IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v31y1994i6p761-780.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Refining Common Sense: Types Of Knowledge In Management Studies

Author

Listed:
  • Haridimos Tsoukas

Abstract

Drawing on Pepper's World Hypotheses we describe four different approaches to obtaining formal knowledge in management studies. These approaches are: formism, mechanism, contextualism, and organicism. All of them are valid ways of refining common sense that resist synthesis. Applying Pepper's framework in as extremely diverse a field as management studies (focusing on organizational behaviour (OB) and strategic management (SM) in particular) we show the different assumptions and knowledge claims made by different types of theorists in management and, moreover, we shed light on the sources of conceptual rivalry that often characterize the field. By way of illustration, the Mintzberg‐Ansoff debate on the nature of strategic management is focused upon for closer examination. It is shown that analysing this debate in terms of Pepper's framework one can understand and evaluate the epistemological differences between Mintzberg and Ansoff, which stem from their adherence to contextualist and mechanistic‐cum‐formistic types of knowledge respectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Haridimos Tsoukas, 1994. "Refining Common Sense: Types Of Knowledge In Management Studies," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(6), pages 761-780, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:31:y:1994:i:6:p:761-780
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00638.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00638.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-6486.1994.tb00638.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. Mohamed Benabid, 2021. "Quelle finalité managériale pour la recherche en gestion : Une lecture historique et critique," Post-Print hal-03958487, HAL.
    2. Khosravi, Pouria & Newton, Cameron & Rezvani, Azadeh, 2019. "Management innovation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of past decades of research," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 694-707.
    3. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3075 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Valérie-Inès de La Ville, 2001. "L’émergence du projet entrepreneurial," Post-Print hal-01844663, HAL.
    5. Richard P. Nielsen, 2016. "Action Research As an Ethics Praxis Method," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 419-428, May.
    6. Dixon, Keith, 2011. "Assessment at the centre of strategies of [accountant] learning in groups, substantiated with qualitative reflections in student assessments," MPRA Paper 29861, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Michele Pinelli, 2013. "The new economics of the business case for sustainability," Working Papers 14, Department of Management, Università Ca' Foscari Venezia.
    8. Jan L.G. Dietz & Jan A.P. Hoogervorst & Antonia Albani & David Aveiro & Eduard Babkin & Joseph Barjis & Artur Caetano & Philip Huysmans & Junichi Iijima & Steven J.H. Van Kervel & Hans Mulder & Martin, 2013. "The discipline of enterprise engineering," International Journal of Organisational Design and Engineering, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(1), pages 86-114.
    9. Barbara Townley, 2004. "Managerial Technologies, Ethics and Managing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 425-445, May.
    10. Catherine Bailey & Adrian Madden, 2017. "Time reclaimed: temporality and the experience of meaningful work," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 31(1), pages 3-18, February.

    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:31:y:1994:i:6:p:761-780. 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.