In some simplification, it can be assumed that the paradigm is a key scientific assertion that aims to explain the complexity of the real world, shared by all scholars. This theorem is of fundamental importance for the study and could be considered as the basis that helps to create other theorems.
In Poland, theorists assume that management sciences is still not developed enough to create its own paradigm that would unite together all occurring trends, directions and schools.
I'm interested in whether similar views are expressed by researchers in other countries.
Is management science need a paradigm at all?
We are seeing a change in the power relationship between academia and outsiders. We may see “citizen science” increasingly challenging academia for credibility in areas where academia thought it was the only authority on the subject. This is a paradigm shift: one which is likely to change science and academia perhaps more than we can now imagine.
Hello Joanna,
Thank you for your thought-provoking question.
Think 'paradigm', think 'paradigm shift', think Thomas Kuhn. As Prem Nath Pandy suggests in this discussion thread, it's about 'audience' for the dissemination of knowledge or insight.
Who are we - as researchers - attempting to inform or persuade?
As academics increasingly come under pressure to communicate meaningfully to non-social science academics (e.g. management practitioners, natural scientists, politicians and other law-/ policy makers, etc.), we need to change our terms of reference in order to be i) heard, ii) perceived as relevant and iii) receive funding.
A potential paradigm shift, indeed!
Best wishes
Keith
http://books.google.com/books/about/Sociological_Paradigms_and_Organisationa.html?id=Q_62AAAAIAAJ
Mainstream management is just a wave of fashions and market-driven "theories" and "models". You name them.
Management industry at large is responsible for around 4% of the world gross product. Hence, it should be taken seriously.
On the one side, it is extremely difficult to do science within management. Mainly they just "import" theories from various sources (engineering, physics, economics, physiology…).
On the other side, I do feel that management is in a strong need of a change. I have been working - to some extent - on introducing complexity theory not management. The task has not been easy at all...
Its an interesting question and I think management science is still in search of it soul and dependent on other scientific methodologies and paradigm such as Economics and Physics. Its in transition and more and more its proceeding towards its own paradigm but the transition needs adequate time to build on. There is an interesting discussion on the topic at Journal of Economic Methodology (2013), an speciall issue discuss this matter.
Hello All,
When I teach classes on Research Methods, I continue to refer to management research as a sub-field of social scientific research. Exploring this sub-field is subject to similar social scientific expectations and principles: e.g. systematic and unbiased observation of human behaviours (= 'management behaviors' - it's all about people, really). In my view & experience, management research thus competes for recognition within paradigms established - and debated - across traditions of social research.
Going back to Joanna's original question, are we keeping a clear enough distinction between 'scientific management' as a concept and 'management science' as (I suggest here) a sub-field of social scientific enquiry?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers