IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v9y1998i2p245-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crossroads—Reconsidering the “Fact-Value Antinomy: A Comment on Eastman and Bailey (1997)”

Author

Listed:
  • Ann F. Connell

    (University of South Florida, Department of Management, Tampa, Florida 33620)

  • Walter R. Nord

    (University of South Florida, Department of Management, Tampa, Florida 33620)

Abstract

Eastman and Bailey (this issue) positioned their paper as both an extension of and a challenge to Barley and Kunda (1992). In our view, it succeeds admirably as an extension: the two papers taken together benefit our field by calling attention both to the patters they reported and to the often neglected dynamics of the history of ideas in organization studies. However, we find Eastman and Bailey's challenge to Barley and Kunda, which entails the suggestion of an alternative hypothesis to theirs, to be less convincing.We begin by attempting to synthesize the two papers. Next, since one of Eastman and Bailey's purposes was to inspire other students of organizations to mediate the seeming conflict between “fact” and “value,” we make some remarks toward that end. These remarks reframe the conflict so that it makes more sense to us, question the purpose of mediating the conflict and suggest further steps toward integrating information from the history of ideas and dealing with the conflict Eastman and Bailey address.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann F. Connell & Walter R. Nord, 1998. "Crossroads—Reconsidering the “Fact-Value Antinomy: A Comment on Eastman and Bailey (1997)”," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 245-250, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:9:y:1998:i:2:p:245-250
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.9.2.245
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.245
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.9.2.245?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:9:y:1998:i:2:p:245-250. 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.