IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v11y2000i6p732-738.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Putting the Community into Organizational Science: Exploring the Construction of Knowledge Claims

Author

Listed:
  • Stanley Deetz

    (Department of Communication, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0270)

Abstract

Like Weiss, I too dislike some of the postmodern writings on organizations. I too worry that shallow works given even more shallow and opportunistic readings can have negative social consequences. But I also recognize that most of Weiss's concerns are not unique to postmodern writings. Many of the problems he discusses could also be descriptive of work from different conceptual and methodological stances. Statistics are often contrived and misleading. Ethnography has at times aided colonization. Both social and physical sciences have at times produced bad theories and been put to very negative uses. Some early postmodernist theorists, Christians, and scientists, were Nazis, and elements of each of their fundamental conceptions could be co-opted to support this particular form of barbarism. This potential utilization, however, does not lead for me to a blanket condemnation of postmodernism, science, ethnography, religion, or statistics. Devotees of each have used their special understandings to fight tyranny. Both postmodernism and science also draw on fundamental conceptions that are productive, enable open choices, and help us see through the masters and ideologies of a particular time and place. I am less interested in blame than in finding what each can contribute. I look to an ongoing community discussion that helps us to do the best we can to sort out the good from the bad, and I hope that the current set of essays helps stimulate a positive dialogue.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanley Deetz, 2000. "Putting the Community into Organizational Science: Exploring the Construction of Knowledge Claims," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 732-738, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:11:y:2000:i:6:p:732-738
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.732.12536
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.732.12536
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.11.6.732.12536?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Parsons, Richard & Lacey, Justine & Moffat, Kieren, 2014. "Maintaining legitimacy of a contested practice: How the minerals industry understands its ‘social licence to operate’," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 83-90.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:11:y:2000:i:6:p:732-738. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.