IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ororsc/v4y1993i4p513-528.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualization of the Foundations of the Field

Author

Listed:
  • Mayer N. Zald

    (Department of Sociology, School of Social Work and School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109)

Abstract

Recent critiques of social science have emphasized their ties to the concerns of academic disciplines usually labelled as humanities. Building on this literature, this paper argues that organizational studies must be reconfigured as science and humanities. Substantive examples are drawn from the links of organizational theory to history, the use of semiotics, rhetorical analysis and narrative approaches to policy choices. Reconfiguring the field also has implications for applied work leading to an enlightenment model.

Suggested Citation

  • Mayer N. Zald, 1993. "Organization Studies as a Scientific and Humanistic Enterprise: Toward a Reconceptualization of the Foundations of the Field," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 513-528, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ororsc:v:4:y:1993:i:4:p:513-528
    DOI: 10.1287/orsc.4.4.513
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.4.4.513
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/orsc.4.4.513?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. Ilgaz Arikan & Asli M. Arikan & Oded Shenkar, 2020. "Nation‐dyadic history and cross‐border corporate deals: Role of conflict, trade, generational distance, and professional education," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 422-466, March.
    2. Thomas A. Kochan & Saul A. Rubinstein, 2000. "Toward a Stakeholder Theory of the Firm: The Saturn Partnership," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 367-386, August.
    3. Pikos Anna & Olejniczak Tomasz, 2017. "Business History in Poland: Current State and Future Potential," Journal of Management and Business Administration. Central Europe, Sciendo, vol. 25(3), pages 55-77, September.
    4. Ilgaz Arikan & Oded Shenkar, 2022. "Neglected elements: What we should cover more of in international business research," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 53(7), pages 1484-1507, September.
    5. A. Georges L. Romme, 2003. "Making a Difference: Organization as Design," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(5), pages 558-573, October.
    6. Donada, Carole & Nogatchewsky, Gwenaëlle & Pezet, Anne, 2014. "It takes a quarter of a century to build a dynamic capability : Supplier relations management at Renault (1975-1999)," ESSEC Working Papers WP1414, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    7. Carole Donada & Gwenaëlle Nogatchewsky & Anne Pezet, 2014. "It takes a quarter of a century to build a dynamic capability : Supplier relations management at Renault (1975-1999)," Working Papers hal-01070044, HAL.
    8. María Inés Barbero & Andrea Lluch & Marcelo Bucheli & Gonzalo Romero Sommer, 2014. "Multinational Corporations, Property Rights, and Legitimization Strategies: US Investors in the Argentine and Peruvian Oil Industries in the Twentieth Century," Australian Economic History Review, Economic History Society of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 54(2), pages 145-163, July.
    9. repec:hal:journl:hal-01070044 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Tae Wan Kim & Thomas Donaldson, 2018. "Rethinking Right: Moral Epistemology in Management Research," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 5-20, March.
    11. Tsuyoshi Numagami, 1998. "Perspective—The Infeasibility of Invariant Laws in Management Studies: A Reflective Dialogue in Defense of Case Studies," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(1), pages 1-15, February.

    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:4:y:1993:i:4:p:513-528. 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.