IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v21y1984i3p259-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Subjectivity, Sophistry And Symbolism In Management Science

Author

Listed:
  • W. Graham Astley

Abstract

Three common criticisms of management science are highlighted: first, the tendency of researchers to subjectively bias substantive approaches, methodologies and research findings; second, the failure to establish within the discipline a core of consensually validated knowledge or commonly accepted body of truth about the nature of management; and three, the inability of management theory to provide tools and techniques of greater pragmatic relevance to corporate decision‐makers. Though a basis for these characterizations of management science is confirmed, their significance is reinterpreted. Instead of being regarded as pathologies, they are viewed as inevitable, and not necessarily dysfunctional, concomitants of the emergence and development of management science as a field of intellectual activity possessing reality and significance in its own right.

Suggested Citation

  • W. Graham Astley, 1984. "Subjectivity, Sophistry And Symbolism In Management Science," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 259-272, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:21:y:1984:i:3:p:259-272
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00410.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00410.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1984.tb00410.x?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. Bullinger, Bernadette & Kieser, Alfred & Schiller-Merkens, Simone, 2015. "Coping with institutional complexity: Responses of management scholars to competing logics in the field of management studies," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 437-450.
    2. Laura Girella & Roberto Tizzano & Elisa Rita Ferrari, 2019. "Concepts travelling across disciplinary fields: the case of the business model," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 373-402, June.
    3. Stefano Zambon & Laura Girella, 2016. "Accounting Theory and Accounting Practice as Loosely Coupled Systems: A Historical Perspective on the Italian Case (1930-1990)," FINANCIAL REPORTING, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2016(1), pages 95-133.
    4. Zambon, Stefano & Zan, Luca, 2000. "Accounting relativism: the unstable relationship between income measurement and theories of the firm," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 25(8), pages 799-822, November.
    5. Lobschat, Lara & Mueller, Benjamin & Eggers, Felix & Brandimarte, Laura & Diefenbach, Sarah & Kroschke, Mirja & Wirtz, Jochen, 2021. "Corporate digital responsibility," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 875-888.
    6. Denis A. Grégoire & Martin X. Noël & Richard Déry & Jean–Pierre Béchard, 2006. "Is There Conceptual Convergence in Entrepreneurship Research? A Co–Citation Analysis of Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research, 1981–2004," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 30(3), pages 333-373, May.
    7. Brennan, Ross & Turnbull, Peter W., 2002. "Sophistry, relevance and technology transfer in management research: an IMP perspective," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 595-602, July.

    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:bla:jomstd:v:21:y:1984:i:3:p:259-272. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-2380 .

    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.