Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

JOHN GARRICK and CARL RHODES. 2000. Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case studies and innovative strategies. xiv + 285 pp. London: Routledge

JOHN GARRICK and CARL RHODES. 2000. Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case studies... xiv case studies and 285 pp. London: Routledge. Recently, Stewart Clegg and Cynthia Hardy argued in their Handbook of organization studies that it is time to acknowledge and move forward with a plurality of representation. They suggest that no representational viewpoint deserves privilege over another because each viewpoint is grounded in its own discourse formation or underlying body of knowledge; any viewpoint, relative to its particular discourse formation could thus be seen as representing ’truth’. Needless to say, argument indicates that ’truth’ has a plurality. Clegg and Hardy’s argument is not necessarily new, but the challenge that accompanies it is - a challenge that calls for researchers to dismantle the boundaries of the representational viewpoints so that they can engage and move forward in conjunction with alternative viewpoints. Since then, other leading theorists have offered similar arguments, most notably Karl Weick who suggests that it is time to dispense with the paradigm wars of recent times and ’make sense of things the best way that we can’. Similarly, Ann Langley suggests that it is time to dispense with the inductive versus deductive debate, and Marta Calas and Linda Smircich suggest that it is time to dispense with the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources Wiley

JOHN GARRICK and CARL RHODES. 2000. Research and knowledge at work: Perspectives, case studies and innovative strategies. xiv + 285 pp. London: Routledge

Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources , Volume 39 (3) – Sep 1, 2001

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/john-garrick-and-carl-rhodes-2000-research-and-knowledge-at-work-bKFZ0vL102

References (0)

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
2001 Australian Human Resources Institute (AHRI)
ISSN
1038-4111
eISSN
1744-7941
DOI
10.1177/103841110103900308
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

xiv case studies and 285 pp. London: Routledge. Recently, Stewart Clegg and Cynthia Hardy argued in their Handbook of organization studies that it is time to acknowledge and move forward with a plurality of representation. They suggest that no representational viewpoint deserves privilege over another because each viewpoint is grounded in its own discourse formation or underlying body of knowledge; any viewpoint, relative to its particular discourse formation could thus be seen as representing ’truth’. Needless to say, argument indicates that ’truth’ has a plurality. Clegg and Hardy’s argument is not necessarily new, but the challenge that accompanies it is - a challenge that calls for researchers to dismantle the boundaries of the representational viewpoints so that they can engage and move forward in conjunction with alternative viewpoints. Since then, other leading theorists have offered similar arguments, most notably Karl Weick who suggests that it is time to dispense with the paradigm wars of recent times and ’make sense of things the best way that we can’. Similarly, Ann Langley suggests that it is time to dispense with the inductive versus deductive debate, and Marta Calas and Linda Smircich suggest that it is time to dispense with the

Journal

Asia Pacific Journal of Human ResourcesWiley

Published: Sep 1, 2001

There are no references for this article.