IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v11y2000i6p709-731.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Taking Science out of Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Reconstruct the Analysis of Organizations?

Author

Listed:
  • Richard M. Weiss

    (University of Delaware, Department of Business Administration, Newark, Delaware 19716)

Abstract

Postmodernism, an intellectual movement that originated in the humanities, has received considerable attention in the organization theory literature. Because many scholars remain uncertain as to just what this controversial perspective is, the present article offers a straightforward explanation of postmodernism's basic themes. Additionally, the author attempts to provide some balance to the overwhelmingly sympathetic presentations of postmodernism in the organization theory literature by offering a critical assessment of how it would redirect the study of organizations. Consistent with an intellectual divide dating to the Enlightenment, while those engaged in “normal science” are concerned with the question of what is true, it appears that those who sympathize with postmodernism are addressing the question of what is good. Postmodernists, it is argued here, wish to engage in advocacy for values and preferences that they view as putting them in radical opposition to the status quo. To facilitate such advocacy they call for the repudiation of “modernism,” in particular the key modernist notion that there is an objective truth that can be sought out rationally and systematically. Postmodernists adopt, instead, a relativist philosophy, which contends that “truth” must be considered merely subjective, such that one's view of truth is only relative to one's circumstances. Although taking the position that no one can say what is or is not “true” puts them in opposition to mainstream science, it supports their ability to discredit views they oppose, and simultaneously provides a defense against those who would claim that the postmodernist's view is not “true.” Whether the postmodernist approach has the potential to enhance our understanding of organizations is addressed here by examining its philosophical and historical roots, the research and theory that it has so far inspired, and the critical commentary on our field that its adherents have offered.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard M. Weiss, 2000. "Taking Science out of Organization Science: How Would Postmodernism Reconstruct the Analysis of Organizations?," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(6), pages 709-731, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:11:y:2000:i:6:p:709-731
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.11.6.709.12534
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.11.6.709.12534
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.11.6.709.12534?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. Stewart Clegg, 2009. "Bureaucracy, the Holocaust and Techniques of Power at Work," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 20(4), pages 326-347.
    2. A. Georges L. Romme, 2003. "Making a Difference: Organization as Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 558-573, October.

    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:709-731. 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.