Record Details

Organizations: Power/History/Imagination

Cadernos EBAPE.BR

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Title Organizations: Power/History/Imagination
Organizations: Power/History/Imagination
 
Creator Clegg, Stewart
 
Description The paper takes the assumptions of bounded rationality as the premise for organization theorizing. It draws a distinction between a science of objects and a science of subjects, arguing the latter as the more appropriate frame for organization analysis. Organization studies, it suggests, are an example of the type of knowledge that Flyvbjerg, following Aristotle, terms "phronesis". At the core of phronetic organization studies, the paper argues, there stands a concern with power, history and imagination. The core of the paper discusses power and the politics of organizing, to point up some central differences in approach to the key term in the trinity that the paper invokes. The paper concludes that organization theory and analysis is best cultivated not in an ideal world of paradigm consensus or domination but in a world of discursive plurality, where obstinate differences in domain assumptions are explicit and explicitly tolerated. A good conversation assumes engagement with alternate points of view, argued against vigorously, but ultimately, where these positions pass the criteria of reason rather than prejudice, tolerated as legitimate points of view. In so doing, it elaborates and defends criteria of reason.
The paper takes the assumptions of bounded rationality as the premise for organization theorizing. It draws a distinction between a science of objects and a science of subjects, arguing the latter as the more appropriate frame for organization analysis. Organization studies, it suggests, are an example of the type of knowledge that Flyvbjerg, following Aristotle, terms "phronesis". At the core of phronetic organization studies, the paper argues, there stands a concern with power, history and imagination. The core of the paper discusses power and the politics of organizing, to point up some central differences in approach to the key term in the trinity that the paper invokes. The paper concludes that organization theory and analysis is best cultivated not in an ideal world of paradigm consensus or domination but in a world of discursive plurality, where obstinate differences in domain assumptions are explicit and explicitly tolerated. A good conversation assumes engagement with alternate points of view, argued against vigorously, but ultimately, where these positions pass the criteria of reason rather than prejudice, tolerated as legitimate points of view. In so doing, it elaborates and defends criteria of reason.
 
Publisher Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas da Fundação Getulio Vargas
 
Date 2003-01-01
 
Type info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
 
Format application/pdf
 
Identifier http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/cadernosebape/article/view/4861
 
Source Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 1 No. 1 (2003); 22 a 34
Cadernos EBAPE.BR; Vol. 1 Núm. 1 (2003); 22 a 34
Cadernos EBAPE.BR; v. 1 n. 1 (2003); 22 a 34
1679-3951
 
Language por
 
Relation http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/ojs/index.php/cadernosebape/article/view/4861/3595