Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Responsible Knowing: A Better Basis For Management Science

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

What kind of inquiry is management science? This paper compares two accounts — realist-oriented and constructivist-oriented — and proposes a third position. The realist view that scientific inquiry seeks knowledge of realities independent and outside of the knowing process is set against the constructivist view that scientific theorising creates accounts which develop our discourses without claiming knowledge of ‘deeper’ realities. It argues that ultimately we have no way of resolving this long-standing dispute. To move beyond the impasse it proposes a trusting constructivist position, arguing that responsible theorising requires that inquirers develop discursive accountability and that the process of inquiry matters as much as its content. Finally it explores what such a view of accountability would mean for the relationship between scientists or ‘professionals’ and users of their research findings in organisations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Colin Eden ‘From the playpen to the bombsiie: The changing nature of management science’ Omega 21 (1993) 139–154 (quotation p 140)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. For a discussion of this kind of approach see eg: John Gill & Phil Johnson Research Methods for Managers Paul Chapman, London 1997 (pp 27–34); and Keidi Punch Introduction to SocialI Research Sage, London 1998 (pp 51–54).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lex Donaldson explains the positivist view on diis in his ‘A positivist alternative to the structure-action approach’ Organisation Studies 18 (1997) 77–92 (quotation p 85). A difference of degree between Donaldson's approach and that of others (who might prefer to label their position as hypothetico-deductivist rather than positivist) lies in their conception of the simplicity of the scientific process. It is sometimes argued that the process is more complex than Donaldson supposes because die evidence to be used in the scientific testing process (which involves checking proposed hypotheses with reference to observations) is itself never ‘self-evident1. See in particular Karl R Popper's The Logic of Scientific Discovery Hutchinson, London 1959; and his ConjecturesandRefittationsRoudedgp & Kegan Paul, London 1969. See also Martyn Hammersley The Politics of Social Research Sage, London 1995; and Martyn Hammersley & Roger Gomm ‘Bias in social research’ Sociological Research Online 2 (1997) http://www.socresonline.org.Uk/socresonline/2/l/2html. In my The Metkodofagies of Positivism and Marxismhicmzn London 1991, and Accountability in Social Research Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York 2001, I provide a discussion and critique of die various arguments.

  4. Norman Jackson & Pippa Carter Retfnnking OrganisationalBeltaviour Financial Tunes, London 2000 (quotation p47)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Alan B Thomas Controversies in Management Roudedge, London 1993 (quotation p 195). In this statement, Thomas follows Gibson Burrell & Gareth Morgan Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis Gower, Aldershot 1979, as well as Dan Gowler & Karen Legge ‘Personnel and paradigms: Four perspectives on die future’ Industrial Relations journal 17 (1986) 225–235.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Alan B Thomas Controversies in Management (quotation p 196)

  7. Ibid p 196

  8. Norman Jackson & Pippa Carter op cit (quotation p 48)

  9. Ibid p 48

  10. S Weid ‘Rhetorics and realities in public service organisations: Systemic practice and organisational learning as critically reflexive action research (CRAR)’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1998) 37–62 (quotation p 57)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid p 58

  12. Colin Eden ‘From the playpen to the bombsite: The changing nature of management science’ Omega 21 (1993) 139–154 (quotation p 152). See also Karl EWeick Sensemaking in Organisations Sag?* London 1995 (p 55); Veronica I McKay The importance of reflection and action research in the training of community educators: A sociological contribution’ Educate 26 (1997) 4–14; and Michael C Jackson Systems Approaches to Management Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. New York 2000 (p 175).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. The term ‘realism’ embraces a variety of positions concerning the way in which knowledge of reality (whether natural or social) might be striven for and concerning the manner in which we can justify the claim that science affords a route to advancing knowledge of reality. In this paper I have not concentrated on exploring what is sometimes called ‘scientific realism’ (linked to certain Marxist arguments) or Weberian interpretivism (which too can be seen as embracing a realist epistemology in its suggestions for social scientific inquiry). I explore in detail these positions (amongst others) in my book Accountability in Social Research.

  14. Broadly speaking, constructivist arguments can be pitted against realism in terms of the focus on the manner in which ways of knowing as developed in society can be seen as related to our ways of being. See eg: John Shorter Conversational Realities: Constructing Lifi through Language Sage, London 1993; Barbara Czarniawska-Joerges ‘Narration or science? Collapsing the division in organisational studies’ Organisation 2 (1995) 11–33; Norma R A Romm ‘Knowing as Inrervenrion’ Systems Practice 8 (1995) 137–167; Sarah W Jacobson & Roy Jacques ‘Destabilising the field: Poststructuralist knowledge-makingsrrategies ina postindustrial Journal of Management Inquiry 6 (1997) 42–59; Bogusia Temple ‘Collegial accountability and bias: The solution or the problem?’ Sociological Research Online 2 (1997) hrrp://www/socresonl ine.org. uk/socresonline/2/4/8.html; Bela A Banathy The Difference that Makes a Difference’ General Systems Bulletin 28 (1999) 5–8; Janet J Mel n tyre-Mills Global Cinzenslnp and Social Movements Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam 2000; and Peggy B Gill ‘Narrative inquiry: Designing the processes, pathways and parrerns of change’ Systems Research and Behavioural Science 18 (2001)335-343.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See eg: David Barry & Michael Elmes ‘On paradigms and narratives: Barry and Elmes’ response’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 847–849; and Douglas Griffin, Patricia Shaw & Ralph D Stacey ‘Knowing and acting in conditions of uncertainty: A complexity perspective’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 12 (1999) 295–309;.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kenneth J Gergen & Tojo J Thatchenkery ‘Organisation science in a postmodern context’ in Robert C H Chia (ed) In the Realm of Organisation} Routledge, London} 1998} (quotation p

    Google Scholar 

  17. L Donaldson ‘A positivist alternative to the strucrure-action approach’ Organisation Studies 18 (1997) 77–92 (quoration p 85)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ibid p 85

  19. James H Davis. F David Schoorman & Lex Donaldson ‘Towards a stewardship theory of management’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 20–47 (quotation p 25)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Donaldson ‘A posmvist alternative to the structure-action approach’ Organisation Studies 18 (1997) 77–92 (quotation p 85)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Norman Jackson & Pippa Carter op r/r(pp 208–211)

  22. Cheng-Yi Hsu Ph.D thesis Exploring the Relationship between Case Study and Action Research University of Hull 2001

  23. Ibid pp 193–194

  24. Ibid p 192

  25. As proposed by James A Holstein & Jaber F Gubrium The Active Interview Sage London 1995 (quotation p 77).

  26. Cheng-YiHsu op cit (p 206), 2001

  27. Geert Hofstede Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values Sage, Beverley Hills CA 1980 (quotation p 101)

    Google Scholar 

  28. Geert Hofstede Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind HarperCollinsBusiness, London 1994 (quotation p 40)

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid p 171

  30. Ibid p 172

  31. Examples of authors concentrating on implications of constructivism for the achievements of the social sciences are: Alvin W Gouldner The Dark Side of the Dialectic Sociology Institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam 1975; Patti Lather ‘Fertile obsession: Validity after posstructuralism’ The Sociological Quarterly 34 (1993) 673–693; Stanley Deetz ‘Describingdifferences in approaches to organisation science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy" Organisation Science 7 (1996) 191–207; and Werner Ulrich The quest for competence in systemic research and practice’ Systems Research andBehavioral Science IS (2001) 3–28. And examples of ways in which natural scientific inquiry can be conceived as calling forth alternative realities are provided by Joel Davis Alternate Realities: How Science Shapes Our Vision of d/e World Plenum, New York 1997, and by Ian Hacking The Social Construction of What? Harvard University Press, Cambridge,.Mass. 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Derek Edwards Discourse and Cognition Sage, London 1997

    Google Scholar 

  33. Edwards here (ibid p 58) specifically refers to Nigel Gilbert & Michael Mulkays Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists’ Discourse Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1984. Edwards cites Gilbert & Mulkays discourse analysis of texts, technical reports, and interviews with various groups of biochemists.

  34. Ian Hacking op at 1999 (pp 202–206)

  35. Ibid p 204

  36. Ibid p 205

  37. Ibid p 204

  38. Derek Edwards op cit (quotation p 58)

  39. David Barry & Michael Elmes ‘Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 429–452 (quotation p 431)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid p 430

  41. Norma R A Romm ‘Becoming more accountable: Acomment on Hammersley and Gomm’ Sociological Research Online 2 (1997) http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/32.html (quotation paragraphs 7.3-7.7)

  42. M Kilduff, A Mehra ‘Postmodernism and organisational research’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 453–481 (quotation p 469)

    Google Scholar 

  43. P Gill ‘Narrative inquiry: Designing the processes, pathways and patterns of change’ Systems Research and Befxtvioural Science 18 (2001) 335–343 (quotation p 343)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. P Salipante & R Bouwen ‘The social construction of grievances: Organisational conflict as multiple perspectives’ in Dian-Marie Hoslting, H Peter Dachler & Kenneth J Gergen (eds) Management and Organisation: Relational Alternatives to Individualism Avebury, Aldershot 1995 (quotation p 93)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Norma R A Romm ‘Inquiry-and-intervenrion in systems planning: Probing methodological rationalities’ World Futures 47 (1996) 25–36; and Norma R A Romm interdisciplinary practice as reflexivity’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1998) 63–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. As Douglas Griffin, Patricia Shaw & Ralph D Stacey point out: ‘Knowing and actingin conditions of uncertainty: A complexity perspective’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 12 (1999) 295–309 (quotation p 305)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid p 305

  48. Ibid p 305

  49. Ibid p 308

  50. As Wendy J Gregory expresses it ‘Transforming self and society: A "critical appreciation" model’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 13 (2000) 475–501

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid p 496. Gregory admits that it is beyond the scope of her paper to explore fully what this might involve. But it does imply encouraging people to reflect on dieir emotional attachment to specific concerns when the)’ realise that others too are required to practise such self-reflection as part of the process of dialogue (p 500)

  52. Cheng-Yi Hsu op cit (2001) p 145

  53. Jennifer Trusted Moral Principles and Social Values Routledge, London 1987, as cited in Patrick Maclagan Management and Morality: A Developmental Perspective Sage, London 199S (quotation p 53). For further considerations around trust and cultural symbols see eg: Francis Fukuyama Tmsr: The Social Virtues and the Creation ofProsperityHamish Hamilton, London 1995; Bryn Jones ‘The money or the principle’ Work, Employment and Society 14 (2000) 191–200; and Piotr Sztompka Trust: A Sociological Theory Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999

    Google Scholar 

  54. Oliver E Williamson commentson diiskind of reasoning in his ‘Calculativeness, trust and economic organisation’ Journal of Law and Economics 34 (1993) 453–500. He notes that a statement of this kind might appear to be a tautology in that it seems to say nothing more than what is already implied by using die word ‘trust1. But he suggests that ‘tautologies are frequently on the trail of something more important and foreshadow much deeper analysis. Conceivably die trust tautology will lead to precisely diat’ (quotation p 302).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Tom R Tyler & Peter Degoey ‘Trust in organisational authorities: The influence of motive attributions on willingness to accept decisions’ in Roderick M Kramer & Tom R Tyler (eds) Trust in Organisations Sage, London 1996 (pp 348–349).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ibid p 349

  57. Ibid p 333

  58. This, of course, extends Tyler and Degoeys deliberations, in that they do not focus on the issue of how we judge people's openness to alternative understandings. My extension of their argument draws attention to the epistemology that we bring to bear when judgements of others’ trustworthiness are being made, and aims to show how this in turn might make a difference to the development of our trust relationships.

  59. Norman Denzin ‘The reflexive interview and a performative social science’ Qualitative Research 1 (2001) pp 23–46 (quotation p 24)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Roderick M Kramer ‘Divergent realities and convergent disappointments in the hierarchic relation’ in Roderick M Kramer & Tom R Tyler (eds) Trust in Organisations Sage, London 1996 (quotation p 239)

    Google Scholar 

  61. Ibid p 239

  62. As suggested by, for example, Kramer (ibid p 239).

  63. Marten D Shipman The Limitations of Social Research Longman, London 1982 (p xiii); Evert Gummesson Qualitative Methods in Management Research Sage* London 1991 (p 159); and Peter B Checkland & Sue Holwell Action research: Its nature and validity* Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1998) 9–21

    Google Scholar 

  64. Anurag Sharma ‘Professional as agent: Knowledge asymmetry in agency exchange’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 758–798 (quotation p 792)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid p 766

  66. Ibid p 765

  67. Ibid pp 774–781

  68. Ibid p 78S

  69. To use Sharma's terminology.

  70. See also in this regard Evert Gummesson Qualitative Methods in Management Research (pp 172–174); and John R Hall, Cultures of Inquiry: From Epistemology to Discourse in Sociohistorical Research Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999 (pp 169–173)

  71. Evert Gummesson Qualitative Methods in Management Research (p 161); Robert L Flood & Norma R A Romm Diversity Management: Triple Loop LearningWiley, Chichester 1996 (p 135); and John R Hall Cultures of Inquiry 1999 (pp 152–154)

  72. See also Parker J Palmer ‘Community, conflict, and ways of knowing: Ways to deepen our educational agenda’ Change 19 (1987) 20–25; and Martin Kilduff & Deborah Dougherty "Change and development in a pluralistic world: The view from the classics’ Academy of Management Review 25 (2000) 777–782

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. For a detailed discussion of how such debates might proceed, see Chapters 4–7 of my Accountability in Soda! Research* where I explored researchers’ accountability by examiningin-depdi (from various angles) actual examples of experimentation, survey research, ethnography and action research.

  74. Ronald K Mitchell, Bradley R Agle & Donna J Wood ‘Towards a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining die principle of who and what really counts’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 853–885

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid p 864

  76. Ibid p 864

  77. Ibid p 864

  78. Ibid p 864

  79. Ibid p 869

  80. Ibid pp 869–870

  81. Ibid p 869

  82. Ibid p 870

  83. Ibid p 881

  84. Ibid p 881

  85. Ibid p 880

  86. Ibid p 880

  87. Ibid p 880

  88. D Barrv & M Elmes ‘Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of strategic discourse’ Academy of Management Review 22 (1997) 429–452 (quotation p 432)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Susan Weil ‘Rhetorics and realities in public service organisations: Systemic practice and organisational learning as critically reflexive action research (CRAR)’ Systemic Practice and Action Research 11 (1998) 37–62 (quotation P 58)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull Business School, UK

    Norma R. A. Romm (Senior Researcher)

Authors
  1. Norma R. A. Romm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Romm, N.R. Responsible Knowing: A Better Basis For Management Science. Philos. of Manag. 2, 57–72 (2002). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20022124

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20022124

Keywords

Search

Navigation