Management Review, 18, pp. 599-620.
96. Pfeffer, J. (1995). Mortality, reproducibility and the persistence of styles of theory. Organization Science, 6, pp. 681-686.
97. Pfeffer, J. (1997). New Directions for Organization Theory. Problems and Prospects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
98. Pomerantz, A.M. (1986). Extreme case formations, a new way of legitimating claims. Human Studies, 9, pp. 219-230.
99. Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.
100. Qiu, J., Donaldson, L. and Luo, B.N. (2012). The benefit of persisting with paradigms in organizational research. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26, pp. 93-104.
101. Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in Organizational Analysis. London: Tavistock.
102. Rhodes, C. (2000). Reading and writing organizational lives. Organization, 7, pp. 7-29.
103. Romani, L., Primecz, H. and Topcu, K. (2010). Paradigm interplay for theory development: a methodological example with the Kulturstandard method. Organizational Research Methods, 14, pp. 432-455.
104. Saussure, F. (1966). Course in General Linguistics. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
105. Scherer, A.G. (1998). Pluralism and incommensurability in strategic management and organization theory: a problem in search of a solution. Organization, 5, pp. 147-168.
106. Scherer, A.G. and Dowling, P.J. (1995). Towards a reconciliationof the theory-pluralism in strategic management - incommensurability and the constructivist approach ofthe Erlangen school. Advances in Strategic Management, 12A, pp. 195-297.
107. Scherer, A.G. and Steinmann, H. (1999). Some remarks on the problem of incommensurability in organization studies. Organization Studies, 20, pp. 519-544.
108. Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21, pp. 529-557.
109. Schwandt, T.A. (1996). Farewell to criteriology. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, pp. 58-72.
110. Schwarz, G.M., Clegg, S., Cummings, T.G., Donaldson, L. and Miner, J.B. (2007). We see dead people? The state of organization science. Journal of Management Inquiry, 16, pp. 300-317.
111. Seale, C. (1999). Quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5, pp. 465-478.
112. Shepherd, C. (2006). Constructing enterprise resource planning: a thoroughgoing interpretivist perspective on technological change. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 79, pp. 357-376.
113. Sillince, J.A.A. (2006). Resources and organizational identities: the role of rhetoric in the creation of competitive advantage. Management Communication Quarterly, 20, pp. 186-213.
114. Silverman, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research. London: Sage.
115. Singhal, K. and Singhal, J. (2012). Imperatives of the science of operations and supply-chain management. Journal of Operations Management, 30, pp. 237-244.
116. Suddaby, R. and Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, pp. 35-67.
117. Sullivan, D.P. and Daniels, J.D. (2008). Innovation in international business research: a call for multiple paradigms. Journal of International Business Studies, 39, pp. 1081-1090.
118. Swanson, D.L. (1999). Toward an integrative theory of business and society: a research strategy for corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 506-521.
119. Symon, G. (2005). Exploring resistance from a rhetorical perspective. Organization Studies, 26, pp. 1-24.
120. Symon, G. (2008). Developing the political perspective on technological change through rhetorical analysis. Management Communication Quarterly, 22, pp. 74-98.
121. Tadajewski, M. (2008). Incommensurable paradigms, cognitive bias and the politics of marketing theory. Marketing Theory, 8, pp. 273-297.
122. Tadajewski, M. (2009). The debate that won't die? Values incommensurability, antagonism and theory choice. Organization, 16, pp. 467-485.
123. Tatli, A. and Ozbilgin, M.F. (2012). An emic approach to intersectional study of diversity at work: a Bourdieuan framing. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, pp. 180-200.
124. Vaivio, J. and Siren, A. (2010). Insights into method triangulation and 'paradigms' in interpretive management accounting research. Management Accounting Research, 21, pp. 130-141.
125. Van Maanen, J. (1995a). Style as theory. Organization Science, 6, pp. 133-143.
126. Van Maanen, J. (1995b). Fear and loathing in organization studies. Organization Science, 6, pp. 687-692.
127. Warner, M. (1994). Organizational-behavior revisited. Human Relations, 47, pp. 1151-1166.
128. Watkins-Mathys, L. and Lowe, S. (2005). Small business and entrepreneurship research - the way through paradigm incommensurability. International Small Business Journal, 23, pp. 657-677.
129. Watson, T. (1995). Rhetoric, discourse and argument in organizational sense making: a reflexive tale. Organization Studies, 16, pp. 805-821.
130. Weaver, G.R. and Gioia, D.A. (1994). Paradigms lost: incommensurability vs. structurationist inquiry. Organization Studies, 15, pp. 565-590.
131. Weaver, G.R. and Gioia, D.A. (1995). Paradigms lost vs paradigms found. Organization Studies, 16, pp. 704-705.
132. Weick, K.E. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflexivity: tradeoffs in the 90s. Academy of Management Review, 24, pp. 797-806.
133. Wicks, A.C. and Freeman, R.E. (1998). Organization studies and the new pragmatism: positivism, anti-positivism, and the search for ethics. Organization Science, 9, pp. 123-140.
134. Willmott, H. (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14, pp. 681-719.
135. Woolgar, S. (1998). Science: The Very Idea. London: Tavistock.
136. Wozniak, A. (2010). The dream that caused reality: the place of the Lacanian subject of science in the field of organization theory. Organization, 17, pp. 395-411.
137. Zammuto, R. and Connolly, T. (1984). Coping with disciplinary fragmentation. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, pp. 30-37.
138. Zanoni, P. and Maddy, J. (2004). Deconstructing difference: the rhetoric of human resource managers' diversity discourses. Organization Studies, 25, pp. 55-74.