IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jomstd/v61y2024i4p1717-1730.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch's Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Horner
  • Joep Cornelissen
  • Mike Zundel

Abstract

In this paper we provide a counterpoint to the view that prescriptive theorizing reflects a viable means for enhancing the practical impact of management theorizing towards addressing some of the most pressing societal concerns and grand challenges of our times. To do so, we first contextualize the roots of prescriptive theorizing in management research, arguing that the approach developed by Hanisch is reflective of the wider ‘positive’ prescriptive turn in social science theorizing. Second, we problematize the presumptive basis upon which much prescriptive theorizing as well as related ideas around utopian thinking are based. In doing so, our broader aim is to draw attention to the bases upon which prescriptive claims are made and we specifically highlight the dangers of implementing decontextualized, overly simple and stylized prescriptions in the face of complex grand challenges. In contrast to prescriptive theorizing, we propose that the practical impact of management theory may rather be enhanced through a tempering of instrumental rationality with a deep(er) concern for phenomena and experience. We conclude the paper by offering a number of ways in which this can be done.

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Horner & Joep Cornelissen & Mike Zundel, 2024. "Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch's Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(4), pages 1717-1730, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jomstd:v:61:y:2024:i:4:p:1717-1730
    DOI: 10.1111/joms.13039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13039
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/joms.13039?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:bla:jomstd:v:61:y:2024:i:4:p:1717-1730. 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.