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

Learn More →

Paradigms Lost: Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry

Paradigms Lost: Incommensurability vs Structurationist Inquiry Although some organizational scholars invoke the alleged incommensurability of metatheoretical paradigms in order to legitimize a plurality of approaches to the field, others have called for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry into organizations while yet maintaining the essential incommensurability of paradigms. As long as the incommensurability thesis itself is maintained, however, calls for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry are compromised, and legitimate goals of theoretical and metatheoretical diversity are poorly served. The problem is not with such calls for broader but still diverse perspectives, but with the incommensurability thesis to which they infelicitously are tied. Giddens' structurationist metatheory pro vides a means to honour both calls for a broader, more unified perspective and demands for metatheoretical and theoretical pluralism, without resorting to the self-stultifying incommensurability thesis. A structurational analysis enables us to give up the idea of impermeable and imperialistic paradigms, while yet main taining distinctive perspectives within organizational inquiry. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Organization Studies: An international multidisciplinary journal devoted to the Studies of organizations, organizing, and the organized in and between societies SAGE

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/paradigms-lost-incommensurability-vs-structurationist-inquiry-cVp1gX7nk1

References (68)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0170-8406
eISSN
1741-3044
DOI
10.1177/017084069401500404
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Although some organizational scholars invoke the alleged incommensurability of metatheoretical paradigms in order to legitimize a plurality of approaches to the field, others have called for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry into organizations while yet maintaining the essential incommensurability of paradigms. As long as the incommensurability thesis itself is maintained, however, calls for cross- or multi-paradigm inquiry are compromised, and legitimate goals of theoretical and metatheoretical diversity are poorly served. The problem is not with such calls for broader but still diverse perspectives, but with the incommensurability thesis to which they infelicitously are tied. Giddens' structurationist metatheory pro vides a means to honour both calls for a broader, more unified perspective and demands for metatheoretical and theoretical pluralism, without resorting to the self-stultifying incommensurability thesis. A structurational analysis enables us to give up the idea of impermeable and imperialistic paradigms, while yet main taining distinctive perspectives within organizational inquiry.

Journal

Organization Studies: An international multidisciplinary journal devoted to the Studies of organizations, organizing, and the organized in and between societiesSAGE

Published: Jul 1, 1994

There are no references for this article.