Implications épistémiques et méthodologiques des différences fondamentales entre les deux principaux paradigmes épistémologiques constructivistes

Epistemic and Methodological Implications of the Fundamental Differences Between the Two Main Constructivist Epistemological Paradigms For the past fifteen years epistemological concerns have constituted an integral part of research in management and references to constructivism have multiplied. The increasing presence and diffusion of references to constructivism has taken place, however, in a state of confusion. This article intends to provide readers with landmarks which can help them situate how the various constructivist perspectives stand relative to one another. This is accomplished by revisiting the fundamentals, i.e. via returning to the founding authors and to the founding assumptions on which these perspectives are based. Meticulous comparisons of their founding assumptions reveal that the two main constructivist epistemological paradigms only share one assumption, namely the postulate that the inquirer cannot be separated from the inquired-into. Comparison also reveals that the Radical paradigm is more open than the one suggested by Guba and Lincoln, both on epistemic grounds and on methodological grounds.