penned a reply critical of the method Glick and his colleagues used to draw their conclusions. In the present issue, the series continues with a reply to
Making a life in the field of organization science
β Scribed by William H. Glick; C. Chet Miller; Laura B. Cardinal
- Publisher
- John Wiley and Sons
- Year
- 2007
- Tongue
- English
- Weight
- 157 KB
- Volume
- 28
- Category
- Article
- ISSN
- 0894-3796
- DOI
- 10.1002/job.455
No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.
β¦ Synopsis
Abstract
In a provocative address and article, Jeff Pfeffer called for greater consensus and stronger paradigm development in organization science. John Van Maanen and others responded with encouragement for the existing order where a thousand flowers can bloom. More than 10 years after this debate, it appears that many flowers are still blooming. Lost in the original and current discourse, however, is the story of individuals struggling to make a life in a field characterized by weak paradigm development. In this essay, we tell their story, a story of wasted efforts and uncertain outcomes. The degree of dissensus and weak paradigm development in our field has significant implications for junior scholars. These implications will not be ameliorated by calling for stronger paradigm development. Wishing for consensus does not appear to have any impact on our field or on individual outcomes. Rather than despair over the plight of the field and the tremendous costs to individuals, we conclude with a simple proposal designed to aid aspiring scholars. Copyright Β© 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
π SIMILAR VOLUMES
## Abstract As a practicing physical chemist, I argue that the challenges faced by the physical sciences have more parallels with organization science than it might first appear. While the physical sciences do represent a strong paradigm endeavor, many of the same issues that were raised in the art
by Glick, Miller, and Cardinal ''Making a life in the field of organizational sciences''. Their major theme is that ours is a weak paradigm field in which there is no consensus about the methods and problems that should be addressed in our research and scholarship, compared to the natural sciences t
No agreed-upon organizational science paradigm exists because there is still no single field of organizational science. True to its history, ours is an interdisciplinary domain focusing on behavior, in, around, and of organizations (cf. Perrow, 1973;Katz & Kahn, 1978). Organizational science is more
I believe you will find this issue of the Journal to be both intellectually stimulating and thought provoking. Each article focuses upon feminist scholarship, issues of gender, and/or gender equity. The authors challenge the historical, sociocultural, and political ideologies of science and the asso