IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/smo/journl/v9y2024i1p1-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Severin Hornung

    (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria)

  • Thomas Höge

    (University of Innsbruck, Department of Psychology, Innsbruck, Austria)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Severin Hornung & Thomas Höge, 2024. "Analyzing Current Debates in Management and Organization Studies: A Meta-theoretical Review and Dialectic Interpretation," Scientia Moralitas Journal, Scientia Moralitas, Research Institute, vol. 9(1), pages 1-32, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:smo:journl:v:9:y:2024:i:1:p:1-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.scientiamoralitas.com/index.php/sm/article/view/260
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.scientiamoralitas.com/index.php/sm/article/view/260/166
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajnesh Prasad & Albert Mills, 2010. "Critical Management Studies and Business Ethics: A Synthesis and Three Research Trajectories for the Coming Decade," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(2), pages 227-237, August.
    2. Stanley Deetz, 1996. "Crossroads---Describing Differences in Approaches to Organization Science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and Their Legacy," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 191-207, April.
    3. Michael Pirson, 2019. "A Humanistic Perspective for Management Theory: Protecting Dignity and Promoting Well-Being," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 39-57, September.
    4. Jeff Rose & Adrienne Cachelin, 2018. "Critical sustainability: incorporating critical theories into contested sustainabilities," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(4), pages 518-525, December.
    5. Mats Alvesson & Jörgen Sandberg, 2020. "The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1290-1304, September.
    6. Kavous Ardalan, 2019. "Ideology: A Multi-paradigmatic Approach," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 31(2), pages 124-142, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Severin Hornung & Thomas Hoge, 2024. "Charting Contested Territory: Paradigmatic Conflicts in Critical Management and Organization Studies Discourse," Scientia Moralitas Conference Proceedings 01279, Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies.
    2. Frederick Ahen, 2022. "Community-Level Health Interventions are Crucial in the Post-COVID-19 Era: Lessons from Africa’s Proactive Public Health Policy Interventions," Humanistic Management Journal, Springer, vol. 7(3), pages 369-390, December.
    3. Prasad, Ajnesh & Holzinger, Ingo, 2013. "Seeing through smoke and mirrors: A critical analysis of marketing CSR," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1915-1921.
    4. Rafael Alcadipani & Cíntia Rodrigues Oliveira Medeiros, 2020. "When Corporations Cause Harm: A Critical View of Corporate Social Irresponsibility and Corporate Crimes," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 167(2), pages 285-297, November.
    5. Masoud Shadnam & Andrey Bykov & Ajnesh Prasad, 2021. "Opening Constructive Dialogues Between Business Ethics Research and the Sociology of Morality: Introduction to the Thematic Symposium," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 201-211, May.
    6. Yuka Fujimoto & Jasim Uddin, 2022. "Inclusive Leadership for Reduced Inequality: Economic–Social–Economic Cycle of Inclusion," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 563-582, December.
    7. Mark G. Edwards, 2014. "Misunderstanding Metatheorizing," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 720-744, November.
    8. Mats Alvesson & Jörgen Sandberg, 2020. "The Problematizing Review: A Counterpoint to Elsbach and Van Knippenberg’s Argument for Integrative Reviews," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(6), pages 1290-1304, September.
    9. Rashedur Chowdhury, 2021. "From Black Pain to Rhodes Must Fall: A Rejectionist Perspective," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 170(2), pages 287-311, May.
    10. Mohammad Hossein Rahmati & Ali Intezari & Bernard McKenna, 2022. "A Shi’a Islam Approach to Wisdom in Management: A Deep Understanding Opening to Dialogue and Dialectic," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 181(4), pages 891-911, December.
    11. Smith, Aaron C.T. & Stewart, Bob & Oliver-Bennetts, Sunny & McDonald, Sharyn & Ingerson, Lynley & Anderson, Alastair & Dickson, Geoff & Emery, Paul & Graetz, Fiona, 2010. "Contextual influences and athlete attitudes to drugs in sport," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 181-197, August.
    12. Verena Komander & Andreas König, 2024. "Organizations on stage: organizational research and the performing arts," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 74(1), pages 303-352, February.
    13. Giovanna Campopiano & Patricia Gabaldón & Daniela Gimenez-Jimenez, 2023. "Women Directors and Corporate Social Performance: An Integrative Review of the Literature and a Future Research Agenda," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(3), pages 717-746, January.
    14. Johannes Brinkmann, 2019. "The Potential Use of Sociological Perspectives for Business Ethics Teaching," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 273-287, April.
    15. Christopher Wickert & Corinne Post & Jonathan P. Doh & John E. Prescott & Andrea Prencipe, 2021. "Management Research that Makes a Difference: Broadening the Meaning of Impact," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 297-320, March.
    16. Juha Kettunen, 2016. "Relationship Between Mission Statement And Scope Of Business: Evidence From Finland," Review of Business and Finance Studies, The Institute for Business and Finance Research, vol. 7(1), pages 69-78.
    17. Carayannis, Elias G. & Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Wurth, Bernd, 2022. "OR for entrepreneurial ecosystems: A problem-oriented review and agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 300(3), pages 791-808.
    18. Sophie Bollinger & Marion Neukam, 2023. "Les valeurs de l'organisation, moteur de créativité," Post-Print hal-04162043, HAL.
    19. Giacomoni Gilbert, 2024. "The Need for Products Interchangeability: An Unsolved Problem of Semantic Conflicts No Product Definition System Can Support Perfectly," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(2), pages 7672-7701, June.
    20. Leclercq-Vandelannoitte, Aurélie, 2021. "“Seeing to be seen”: The manager’s political economy of visibility in new ways of working," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 605-616.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:smo:journl:v:9:y:2024:i:1:p:1-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Eduard David (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.