3 Hassard Cox 2013

Organization Studies http://oss.sagepub.
com/
Can Sociological Paradigms Still Inform Organizational Analysis? A Paradigm

Model for Post-Paradigm Times
John Hassard and Julie Wolfram Cox
Organization Studies 2013 34: 1701 originally published online 7 August 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0170840613495019
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://oss.sagepub.com/content/34/11/1701
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
European Group for Organizational Studies
Additional services and information for Organization Studies can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://oss.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
>> Version of Record - Oct 30, 2013
OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 7, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from oss.sagepub.com at UNIV FED DO ESPIRITO SANTO on March 30, 2014
495019
2013
OSS341110.1177/0170840613495019Organization StudiesHassard and Wolfram Cox
Article
Organization Studies
Can Sociological Paradigms Still

34(11) 17011728
The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Inform Organizational Analysis? sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0170840613495019
A Paradigm Model for Post- www.egosnet.org/os
Paradigm Times
John Hassard
University of Manchester, UK
Julie Wolfram Cox

Monash University, Australia
Abstract
The Burrell and Morgan model for classifying organization theory is revisited through meta-theoretical
analysis of the major intellectual movement to emerge in recent decades, post-structuralism and more
broadly postmodernism. Proposing a retrospective paradigm for this movement, we suggest that its research
can be characterized as ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist and methodologically reflexive;
this also represents research that can be termed deconstructionist in its view of human nature. When this
paradigm is explored further, in terms of Burrell and Morgans assumptions for the nature of society,
two analytical domains emerge normative post-structural and critical post-structural. Assessing the types of
research developed within them, and focusing on actor-network theory in particular, we describe how
post-structural and postmodern thinking can be classified within, rather than outside, or after, the Burrell
and Morgan model. Consequently we demonstrate not only that organizational knowledge stands on meta-
theoretical grounds, but also how recent intellectual developments rest on a qualitatively different set of
meta-theoretical assumptions than established traditions of agency and structure.
Keywords
actor-network theory, Burrell and Morgan, paradigms, postmodernism, post-structuralism, triangulation
Introduction
Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgans book (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational
Analysis represents one of the most referenced works in organization theory (OT) of the last
half-century (Google Scholar suggests over six thousand citations to date). Their four-paradigm
Corresponding author:
John Hassard, Manchester Business School, The University of Manchester, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB,
UK.
Email: john.hassard@mbs.ac.uk
1702 Organization Studies 34(11)
model (viz. functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist and radical structuralist) made an enor-
mous impact on the field through defining the meta-theoretical assumptions underpinning major
theoretical and methodological positions (see also Morgan, 1980, 1983, 1986). Although similar
paradigm models were produced in social science prior to theirs, as Deetz (1996, p. 191) notes,
none have gained the almost hegemonic capacity to define the alternatives in organizational
analysis.
It can be argued, however, that in the period since Burrell and Morgan produced their model the
world of OT has changed significantly. In particular, from the 1990s a philosophically different
order of analysis emerged in the guise of post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism (see
Derrida, 1981; Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 2003, 2011; Weiss, 2000). This was a
movement whose theoretical characteristics appeared in stark contrast to those directed at explain-
ing agency and structure, which for social and organizational theory have represented, historically,
the two major orders of theoretical attention (Reed, 1997). Rather than seeking enlightenment
through meta-theory, the emphasis was now placed on narrative, with the influence of Michel
Foucault being seminal. Instead of the discrete philosophies of paradigms, it was discourses that
were difficult for sociologists to avoid: they affected our views on all matters and things; they
established the boundaries defining what could and could not be said the limits of acceptable
speech (Butler, 1997).
Consequently the rise of this post-structural third-order saw the practice of defining intellec-
tual communities as paradigms fall into decline. The historical bastion of paradigm thinking in
social and organizational theory, the subjective-objective dimension, deployed regularly in expla-
nations of agency and structure, appeared problematic as a basis for defining rhetorical or decon-
structionist theories, with this leading some to claim that the subject-object antonym had now
been eroded (Cunliffe, 2011, p. 261; see also Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2003). This latter view
underscored a range of sociological inquiries into, for example, agential realism (Barad, 1998),
critical realism (Fleetwood & Ackroyd, 2004), rhetorical institutionalism (Green & Li, 2011) and
structuration theory (Barley & Tolbert, 1997).
However, while this trend towards synthetic or reconciliatory thinking has promoted an under-
standing of the ontological inseparability of intra-acting agencies (Barad, 1998, p. 87), and thus
challenged individual metaphysics, it has also been suggested that the reasoning behind it remains
tentative or theoretically unresolved (Ahmed, 2008; Fraser, 2010). It can also be argued, more
prosaically, that the heralded erosion of ontological and epistemological antonyms, and the associ-
ated decline in paradigm modelling, may be forces that have worked to the detriment of basic
sociological explanation. We suggest that such developments may have inadvertently deprived
scholars of tools for appreciating the philosophical principles upon which social science perspec-
tives are based. While such understanding was common in the wake of Burrell and Morgan, in
recent years OT researchers have become less aware of the importance of meta-theoretical distinc-
tions for producing significant scholarship.
The aim of this paper, therefore, is to revisit the Burrell and Morgan (1979) model in order to
discern whether it has explanatory value for conceptualizing the post-paradigm times of contem-
porary OT. In contrast to much recent theorizing, we suggest that sociological knowledge can be
explained meta-theoretically. Our goal is to reverse the decline in paradigmatic thinking through
production of a model capable of conceptualizing, philosophically, the main theory orders of the
field. We argue that as disciplinary matrices, comprising a constellation of commitments, para-
digm communities reproduce assumptions of what represents appropriate professional behaviour,
with everyday practice reflecting the influence of accepted exemplars of research (Kuhn, 1970).
This sees a number of philosophical assumptions underpin what we argue are the three main
Hassard and Cox 1703
approaches to organizational theorizing of recent times structural, anti-structural and

post-structural.
We develop this analysis in four main phases. First, we introduce our basic argument and
approach, explaining how a third-order paradigm can be accounted for in OT. Second, we define
our use of the paradigm concept and the types of relations that exist between paradigms as organi-
zational fields. Third, we develop a framework for conceptualizing the recent evolution of OT, one
based on the comparison of meta-theoretical positions that underpin our paradigms. And fourth, we
explore those third-order research domains that present themselves as a direct result of this para-
digm (re)modelling. The paper culminates with a set of conclusions drawn from the investigation.
Argument and Approach

The primary task, therefore, is to extend the Burrell and Morgan framework to account for a third-
order paradigm based on post-structuralism and postmodernism. To this end, we identify charac-
teristics for this order in relation to Burrell and Morgans two main analytical dimensions: the
nature of social science and the nature of society. For the former, our (re)modelling suggests
that much third-order OT reflects ontologically relativist, epistemologically relationist and meth-
odologically reflexive characteristics; this also represents work that, in decentring human agency,
can be deemed deconstructionist in its treatment of human nature. Expanding this analysis to con-
sider meta-theories of the nature of society, we find two third-order research domains emerging
in recent decades: normative post-structural and critical post-structural. This part of our study
explains a range of contributions to these domains, with a particular focus being placed on actor-
network theory (ANT), given its sociological impact in recent times, notably in Europe (Meyer &
Boxenbaum, 2010; Sismondo, 2009). When this exercise is complete, we conclude that such theo-
rizing demonstrates how a sociological paradigm of post-structuralism and postmodernism can be
classified within, rather than outside, or after, the Burrell and Morgan framework.
Creating a recipe for paradigm soup?

In developing this argument we also note how in recent decades there have been many attempts to
explain the rise of an analytical order of post-structural and postmodern OT. Such accounts have
appeared in journal articles (e.g. Bechara & Van de Ven, 2011; Clegg & Kornberger, 2003;
Donaldson, 2003; Kilduff & Mehra, 1997), research monographs (e.g. Casey, 2002; Chan, 2000;
Chia, 1996) and edited volumes (e.g. Boje, Gephart, & Thatchenkery, 1995; Grey & Willmott,
2005; Linstead, 2004). In addition, textbooks have promoted a dedicated post-structuralist perspec-
tive for OT (e.g. Hancock & Tyler, 2001; Jackson & Carter, 2007) or else positioned postmodern-
ism as one of the main perspectives to have evolved within the field (e.g. Hatch & Cunliffe, 2006).
As debates on post-structuralism and postmodernism were arguably at their height during the late
1990s and early 2000s, writers have also speculated on the future for OT past postmodernism,
although as yet heralding no preferred intellectual heir (Cals & Smircich, 1999).
Within attempts to define this theoretical third order, however, one ingredient has been missing
an account whose analytical dimensions are compatible with earlier models of community struc-
ture. The widespread appeal and popularity of the Burrell and Morgan model stemmed from it
offering a plausible map for exploring intellectual terrain in the social sciences. Principally, it
explained the approximate location of contributions to theory and research in two-dimensional
space and plotted them accordingly. This led to a proposition that the main intellectual domains of
OT could be defined as belief systems, or paradigms, which interpreted the world of OT
in qualitatively different, or incommensurable, ways. Indeed during the 1980s and 1990s such
analysis, emphasizing a plurality of intellectual orientations, gave rise to an academic industry
founded on debating issues of community structure the so-called paradigm wars (see Astley &
Van de Ven, 1983; Deetz, 1996; Donaldson, 1985; Holland, 1990; Jackson & Carter, 1991; Lincoln,
1985; McKelvey, 1997; Pfeffer, 1997; Vogel, 2012).
With the rise of post-structuralism and postmodernism, however, attempts to define organiza-
tional theories so paradigmatically appeared to go out of fashion (see Tsoukas & Chia, 2011).
Indeed a marked decline in paradigm modelling occurred from the mid-1990s, notably around the
time that Deetz (1996, p. 191) suggested a new trajectory for OT re-think[ing] the Burrell and
Morgan legacy by work[ing] out the significance of the linguistic turn in modern philosophy
for organizational analysis and practice (p. 193) (cf. Newton, Deetz, & Reed, 2011). In contrast to
Burrell and Morgan, Deetzs thesis accounted for the representational practices of organizational
discourses, an argument directed at identifying the conflicts and contradictions internal to
mobile but specifiable relations rather than the structure and content of communal paradigms
(Alvesson & Deetz, 2000, p. 25; cf. Goles & Hirschheim, 2000; Vogel, 2012).
The decline in paradigm thinking appeared to be predicated on an argument at the heart of
Deetzs (1996) analysis: that the research characteristics of post-structuralism could not be
accounted for through deploying traditional sociological dualisms. Contributions to post-structur-
alism and postmodernism appeared to be premised not on the use but on the interrogation of those
binary oppositions habitually deployed in paradigm structuring accounts (Tsoukas & Knudsen,
2003). It was suggested, above all, that the subjective-objective dimension (Burrell & Morgan,
1979, pp. 19), which accounted for explanations of agency and structure, did not make analytical
sense for defining the rhetorical and reflexive theories of the new order, where the emphasis was
placed instead on representation (Deetz, 1996). Under postmodernism the human subject was
neither behaviourally determined by external stimuli, nor existentially thrown into the world alive
and kicking, but instead was considered philosophically decentred, or even dead (Linstead, 2004).
From the mid-1990s, the few attempts to offer paradigm-based explanations in OT, notably for
classifying qualitative research (e.g. Gephart, 2004; Guba & Lincoln, 1994), reflected pale imita-
tions of the earlier Burrell and Morgan thesis.
As a result, while philosophical thinking has remained buoyant in OT (see Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 2011), during the last decade or so scholars have referred less fre-
quently to the importance of meta-theoretical assumptions when producing significant scholarship.
One reason is that, in the current intellectual climate, defining such values for third-order research
appears an antithetical or even counter-cultural enterprise, one that has seen OT researchers appear
wary of assessing such theorizing alongside extant models of paradigm structure (see Cunliffe,
2011). Another is the fear of theorizing being deemed intellectually nostalgic, for in OT the rewards
for neolexia appear to outweigh those for replication or retrospection (Rhodes & Pullen, 2010):
neologisms abound in the field and leading journals feel a recurrent need to request new theories
of organization (Suddaby, Hardy, & Huy, 2011), rather than reflections on the old.
Furthermore, whereas OT researchers have frequently specified dedicated post-structural strat-
egies for being, for example, reflexively critical of ones own intellectual practices (Alvesson,
2003), or demonstrating that attempts to discover the genuine order of things are mistaken (Hardy,
Phillips, & Clegg, 2001; Weick, 1999), they have been hesitant to suggest that we can capture their
essence within a set of basic meta-theoretical principles. As commentators suggest that the theory
structure of OT has now turned into paradigm soup (Buchanan & Bryman, 2009, p. 4), the pros-
ecution of a seemingly essentialist exercise has appeared not only complex and challenging but
also professionally miscreant, or even heretical (Cals & Smircich, 2003).
It is our intention, however, to go against this intellectual grain in order to assist researchers in
their understanding of OT and its recent evolution. Although writers such as Cals and Smircich
(2003) query the extent to which such an enterprise is sociologically valid for it appears to engen-
der schematization of a form that many post-structuralists would consider problematical our view
is that this is not an intellectual problem per se. Our position is that it is entirely possible to sche-
matize theoretical positions which eschew schematization, for although certain academic commu-
nities may not warm to such an endeavour this is not a logical reason for excluding it.
Specifically we wish to complement previous philosophical analyses of organization theory by
providing a new set of meta-theoretical assumptions for the field. In so doing, if not a recipe, we
provide a classificatory framework for OTs so-called paradigm soup, notably in respect of third-
order analysis. In contrast to the many discrete attempts to conceptualize post-structuralism and
postmodernism in OT (e.g. Chia, 2003; Hatch & Yanow, 2003; Willmott, 2003), this account sees
third-order analysis defined relationally through direct meta-theoretical correspondence and com-
parison with the two traditional theory orders of the field: agency and structure (see Hatch &
Schultz, 2000).
A quasi-essentialist method
The approach we adopt to paradigm explanation therefore is basically essentialist, in that it
describes key assumptions underpinning theory orders. However, it can be more accurately
described as cautiously or quasi-essentialist, in that our paradigms are defined as permeable rather
than hermetic phenomena. Metaphorically they are not sovereign states but fields of influence that
operate in relative tension with one another. In short, they are relational ideal-types.1
Similar to Kilduff, Mehra and Dunn (2011), we outline organizing principles of importance to
scientific communities in OT, but also include a third-order of perspectives excluded from their
analysis of the production of scientific knowledge. Further, like Deetz (1996) and Cunliffe (2011),
our analysis is largely retrospective, in that it draws upon earlier work in OT, specifically theoriz-
ing on paradigms, for its orientation. Unlike Deetz and Cunliffe, however, we propose that the
paradigm notion remains useful for OT, not only for understanding theoretical traditions but also
for generating new research methodologies.2
We argue, further, that in revisiting the paradigm concept our thesis both respects the impor-
tance of foundational works (see Adler, 2009) and seeks to utilize them for purposes of sociologi-
cal clarification (cf. LePine & Wilcox-King, 2010). Through helping researchers to understand a
range of theoretical and methodological positions we stimulate consideration of how they may be
combined in field investigations (see Newton, 2010). In this respect, ours is a traditional sociologi-
cal project (cf. Burrell, 1997): one that can be contrasted with those wishing to weaken or even
collapse ontological and epistemological distinctions (Cunliffe, 2003, 2011) or else cultivate the
more complex logics of problematization (Locke & Golden-Biddle, 1997; Sandberg & Alvesson,
2011), thereby rendering much contemporary (Jones & Munro, 2005) organizational analysis
relatively inaccessible to empirical researchers.
Finally, rather than choose a set of arbitrary or discrete labels for characterizing recent OT para-
digms, we will differentiate them by reference to a single corresponding term structure. Although
in our case transcending the thesis of Burrell and Morgan, this is akin to how Gioia and Pitre (1990,
p. 588) deployed the general concept of structure as a running theme in their analysis of multi-
paradigm theory building. Within an ideal-type approach that might otherwise be comparing func-
tionalism, interpretivism and postmodernism, we will describe contributions to structural,
anti-structural and post-structural analysis, respectively. In relational terms this sees, for example,
concepts of organization and organizing treated in the first paradigm as stable and objective phe-
nomena, in the second as unstable and socially constructed, and in the third as destabilized and
decentred.3
Defining Paradigms and Paradigm Relations

We now define what we mean by the term paradigm. As noted, our analysis takes as its departure-
point the original Burrell and Morgan model. However, in attempting to extend it, so as to take
account of post-structural and postmodern OT, we diverge from some of the principles on which it
is based. It is in this sense that we seek to develop rather than translate Burrell and Morgan.
Rethinking paradigms
Burrell and Morgan classified OT theories through a matrix based on the intersection of two axes,
subjective-objective and regulation-radical change; basically a reworking of the traditional socio-
logical dualisms of agency-structure and consensus-conflict. The resulting 2 2 matrix reflected
four sociological paradigms: functionalist; interpretive; radical humanist; and radical structuralist.
These paradigms were founded upon mutually exclusive views of the organizational world each
operated in its own right and generated its own distinctive analyses. Taken together these para-
digms offered a map for locating the analytical domains of OT, one which offered a convenient
means of identifying similarities among and differences between research contributions and the
sociological frames of reference they adopt.
In so doing, Burrell and Morgan invoked a specific use of the term paradigm, one that func-
tioned primarily to justify the dimensions that underpinned their 2 2 matrix. This culminated in
a model in which their paradigms define fundamentally different perspectives for the analysis of
social phenomena: they represented incommensurable phenomena which generate quite differ-
ence concepts and analytical tools (Burrell & Morgan, 1979, p. 23). In the process, however, their
thesis did not rehearse, in a direct sense, any of Thomas Kuhns (1962) original uses of the term
paradigm in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Indeed it did not even invoke any of those
inferred subsequently by his critics, such as the twenty-one famously identified by Margaret
Masterman (1970; see also Lakatos & Musgrave, 1970).
In contrast, the model developed in this paper adheres more closely to a Kuhnian position. We
return to Kuhn to understand the original meaning of the term paradigm and why it has been
considered so powerful (Vasquez, 1998). In the second edition of The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions (1970, with a Postscript) on being pressed over definition, Kuhn outlined two prin-
cipal uses of the concept: exemplar and disciplinary matrix. In broad terms, the former refers
to the fundamental scientific model or law, the latter to the sociological nature of the scientific
community. In developing a Kuhnian account, we adopt the latter notion as a generic signifier of
intellectual orientations reflected in a range of meta-theoretical positions. The focus is upon
scientific fields that mirror communal philosophical assumptions and share exemplars of profes-
sional practice. These orders and their related research domains are akin to what Haas (1992,
p. 3) described as professional communities, or networks of professionals possessing recog-
nised expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy
relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area (see also Haas, 1989; Knorr Cetina, 1991,
2010). Such networks share normative beliefs which provide a value-based rationale for action
and reflect what Vasquez (1998, p. 20) referred to as the basis of classifying an aggregate of
scholars as a community.
For us, therefore, the forms of knowledge generated by a research communitys normal sci-
ence (Kuhn, 1962, 1970) largely reflect the meta-theoretical assumptions to which its network of
academics adhere. We argue that deploying the notion of paradigm to reflect the main disciplinary
matrices/epistemic communities of OT is a far richer use of the term than in Burrell and Morgan.
Unlike Deetz (1996, 2009), who rejects the term paradigm in favour of discourse, because there are
too many internal debates within OT, we suggest that major intellectual orders can be identified
as ideal-type communities for the simple reason that ontologically, epistemologically and meth-
odologically they collectively share far more than they withhold. In our analysis, this sees post-
structuralism and postmodernism form a generic paradigm, albeit that we recognize the variety of
meanings to which these terms can refer.
Paradigms as organizational fields

In line with earlier theorizing (e.g. Lewis & Grimes, 1999; Schultz & Hatch, 1996) we adopt
what might be termed a medial position on community science. Metaphorically we argue that
sociological paradigms are neither ephemeral clouds (Cunliffe, 2011; Gergen, 1992) nor
impenetrable citadels (Jackson & Carter, 1991, 2008; Kilduff et al., 2011), but instead analo-
gous to fields whose habitats are circumscribed by indeterminate edgelands (see Farley &
Symmons Roberts, 2011; Rapport, Wainwright, & Elwyn, 2005; Shoard, 2002). The latter repre-
sent for us the type of unorthodox intellectual spaces that Pullen & Rhodes (2009, p. 11) suggest
exist beyond field boundaries; that is, in the borderlands and badlands of organization theory,
where there is a paucity of agreement between theory groups (see also Burrell, 2012). Thanem
(2006, p. 165) offers a similar analogy in his analysis of living on the edge of organizational
analysis, in which he discusses disrupting boundaries by inhabiting the margins and peripher-
ies of the field (see also Rehn & Borgerson, 2005; Thanem, 2011). In research terms, however,
we suggest that metaphorically such areas represent not so much boundaryless plains (Pullen
& Rhodes, 2009, p. 11) as liminal zones between established fields of inquiry. By extension we
argue that while paradigm orders reflect communities with well-established beliefs and values,
their academic meta-languages are, for the most part, translatable in the process of doing bound-
ary-work at these intellectual margins (see Willmott, 1993; also Bloor, 1991; Laudan, 1984;
Sismondo, 2005). For us, paradigms are thus incompatible rather than incommensurable phe-
nomena, reflecting what might be termed a neo-Kuhnian position on community structure (see
also Vogel, 2012). By way of a simple Venn diagram, Figure 1 describes the kinds of metaphori-
cal relationships we have in mind.
Of course, based on sets of dualisms, earlier paradigm models (often in a somewhat self-contra-
dictory way: see McKelvey, 2008) suggested that sociological paradigms are insulated phenomena
locked in conflict of a dialectical kind. In contrast, our description of a triumvirate of organiza-
tional fields sees them relationally, to quote Kuhn (1977), in essential tension with one another,
rather than engaged in wars on two fronts (see Mir & Mir, 2002; Pfeffer, 1997). Paradigm com-
munities are constantly seeking a balance between exploitation and exploration (Knudsen, 2003,
p. 280); at once working within a framework and trying to transcend it. Thus, while communities
within one research paradigm may be philosophically opposed to the theoretical or methodological
practices of a second, they may also be relatively disposed to those of a third. To borrow a geologi-
cal analogy, the tensional forces can be both convergent and divergent. Although the paradigm
terrain remains relatively stable, constituent research communities change over time, through
physically contracting and expanding, or else intellectually developing their theories and methods
(cf. Thompson, 2011).
Figure 1. Relational Metaphors for OT Paradigms: Organizational Fields, Liminal Zones and Tensional
Forces.
In our thesis, for example, we would argue that some forms of post-structural analysis can be
relatively opposed to the nomothetic methods of a structural order yet relatively disposed to the
interpretive practices of anti-structuralism. Indeed the epistemological and methodological charac-
teristics of one paradigm may directly influence the development of another. This might see for
example (anti-structural) ethnomethodology influencing (post-structural) actor-network theory.
Although primarily we offer a pluralist approach, based on the differentiation of paradigm charac-
teristics, in suggesting that our fields reflect ideal-types (Weber, 1930) we also accept there is
room for significant ambiguity and contradiction at the intellectual margins and in liminal zones.
Our thesis accepts such heterodoxy in that, for example, not all post-structural work is reflexive
and relativist, for some post-structuralists identify macro (social and cultural) meta-discourses and
thus do not always question or undermine their own position. Similarly, some anti-structural or
social constructionist research can display elements of relative, reflexive or relational analysis. The
same logic applies to ideology, where arguably (post-structural) autonomism shares many political
ideals with (structural) labour process theory. In short, we can identify ideal-type characteristics for
a paradigm but we do not have to define that paradigm as intellectually sealed, professionally static
or methodologically uniform (see also Vogel, 2012). Paradigms in social science, perceived by
Kuhn (1970) as scientifically immature phenomena, always contain the types of internal debate
of which Deetz (1996) speaks.4
Table 1. Meta-theories for OT Paradigms.
Structural paradigm Anti-structural paradigm Post-structural paradigm

Ontology Realist Nominalist Relativist Relativista
Epistemology Positivist Constructionist Relationist Relacionista
Human nature Determinist Voluntarist Deconstructionist Descontroe pq no
Methodology Deductive Interpretive Reflexive Reflexiva - existe natureza humana
aquilo que se estuda,
reflete e altera o que acontece
A New Meta-theoretical Framework

Having defined our theoretical position we can now describe our model. In so doing, we classify
contemporary paradigms, justify their inclusion in the analysis, and populate them in terms of
theory and method. The intention is not to describe the character of traditional paradigms based on
agency and structure, for this has been accomplished in a plethora of post-Kuhnian works from the
1970s onwards (see Friedrichs, 1970; Gouldner, 1970; Silverman, 1970, etc.) Instead we will
reflect on whether a model originally devised to account for such paradigms Burrell and Morgan
(1979) can be extended to define the major theoretical developments of recent decades.
Assumptions about the nature of social science

We compare initially the main assumptions of our three paradigms on the criteria originally speci-
fied by Burrell and Morgan for understanding assumptions about the nature of social science; that
is, ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology (see Table 1). As the characteristics of
our structural and anti-structural paradigms share common ground, respectively, with the objectiv-
ist and subjectivist antonyms originally outlined by Burrell and Morgan (1979, pp. 19), we will
not rehearse them here. Suffice it to say that apart from some minor changes to the original Burrell
and Morgan terminology namely, replacing nomothetic with deductive, idiographic with inter-
pretive and anti-positivist with constructionist, in order to offer more accessible or contemporary
terms these dimensions remain intact in terms of their definition in the original thesis. Instead our
model is devoted to unpacking the meta-theoretical assumptions of the paradigm not accounted for
in Burrell and Morgan post-structuralism. This sees each of Burrell and Morgans original criteria
explored in relation to the literature on third-order analysis. As noted, for the nature of social sci-
ence, our argument is that post-structural OT can be classified, paradigmatically, as: ontologically
relativist, epistemologically relationist, and methodologically reflexive; this also represents work
that, in decentring agency, can be termed deconstructionist in accounting for human nature.
To make this argument tangible we offer, as a running example, research within a prominent
third-order community: actor-network theory (ANT). This is chosen because ANT reflects contri-
butions both to theory and method in organization studies (see Bruce & Nyland, 2011; Hardy et al.,
2001; Newton, 2002; Whittle & Spicer, 2008). ANT is a particularly appropriate case to follow,
given the considerable sociological attention it has received in recent years, with one monograph
alone, Latours (2005) Reassembling the Social, selling over 20,000 copies. ANT is also appropri-
ate in that its definition within our model serves to reflect issues of paradigm liminality.5
Paradigm meta-theories for post-structuralism and postmodernism

We argue that developments in the field of post-structuralism and postmodernism can be explained
in terms of the four meta-theories which largely underpin it as an OT paradigm (see Table 1).
Ontology. The first criterion proposed by Burrell and Morgan for assessing research philosophies is
ontology (or the theory of being). In post-structural and postmodern analysis, we argue that the
ontological position that is most readily inferred is relativism. Although third-order approaches
often express agnosticism about the nature of reality, preferring to make epistemological rather
than ontological claims, for us the concept of ontological relativism is of heuristic value (see
Abbott, 2004) in that it differentiates the metaphysics of a post-structural order from those realist
and nominalist ontologies that characterize, respectively, structural and anti-structural theorizing.
In other words, relativism is expedient in that it sunders post-structuralism and postmodernism
from absolute notions of objective truth and subjective meaning, with the work of Michel Foucault
being an exemplar in this respect. It can be argued, further, that literary deconstruction, another
exemplar of the paradigm, is particularly ontologically relativist, for it reflects the argument that
the fundamental meaning of texts is located in their reading and appropriation. Here the relativist
implication is that there can be no true reading of a text and no text apart from its reading (see
Derrida, 1981).
If we turn to our running example, we find that actor-network theory is ontologically relativist
in the assumptions it makes about the nature of social and technical forces. For example, ANTs
suppositions about the transient material-semiotic character of such phenomena see judgements
about truth and falsity, good and bad, and right and wrong treated as relative to the context in ques-
tion. Moreover in its early formulations (e.g. Callon, 1986, 1987) ANT appears to relativize cul-
tural differences in assuming, somewhat controversially, that all elements in a network human
and non-human can and should be described in similar analytical terms, or the principle of gen-
eralized symmetry (McLean & Hassard, 2004). With regard to the study that provided much of the
inspiration for ANT, Latour and Woolgars (1979) Laboratory Life, we agree with Azevedo (1997)
that admitting the existence of reality is alone not enough to avoid relativism. Given their basic
philosophy and method, Azevedo argues it is hard to see in what way Latour and Woolgar can be
other than radically relativist, intentions notwithstanding. In short the reality of Latour and
Woolgar is not the reality of the realist (Azevedo, 1997, p. 71; see also Restivo & Croissant,
2008).
Furthermore, despite anti-foundational (Cordella & Shaikh, 2006) claims that in ANT differ-
ences between elements are generated in the network of relations and thus should not be presup-
posed, we argue that this, itself, is an ontological position. When we consider, for example, the
nature of actants (human and non-human actors) in an actor-network, we assume that they take
the shape they do by virtue of their relative interactions with one another (Latour, 1987). In early
writing on ANT there appears no essential difference in the ability of technology, animals or other
non-humans to act. Ontologically this assumes that we can only have experience of relative enacted
alliances, for the moment an actor engages with an actor-network it too is caught up in a web of
existential relationships. The early work of Bruno Latour (see Latour, 1987, 1988), for example, is
premised on a form of relativism which suggests that claims are always changed (or translated)
later by others, with arguments thus having no status independent of what is attributed to them
relatively.
Epistemology. Although for Burrell and Morgans second social science criterion, epistemol-
ogy (or the theory of knowledge), third-order contributions can be accounted for under a similar
banner of relativism, we feel a specific form is expedient in this respect: relationism. In provid-
ing grounds for knowledge, relationism is the theory that there are only relations between indi-
vidual entities and no intrinsic properties (Emirbayer, 1997; see also Mutch, Delbridge, &
Ventresca, 2006).
Given its concern to define social and technical relations, our running example of ANT reflects
many of the qualities of relationism expressed in Karl Mannheims pioneering work in the sociol-
ogy of knowledge. In his most famous book, Ideology and Utopia (1936), Mannheim followed
Max Scheler (1924) in arguing for a conception of ideology that accounts for actors beliefs,
including the social scientists, as a relational product of the context in which they are created. For
Mannheim, to argue that knowledge is relational is to say that there are spheres of thought in
which it is impossible to conceive of absolute truth existing independently of the values and posi-
tion of the subject and unrelated to the social context (Mannheim, 1936, p. 79). Put another way,
this relationist epistemology suggests that the recognition of different perspectives appears arbi-
trary only to an abstract and disembodied theory of knowledge (Barnes, 1977; Zammito, 2007).
We contend that in its various formulations ANT exemplifies many of the assumptions of rela-
tionist epistemology. This is reflected in the treatment of multiple material-semiotic actors, or the
view that the technical and social co-produce each other, with such analysis being relational both
in theoretical and empirical terms. In other words, epistemologically ANT has been used to con-
ceptualize, simultaneously, relations between (material) things and (semiotic) concepts. When
such assumptions are reflected practically, in fieldwork, the interactions that researchers examine
in an organization involve relations between people, ideas and technologies, which together can be
understood to form a network. As Law (1999, p. 3) suggests, entities take their form and acquire
their attributes as a result of their relations with other entities. Under ANT, such actor-networks
are always contextual and processual phenomena: as they exist only through continuous making
and remaking, it is relations that need to be repeatedly performed for such networks not to
dissolve.
Human nature. The third Burrell and Morgan criterion, human nature, is a compelling one for post-
structural analysis, for there appears to be no unified or autonomous subject to know and no per-
manent understanding of what human nature determined, voluntary or otherwise actually is
(see Butler, 1990, 1997). Instead, central to the anti-humanism of our third-order paradigm is the
view that concepts such as human nature or humanity should be rejected as historically relative or
metaphysical. From this view, much structural and agentic theorizing is charged with reflecting the
infinitist metaphysics (Derrida, 1976, p. 71) of logocentric philosophies, in which human agency
is founded on a core of awareness, and actions are coordinated from a knowing self, the agent act-
ing within the context of its own dynamic presence. Under logocentrism therefore the human
subject is treated as either a (structural) psychological marionette or an (anti-structural) agent of
cognitive choice.
For post-structuralism and postmodernism, however, the logocentric subject of modern psy-
chology becomes an image that is not sustainable. The grand isolation of the subject is replaced by
the notion of agency as a series of transient relations between networked phenomena. The subject
is no longer discretely bounded, but instead a convenient location for the throughput of discourses.
Much third-order theorizing suggests that any concept of agentic presence is always mediated by
one of post-human absence, and thus that consciousness is never unmediated but comes to us in an
indirect way. In this view, agency is an artefact and subjectivity a process of locating identity in the
language of the other (Cooper, 1983; Spoelstra, 2005). Rather than responding mechanistically to
the external environment, as per determinism, or being at the centre stage of free will, as per vol-
untarism, in much third-order theorizing the human subject is relationally decentred as the locus
of understanding. To account for such a position, rather than invoke an awkward neologism (such
as decentrist), given the Derridean overtones and conceptual ancestry, we characterize such theo-
rizing as reflecting a deconstructionist view on human nature.
Turning to our running example, it can be argued that much ANT research reflects such a decen-
tred view of human agency, notably one in which the social and technical are constituted relation-
ally through simultaneous symbolic and material systems. Under ANT the human subject often
appears deprived of the logocentric authority it possessed when analytically present. In Organizing
Modernity, for example, Law (1994, pp. 234) explains how notions of the decentring of the sub-
ject and heterogeneous materials inform his commitment to relational materialism, and thus
how the study of the scientific laboratory at Daresbury (UK) reflects the distributed or heterogene-
ous character of agency. Discussing Organizing Modernity elsewhere, he suggests that an organi-
sation, a noun, is best not understood as an organisation, a noun, at all, but rather as a verb, that is
as a process, a continuing process of movement (Law, 2003, p. 1). Organizing Modernity is thus a
plea to move from nouns to verbs, from things to processes; specifically processes of ordering.
Instead of the Daresbury laboratory representing an essential phenomenon privileging human
existence and intention, Law suggests this organization represents a materially heterogeneous
set of arrangement processes implicated in and implicating people, to be sure, but also including
and producing documents, codes, texts, architectures and physical devices (Law, 2003, p. 1;
emphasis in original). Law notes, however, that for social scientists such diffuse agency can some-
times be difficult to take on board, in that the non-human just as much as the human may act, a
corollary being that agency does not necessarily belong to people (Law, 2003, p. 1).
Methodology. Finally, the rise of post-structuralism and postmodernism in OT has provided signifi-
cant impetus to the development of reflexive methodology (Alvesson & Skldberg, 2000; Cunliffe,
2003). In our third-order paradigm, reflexivity is promoted through there being no one best way
of conducting theoretical or empirical research (Johnson & Duberley, 2003). The stress placed on
the constructive forces of language serves to question the notion that passive, rational and scientifi-
cally neutral observers can ever account objectively for real experiences (Denzin & Lincoln, 1994).
The linguistic turn of postmodernism emphasizes the often unstable, ambiguous, relational and
above all context-dependent nature of language and discourse. Methodological reflexivity not only
heightens our awareness of the dependence of sense-data on theory and interpretation but also
bolsters the notion that scientific facts can arise from constructed processes (see Bourdieu &
Wacquant, 1992; Woolgar, 1988). Indeed, a reflexive approach to methodology has become almost
de rigueur for investigations in our third-order paradigm, with several studies explaining the role
of scientists and scientific institutions in the construction of research accounts (see Bruce &
Nyland, 2011; Latour 1987; Law, 1994).6
Turning to our running ANT example, we find reflexivity expressed both in sociological theo-
rizing and accounts of organizational research. For the former, reflexivity attains perhaps its high-
est profile in the work of Bruno Latour and signally in his analysis of the production of scientific
facts in Science in Action (1987), a work devoted as much to ontological and epistemological
concerns as to the empirical study of technology. Elsewhere Latour (2003) discusses reflexivity in
his debate with Ulrich Beck on reflexive modernization (see Beck, Giddens, & Lash, 1994; Beck,
Bonss, & Lau, 2003), a discussion which sees Latour (2003, p. 36) explain the unintended conse-
quences and side effects of modernization, and how they reverberate throughout the whole of
society in such a way that they have become intractable. Under ANT, such side effects are reflex-
ive in that they propagate through multiple, separate networks and in the process finally become
reflected back onto what initially triggered them (Latour, 2003, p. 36). The end product is thus
the opposite of what was originally planned, with the propagation of side-effects bringing about
the dis-ordering of networks created by an initial ordering action (Hanseth, Jacucci, Grison, &
Margunn, 2006, pp. 45).
Closer to home, in OT, Hardy et al. (2001, p. 531) deployed ANT to reflexively investigate the
role of the researcher and the research community in the production of a research subject, in this
case the refugee. Using ANT concepts to move beyond the more conventional institutional and
discursive analyses adopted in their earlier investigations, this study reveals not only the actions
of actors in the refugee system, but also their own activities as researchers, as well as those of the
broader research community. Centrally, the concept of translation (Callon, 1986) is deployed to
explore the role of actors in the processes of social construction that produced refugees as a subject
of academic study. Their project ultimately argues for a re-conceptualization of reflexivity in OT,
one which moves beyond the common view of heroic individuals struggling to understand and
manage their role in their research and towards an understanding of reflexivity as involving the
research community as a whole (Hardy et al., 2001, p. 531).
Exploring Paradigms as Organizational Fields

Having discussed a paradigm of post-structuralism and postmodernism in relation to Burrell and
Morgans dimensions for the nature of social science, we complete our revisiting of their model
by considering third-order research in regard to the nature of society. In defining the political and
ideological orientations underpinning OT contributions this part of their thesis reflects the tradi-
tional order-conflict debate in social theory (see Dawe, 1970). By extending our analysis to con-
sider this second dimension we are now able to put political flesh on the philosophical bones of our
paradigms.
Assumptions about the nature of society

For assumptions about the nature of society, Burrell and Morgan suggest that researchers adhere to
different perceptions of the social world depending on the often tacit political philosophies they
embrace. This debate is an enduring one in social science it contrasts perspectives illuminating
the stabilizing effects of social order with those explaining the destabilizing effects of social
change. However, instead of the traditional antonyms used to define this debate, such as order-
conflict or consensus-coercion, Burrell and Morgan refer to differences between the sociology of
regulation and the sociology of radical change. They suggest that research adopting the former
perspective explains society in terms of its underlying cohesion; through explicating for example
the nature of the status quo, social order, consensus, integration and solidarity. In contrast, research
reflecting the latter, radical, perspective is concerned with explaining society in terms of underly-
ing division; for example, in relation to structural conflict, deprivation, contradiction and modes of
domination. Respectively these positions reflect the ideological assumptions of the political Right
and Left.
On developing our model to incorporate this second dimension, description of three paradigm
fields now expands to incorporate six analytical domains. Table 2 lists these domains which reflect
contributions originally identified by Burrell and Morgan plus others generated from an exercise in
which third-order research was similarly assessed and classified. The result is a matrix based on a
combination of a priori theoretical reasoning (y axis) and a posteriori textual interpretation (x
axis). Unlike Burrell and Morgans extensive book-length offering, however, this analysis can only
facilitate a cursory appreciation of sample contributions. To this end, we have catalogued, per
domain, three examples each for theories, theorists and research. Citing a more extensive set of
contributions (pre- and post-Burrell and Morgan) would represent an exercise beyond the scope of
a journal article.
Table 2. Typology of OT Research Domains: Examples of Theories, Theorists and Research.
Paradigm Research domain OT theories (e.g.) Influential theorists Research and analysis in
and writers (e.g.) OT (e.g.)
Structural Normative Contingency theory Alfred Chandler Donaldson (2001)
structural Institutional theory Philip Selznick Greenwood et al. (2008)
Population ecology Eugene Odum Aldrich (2008)
Structural Critical Labour process Harry Braverman McCann et al. (2008)
structural theory
Radical Max Weber Mouzelis (1975)
Weberianism
Socialist feminism Shulie Firestone Walby (1986)
Anti- Normative Ethnomethodology Harold Garfinkel Llewellyn & Hindmarsh
structural anti-structural (2010)
Phenomenology Edmund Husserl Holt & Sandberg (2011)
Social Alfred Schutz Hosking & McNamee
constructionism (2006)
Anti- Critical anti- Anti-organization Herbert Marcuse Anthony (1977)
structural structural Theory
Critical discourse Norman Fairclough Phillips et al. (2008)
Critical theory Jrgen Habermas Burrell (1994)
Post- Normative Actor-network Bruno Latour Hardy et al. (2001)
structural post-structural theory
Archeo-genealogy Michel Foucault Hodgson (2000)
Process theory Henri Bergson Tsoukas & Chia (2002)
Post- Critical post- Autonomism Antonio Negri Harney (2007)
structural structural Post-structural Julia Kristeva Thomas & Davies (2005)
feminism
Post-colonialism Gayatri Spivak Jones (2005)
Finally, to classify research in terms of underlying political and ideological assumptions, rather
than deploy Burrell and Morgans original bifurcation of the sociologies of regulation and radical
change, for contemporary OT we consider it more appropriate to differentiate between normative
(Habermas, 1987; Jacobs & Hanrahan, 2005; Peters, 2005) and critical (Alvesson & Willmott, 1992,
2003; Grey & Willmott, 2005; Parker, 2002) contributions. This is perhaps compelling in the case of
the latter, given the widespread use of the term as an identifier for ideologically Leftist analysis across
a range of OT approaches (see Fournier & Grey, 2000; also Alvesson & Deetz, 2000; Deetz, 1996).
Research domains
Based on their political and ideological characteristics we argue therefore that our three paradigm
fields reflect the following research domains: normative structural; critical structural; normative
anti-structural; critical anti-structural; normative post-structural; and critical post-structural. In
terms of their meta-theoretical assumptions the first four basically reflect the original Burrell and
Morgan paradigms i.e. normative structural qua functionalist; critical structural qua radical struc-
turalist; normative anti-structural qua interpretive; critical anti-structural qua radical humanist. For
these domains Table 2 offers examples not only in terms of theories originally accounted for in
Burrell and Morgan (e.g. anti-organization theory; contingency theory, ethnomethodology; labour
process theory) but also for those emerging in the decades since (e.g. critical discourse; institu-
tional theory; population ecology; process theory).7 As the political and ideological assumptions
underpinning these domains have been explained in a number of Burrell and Morgan-related
accounts (see Hearn & Parkin, 1983; Jennings, Perren, & Carter, 2005; Lewis & Grimes, 1999) we
will not rehearse them here.8 Instead we will focus on the (third-order) domains not accounted for
in Burrell and Morgan normative post-structural and critical post-structural.
Normative post-structural domain. Within this domain are located contributions that are recur-
rently classified as post-structural or postmodern but which for many commentators do not take
explicit recourse to a traditional politics of the radical Left. In terms of influences on a third-
order paradigm, this domain represents the analytical heartland of theorizing. It includes in
particular a line of major French philosophers of the twentieth century, from Bataille to Derrida
by way of Foucault. Above all, it is a tradition that wishes to dissolve the subject, attack histori-
cism (notably historical materialism) and promote a critique of meaning. Thinking in this
domain emphasizes the interaction of reader and text as a productivity, or a position where
reading has lost its status as a passive consumption of a product to become performance
(Sarup, 1993, p. 3). As the influence of this tradition has been documented on many occasions
notably in relation to Foucaults work (see Burrell, 1988; Hodgson, 2000; McKinlay & Star-
key, 1998; Rowlinson & Carter, 2002) suffice it to say that the normative post-structural
domain has offered OT a bountiful critique of concepts such as causality, identity, self, subject
and truth (see Boje et al., 1995; Chia, 2003; Kilduff & Mehra, 1997; Linstead, 2004; Research
in the Sociology of Organizations, 2003).
As a research domain, however, this is a tradition whose exemplars have often formed a natural
object for radical, notably Marxist, political and ideological criticism (see Detmer, 2003). The
influential work of Foucault has represented a primary target in this respect. Although we would
argue that through examination of social institutions, power and discourse, Foucault (e.g. 1970,
1974, 1976, 1979, 1980) represents an archetypal critical thinker, we note also how in ideological
terms his work has been famously denounced as crypto-normativist by Jrgen Habermas (1984,
p. 103; see also Habermas, 1987). In particular Habermas admonishes Foucault for relying on the
kind of Enlightenment principles he is presumably attempting to deconstruct (see also Ingram,
1994; Owen, 1995). Habermas (1984, p. 106) argues that Foucaults stoic gaze results in a treat-
ment of human history that is frozen into an iceberg covered with the crystals of arbitrary formula-
tions of discourse. For his Marxist critics, therefore, Foucaults work is but a mixture of empirical
insights and normative confusions (Fraser, 1981, p. 283). Arguably the key exemplar in this
domain, the political charge is that his theorizing operates without the kind of substantive Marxist
critique that, for Burrell and Morgan, is a cornerstone of being genuinely radical. This has seen
Foucaults work readily contrasted with critical theory, which in classical Marxist fashion attempts
both to understand the world and to change it (Ashenden & Owen, 1999; Kelly, 1994). As Sartre
(1966, p. 88) once argued, this lack of a radical political critique sees Foucaults work ultimately
condemned as the last rampart of the bourgeoisie.9
If we extend this analysis to our running example, we note that, despite being regularly described
as a critical or alternative method for organizational research, ANT has frequently been denounced
as sociologically normative, apolitical and even conservative (see Bowker & Star, 1999; Dolwick,
2009; Gareau, 2005; Rudy & Gareau, 2005). Such criticism has been at its strongest when directed
at early ANT writing, and especially work by Michel Callon and Bruno Latour (see Winner, 1993).
In OT similarly, ANT has been accused of having relatively little to say about a radical politics of
a tangible kind, notably as argued by Whittle and Spicer (2008, p. 611), who wished to question
the contribution of ANT to developing a critical theory of organization.
Critical post-structural domain. In contrast, theoretical research in our critical post-structural domain
is oriented directly towards a radical Leftist agenda (see Peters, 2001). In the post-Burrell and
Morgan period we can identify for example writing on feminism, patriarchy and the body by a
number of socialist post-structuralist feminists (see Weedon, 2004 for a review). In terms of politi-
cal philosophy, among the most influential writers associated with this domain are Julia Kristeva
and Donna Haraway. We note however that the relationship between post-structural feminism and
Marxism is a complex and often antagonistic one, as reflected for example in the work of Luce
Irigaray and associates (Whitford, 1991; see also Vachhani, 2012).
Similarly in this domain, Jones (2005) has brought to our attention the work of the practical
Marxist-feminist-deconstructionist Gayatri Spivak. Focusing on her work in post-colonialism,
Joness praise extends to describing Spivak as a crucially important organization theorist (Jones,
2005, p. 228). Through a continuous mobilization of deconstructive moves Spivak reminds us
how much of even the most critical and apparently sophisticated writing on organization today
(poststructuralist or otherwise), has yet to alert itself to the task of dismantling colony (Jones,
2005, p. 241). Drawing upon the post-colonialist and post-structuralist writing of Homi Bhabha,
Frenkels (2008) analysis of the discourses of international management offers a kindred exemplar
for this domain.
Another theoretical perspective located here is autonomism, and specifically for OT autono-
mist writing associated with critical management studies (see Bohm, 2005; Fleming, 2009;
Harney, 2006, 2007; Wright, 2007; cf. Rowlinson, 2008). Autonomism represents a tradition of
Marxism which places at its centre the self-activity of the working class. Its most developed
contemporary expression has evolved from the struggles of Italian workers, students and femi-
nists, as formulated in the work of revolutionary intellectuals such as Franco Beradi, Sergio
Bologna, Mariorosa Dalla Costa, Raniero Panzieri, Mario Tronti, and especially Antonio Negri
(see Hardt & Negri, 2000). These writers/activists address debates on the prospects for a contem-
porary revolutionary Left and, in particular, the view that we are encountering a distinctive new
era of capitalist development, postmodern capitalism. This is characterized by capitalisms
extensive deployment of information technologies in order to achieve unprecedented levels of
workplace automation, societal surveillance and global mobility (see Lazzarato, 1996). Such
analysis is distinctive in the insights it offers into new forms of knowledge and communication,
not merely as instruments of domination, but also as potential resources for working-class strug-
gle. In this respect the writings of Negri and his colleagues represent a significant Marxist coun-
ter-interpretation of the information society.
Finally, if we turn to our running example, we can identify recent work promoting a Leftist
agenda for ANT. Like critics cited above, Alcadipani and Hassard (2010, p. 419) argue that despite
recent popularity ANT appears to lack a substantive political critique, and that this is particularly
apparent in its translations in management and organization studies. On reviewing the litera-
ture, however, they suggest the potential for such critique can be detected in writing on ANT and
After (after Law & Hassard, 1999), which de-naturalizes organization(s), has the ability to
deliver critical performativity, and at the same time offer[s] a reflexive approach to management
and organizational knowledge (Alcadipani & Hassard, 2010, p. 419). Citing a range of examples,
Alcadipani and Hassard describe how this approach represents a new direction for ANT, primarily
through a developing a political ontology of organizing. Other ANT works within this research
domain include, for example, the study of Hinchliffe, Kearnes, Degen and Whatmore (2005) on
cosmopolitics in urban planning, and Bruce and Nylands (2011) analysis of the political net-
works of Elton Mayo and the ideology of the Human Relations School.
Conclusions
This paper has revisited the Burrell and Morgan model with the aim of re-establishing the para-
digm concept for assessing intellectual developments in OT. Developing a quasi-essentialist
approach, the objective has been to identify paradigmatic assumptions underpinning the major
theory orders of recent decades. This ideal-type analysis has seen a new meta-theoretical frame-
work produced for explaining intellectual relations between sociological paradigms.
In developing this argument we contend that the major paradigm to emerge in the post-Burrell
and Morgan period is one based on post-structuralism and more broadly postmodernism. We argue
that this paradigm is underpinned by a qualitatively different set of intellectual assumptions to
those reflected in traditional sociological perspectives directed at analysing agency and structure.
Despite the suggestion that developing a framework for comparing post-structural theorizing with
established sociological paradigms would be heresy (Cals & Smircich, 2003) we have taken up
the challenge. In so doing we have shown how such theorizing can be included within, rather than
placed outside or after, the most celebrated model for explaining OT paradigms, Burrell and
Morgan.
The core of this analysis suggests that third-order developments in OT can be classified as onto-
logically relativist, epistemologically relationist and methodologically reflexive; this also reflects
work that, in decentring human agency, can be termed deconstructionist in accounting for human
nature. When this analysis is extended to consider assumptions about the nature of society our
three paradigms incorporate six research domains, viz. normative structural, critical structural,
normative anti-structural, critical anti-structural, normative post-structural and critical post-struc-
tural. Focusing on those third-order domains established predominantly post-Burrell and Morgan
(i.e. normative post-structural and critical post-structural), a typology of theories, theorists and
research is presented to illustrate the kinds of contribution made and against which future contribu-
tions may be compared. In constructing this analysis we have offered as a running example organi-
zational research in the field of actor-network theory, which has allowed us to substantiate our
arguments in relation to method as much as theory.
Finally, if we consider not only the recent evolution but also the future of OT, we can suggest
that as our field has benefitted previously from marrying pluralistic theorizing to methodology, a
practical outcome of this project may be a research strategy based on paradigm triangulation. In
contrast to previous methodological innovations, this would see post-structural meta-theories
deployed alongside those for agency and structure as the basis for undertaking pluralistic investiga-
tions. Evolving from strategies such as multiple paradigm research, paradigm interplay and meta-
triangulation, and acknowledging paradigmatically both areas of overlap and sites of
contradiction (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011, p. 6), this may offer a more theoretically inclusive
strategy for investigating contemporary organizational phenomena. Despite a charge that empirical
research based on paradigm plurality can be superficial (or Teflon-coated: Deetz, 2009, p. 36),
such an approach would help answer the call by Bechara and Van de Ven (2011) for researchers to
triangulate their philosophies of science in order to understand organizational problems more
holistically. This strategy would allow us, at once, to acknowledge essential differences between
epistemic communities, highlight the contributions of marginalized research domains, and vari-
ously challenge the hegemonies of post-positivist discourse. In the words of Richard Rorty (1981),
it would provide for a sense of edifying philosophy in organization theory.
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. In accounting for OT paradigms as organizational fields, we engage in a cautiously essentialist or ideal-
type exercise. This is one, however, that is not afraid to sit outside its own paradigmatic classifications
or metaphorically push a bus in which one is riding (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 13). Instead of
dwelling on the internal logic of this exercise, in the spirit of Berger and Luckmann we wish instead
to engage in a pragmatic assessment of the field. Akin to Cunliffes (2011) analysis of Morgan and
Smircich 30 years on, but extending beyond the realm of qualitative inquiry, the project is directed at
helping organizational scholars to comprehend the relationships between philosophical assumptions,
theoretical perspectives and methodological strategies.
2. We argue, for example, that Cunliffes (2011) use of the metaphor of clouds (see also Gergen, 1992)
to classify intellectual developments in OT is less readily extendable than the more robust notion of
paradigm (see Eden, 2003). It is also less effectual methodologically, for many pluralistic empirical
approaches have been constructed in the wake of the so-called paradigm wars. Strategies such as
multiple paradigm research (Hassard, 1991; Kirkwood, & Campbell-Hunt, 2007), paradigm interplay
(Romani, Primecz, & Topcu, 2011; Schultz & Hatch, 1996) and meta-triangulation (Bechara & Van de
Ven, 2011; Lewis & Grimes, 1999), for example, have all provided OT with productive ways of col-
lecting and analysing data. Above all, such paradigm-based approaches have continued to contribute
significantly to developments in methodological triangulation.
3. Among the terminological options that might present themselves are functionalist, modernist, positivist
(for structural analysis); constructionist, interpretive, phenomenological (for anti-structural analysis); or
deconstructionist, nihilist, postmodernist (for post-structural analysis). We argue however that deploying a
corresponding notion (in this case structure) makes for more coherent framework building. This is despite
the fact that our focus is broader than purely structural issues of organization. Further, whereas for some
readers invoking labels such as anti-structural and post-structural might imply some privileging of an
order of structure, this is not our intention. Instead our paradigms are considered analytically pari passu.
4. Metaphorically, therefore, OT paradigms can be conceptualized as sociological fields encompassed by
marginal, contested terrain, in which we find the potential for overlap and complementarity as well as
sites of contradiction (Okhuysen & Bonardi, 2011, p. 6; see also Boisot & McKelvey, 2010). In other
words, they can represent variously stable, unstable and even destabilizing phenomena. Our point here
is that the concept of organization (and organizing) is for us a relational notion. As such, from the start
we define how in an ideal-type analysis, such as this, the goal is to identify typical theoretical orienta-
tions to aid our classificatory understanding. For example, in our structural paradigm (or what elsewhere
could be termed a functionalist order) the dominant emphasis is on analytical stability and objectivity
(e.g. in measuring tangible phenomena); in our anti-structuralist paradigm (or what elsewhere might be
called a constructionist order) it is on instability and process (e.g. in phenomenological explanations of
flow); and in our post-structuralist paradigm (or what elsewhere might be termed a postmodern order)
on acts of destabilizing and decentring (or explanations through deconstructive critique). Put simply, the
relational emphasis is different depending on the paradigm in use. Extending this relational metaphor, we
suggest that, despite a range of internal debates, the majority of research within a core paradigm field is
prosecuted under meta-theoretical conditions of ontological and epistemological consensus. For the most
part, everyday research activity reflects the normative values of the paradigm and its basic assumptions.
Predominantly, yet not exclusively, social scientists operate within what are philosophically durable
intellectual cultures. In Kuhnian terms, this corresponds to normal science in that theory and method
remain largely uncontaminated by the philosophical influences of other paradigms (see Gieryn, 1983;
Grey, 2007; Zietsma & Lawrence, 2010). Combined with a partitioning-off of the paradigm wars from
contemporary debates and developments, this relative lack of examination sees epistemic differences
perpetuated. It can be argued, for example, that the pragmatist hegemony of North American manage-
ment journals has encouraged relatively little inspection of alternative OT perspectives, such as actor-
network theory, autonomism or post-colonialism (see Pullen & Rhodes, 2009; Meyer & Boxenbaum,
2010; Oswick, Fleming, & Hanlon, 2011). Our neo-Kuhnian position, while rejecting fundamentalist
notions of paradigm incommensurability, thus largely accepts the influence of paradigmatic meta-theo-
ries on everyday research practice. However, we also argue that there is always the potential for interac-
tion at the margins of what are permeable scholarly domains. As noted, we feel the potential for such
interaction is greatest within those liminal precincts where paradigm fields can intellectually overlap
(cf. Howard-Grenville, Golden-Biddle, Irwin, & Mao, 2011). Metaphorically such interfacial areas do
not so much resemble the edges of tectonic plates as analytically more indeterminate zones, in which
ones sense of professional identity may dissolve to some extent. We would speculate that such realms
have the potential to facilitate assumption challenging (Sandberg & Alvesson, 2011) behaviour, in the
sense of heightened discussion of the philosophical principles on which rival paradigms are based. In
Kuhnian terms, such marginal domains may offer greater potential for revolutionary science, or theory
building of a more innovative kind.
5. ANT also appears appropriate given the well-known suggestion by Cals and Smircich (1999) that it is
one of the heirs apparent to emerge from the postmodern turn in OT. Unlike Cals and Smircich, how-
ever, we argue that ANT remains more closely tied to its post-structural parentage, despite its evolving
theoretical diversity (see Law, 1999). Corresponding to our framework, we describe how organizational
research based on ANT reflects, for the most part, meta-theories of ontological relativism, epistemo-
logical relationism and methodological reflexivity. Also, in terms of human nature and agency, we sug-
gest that in offering a relational perspective the human subject under ANT appears decentred as the
locus of socio-technical understanding (see Hardy et al., 2001; Law, 1994; Newton, 2002). However,
we also stress that the development of ANT reflects issues of paradigm liminality, with in particular the
approach sharing theoretical and methodological affinities with (anti-structural) ethnomethodology and
ethnography.
6. Advocates of methodological reflexivity, however, have not restricted themselves to critiques of the posi-
tivism and nomothesis associated with structural research. Anti-structural research, which takes recourse
predominantly to interpretive theories and methods, has undergone similar interrogation (Alvesson,
Hardy, & Harley, 2008). The potential in such interpretive accounts for both field researcher and theore-
tician to be complicit in the composition of articles of study has been noted (Cals & Smircich, 1999),
as has the problem that interpretation does not take place in a neutral, apolitical, ideology-free space,
nor is an autonomous, value-free researcher responsible for it (Alvesson & Skldberg, 2000, p. 9). In
contrast, it is axiomatic for third-order methodology that different kinds of linguistic, social, political
and theoretical elements are woven together in ways that shape the knowledge-development process
(Alvesson, Hardy, & Harley, 2004, p. 3).
7. In one case, however, social constructionism, we disagree with its original location in Burrell and
Morgan that it is characteristic of the subjectivist boundary of the functionalist paradigm (Burrell
& Morgan, 1979, p. 190). As such, given its core objectives, we have repositioned it (in more orthodox
fashion) within an interpretive anti-structuralist paradigm (see Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Silverman,
1970). This is despite the fact that such a (subjectivist) repositioning can be contrasted, on the one hand,
with work that would characterize social constructionism within a post-positivist objectivist problem-
atic reflecting reality as process (Cunliffe, 2011, p. 14) or, on the other, with theorizing that seeks
to entwine or mutually implicate subjectivism and objectivism (see Barley & Tolbert, 1997; Giddens,
1979; Orlikowski, 2000). As argued, integrative thinking in the latter mould which serves to erode the
subjective-objective antonym while sociologically challenging and progressive, may also inadvert-
ently thwart foundational theorizing for beginning researchers.
8. We would argue that these domains have not been static phenomena, for each has experienced signifi-
cant change in constitution over recent decades. We note, for example, how the decline of one school
and rise of another are frequently linked in terms of the research agenda being pursued. The process of
theoretical evolution can suggest not so much the death of one theory and the birth of another as more
of a theoretical repackaging or rebranding. A notable example of decline in our normative structural
(or in Burrell and Morgans terms, functionalist) paradigm, for example, would be contingency theory.
Although it is arguably the most influential school of this paradigm during the 1960s and 1970s (see
Burrell & Morgan, 1979, pp. 154181), it wanes significantly thereafter (see Donaldson, 1985; Gioia &
Pitre, 1990; Vogel, 2012). However, one of the major schools to emerge in its wake, population ecology,
appears to concern itself with altogether similar open systems problems. The focus of its research the
establishing or dissolving of organizations reflects kindred issues of relations between internal con-
tingencies and the competitive environment of the enterprise. Within the remaining paradigm domains
we witness similar movements with, on the one hand, many original Burrell and Morgan schools (e.g.
anti-organization theory, radical organization theory and radical Weberianism) appearing variously in
decline, transformation, or even liquidation while, on the other, some new ones (e.g. critical discourse
analysis, habitus, or social capital) materialize to make novel contributions. Other formerly high-profile
approaches, such as ethnomethodology and labour process theory, while retaining followers, appear
less influential than in decades past, especially for the latter in the wake of the so-called defeat of the
Left (Anderson, 2000) and rise of critical management studies (see Fournier & Grey, 2000; Rowlinson
& Hassard, 2011).
9. A kindred, yet broader, ideological critique is reflected in political theorist Frederic Jamesons (1991)
famous charge that postmodernism represents the cultural logic of late capitalism. Jameson argued
that postmodernist philosophies are politically problematic in that they refuse to engage critically with
the meta-narratives of capitalization and globalization. Such refusal thus renders them complicit with
prevailing relations of capitalist exploitation and domination. Callinicos (1991) similarly criticized post-
modernist writers such as Jean Baudrillard and Jean-Francois Lyotard for failing to take account of
related shifts in capital accumulation when documenting the so-called historical turn from modernism
to postmodernism. Norris (1982, p. 84) likewise argued that deconstruction is inimical to Marxism for
once criticism enters the labyrinth of deconstruction it is committed to a sceptical epistemology that
leads back to Nietzsche, rather than Marx. The tenor of such critique is summarized by Molyneux
(2010, p. 10), who suggests that this lack of radical politics sees postmodernism sing an old song long
intoned by bourgeois historians.
References
Abbott, A. (2004). Methods of discovery: Heuristics for the social sciences. New York: Norton.
Adler, P. S. (Ed.) (2009). The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: Classical foundations.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ahmed, S. (2008). Imaginary prohibitions: Some preliminary remarks on the founding gestures of the New
Materialism. European Journal of Womens Studies, 15, 2339.
Alcadipani, R., & Hassard, J. (2010). Actor-network theory, organization and critique: Towards a politics of
organizing. Organization, 17, 419435.
Aldrich, H. (2008) Organizations and environments. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Alvesson, M. (2003). Interpretive unpacking, moderately destabilizing identities and images in organization
studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 21, 327.
Alvesson, M., & Deetz, S. (2000). Doing critical management research. London: SAGE Publications.
Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2004). Reflecting on reflexivity. Academy of Management meeting.
Submission # 10240 140. New Orleans, August.
Alvesson, M., Hardy, C., & Harley, B. (2008). Reflecting on reflexivity: Reflexive textual practices in organi-
zation and management theory. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 480501.
Alvesson, M., & Skldberg, K. (2000). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London:
SAGE Publications.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (1992). Critical management studies. London: SAGE Publications.
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H. (Eds.) (2003). Studying management critically. London: SAGE Publications.
Anderson, P. (2000). Renewals. New Left Review, 1, 524.
Anthony, P. (1977). The ideology of work. London: Tavistock.
Ashenden, S., & Owen, D. (1999). Introduction: Foucault, Habermas and the politics of critique. In S.
Ashenden, & D. Owen (Eds.), Foucault contra Habermas: Recasting the dialogue between genealogy
and critical theory (pp.120). London: SAGE Publications.
Astley, G., & Van de Ven, A. (1983). Central perspectives and debates in organization theory. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, 245273.
Azevedo, J. (1997). Mapping reality: An evolutionary realist methodology for the natural and social sciences.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A
Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10, 87128.
Barley, S., & Tolbert, P. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and
institution. Organization Studies, 18, 93118.
Barnes, B. (1977). Interests and the growth of knowledge. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bechara, J., & Van de Ven, A. (2011). Triangulating philosophies of science to understand complex organiza-
tional and managerial problems. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 32, 342364.
Beck, U., Bonss, W., & Lau, C. (2003). The theory of reflexive modernization: Problematic, hypotheses and
research programme. Theory, Culture and Society, 20, 133.
Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the
modern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966).The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor.
Bloor, D. (1991). Knowledge and social imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bohm, S. (2005). Repositioning organization theory. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Boisot, M., & McKelvey, B. (2010). Integrating modernist and postmodernist perspectives on organizations:
A complexity bridge. Academy of Management Review, 35, 415433.
Boje, D., Gephart, R., & Thatchenkery, T. (Eds.) (1995). Postmodern management and organization theory.
New York: SAGE Publications.
Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Bowker, G., & Star, L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Bruce, K., & Nyland, C. (2011). The deification of Elton Mayo. Organization Studies, 32, 383405.
Buchanan, D. A., & Bryman, A. (2009). The organizational research context: Properties and implications. In
D. A. Buchanan & A. Bryman (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods (pp. 118).
London: SAGE Publications.
Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of Michel
Foucault. Organization Studies, 9, 221235.
Burrell, G. (1994). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 4: The contribution of Jrgen
Habermas. Organization Studies, 15, 119.
Burrell, G. (1997). Pandemonium: Towards a retro-organization theory. London: SAGE Publications.
Burrell, G. (2012). Review: Bites of organization. Ephemera: Theory and Politics in Organization, 12,
355360
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann.
Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York Routledge.
Butler, J. (1997). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative. New York: Routledge.
Cals, M., & Smircich, L. (1999). Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions. Academy of
Management Review, 24, 649671.
Cals, M., & Smircich, L. (2003). To be done with progress and other heretical thoughts for organization and
management studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 21, 2956.
Callinicos, A. (1991). Against postmodernism: A Marxist critique. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fish-
ermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp.
196223). London: Routledge.
Callon, M. (1987). Society in the making: The study of technology as a tool for sociological analysis. In W. E.
Bijker, T. P. Hughes, & T. J. Pinch (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems: New direc-
tions in the sociology and history of technology (pp. 83103). London: MIT Press.
Casey, C. (2002). Critical analysis of organizations: Theory, practice, revitalization. London: SAGE
Publications.
Chan, A. (2000). Critically constituting organization. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
Chia, R. (1996).Organizational analysis as deconstructive practice. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Chia, R. (2003). Organization theory as a postmodern science. In H. Tsoukas, & C. Knudsden (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 113140). London: Oxford
University Press.
Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2003). Modernism, postmodernism, management and organization theory.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 21, 5788.
Cooper, R. (1983). The other: A model of human structuring. In G. Morgan(Ed.), Beyond method: Strategies
for social research (pp. 202218). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cordella, A., & Shaikh, M. (2006). From epistemology to ontology: Challenging the constructed truth of
ANT. Working paper No. 173, London School of Economics, London.
Cunliffe, A. (2003). Reflexive inquiry in organizational research: Questions and possibilities. Human
Relations, 56, 9831003.
Cunliffe, A. (2011). Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research
Methods, 14, 647673.
Dawe, R. (1970). The two sociologies. British Journal of Sociology, 21, 207218.
Deetz, S. (1996). Describing differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and
Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7, 191207.
Deetz, S. (2009). Organizational research as alternative ways of attending to and talking about structures and
activities. In A. Bryman & D. Buchanan (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods
(pp. 2138). London: SAGE Publications.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
Derrida, J. (1981). Positions. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Detmer, D. (2003). Challenging postmodernism: Philosophy and the politics of truth. New York: Humanity
Books.
Dolwick, J. (2009). The social and beyond: Introducing actor-network theory. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology, 4, 2149.
Donaldson, L. (1985). In defence of organization theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Donaldson, L. (2001). The contingency theory of organizations. London: SAGE Publications.
Donaldson, L. (2003). A critique of postmodernism in organizational studies. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 21, 169202.
Eden, D. (2003). Critical management studies and the Academy of Management Journal: Challenge and coun-
terchallenge. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 390394.
Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103, 281317.
Farley, P., & Symmons Roberts, M. (2011). Edgelands. London: Random House.
Fleetwood, S., & Ackroyd, S. (2004). Critical realist applications in organization and management studies.
London: Routledge.
Fleming, P. (2009). Authenticity and the cultural politics of work: New forms of informal control. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Foucault, M. (1970). The order of things. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1974). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (1976). The history of sexuality, volume 1. New York: Vintage.
Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish. London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. Brighton: Harvester.
Fournier, V., & Grey, C. (2000). At the critical moment: Conditions and prospects for critical management
studies. Human Relations, 53, 732.
Fraser, M. (2010). What is the matter of feminist criticism? Economy and Society, 31, 606625.
Fraser, N. (1981). Foucault on modern power: Empirical insights and normative confusions. Praxis
International, 1, 272287.
Frenkel, M. (2008). The multinational corporation as a third space: Rethinking international management
discourse on knowledge transfer through Homi Bhabha. Academy of Management Review, 33, 924942.
Friedrichs, R. (1970). A Sociology of Sociology. New York and London: Free Press.
Gareau, B. (2005). We have never been human: Agential nature, ANT, and Marxist political ecology.
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 16, 127140.
Gephart, R. (2004). From the editors: Qualitative research and the Academy of Management Journal. Academy
of Management Journal, 47, 454462.
Gergen, K. J. (1992). Organization theory in the postmodern era. In M. Reed, & M. Hughes (Eds.), Rethinking
organization: New directions in organization theory and analysis (pp. 207226). London: SAGE
Publications.
Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Gieryn, T. (1983). Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in
professional ideologies of scientists. American Sociological Review, 48, 781795.
Gioia, D., & Pitre, E. (1990). Multi-paradigm perspectives in theory building. Academy of Management
Review, 15, 584602.
Goles, T., & Hirschheim, R. (2000). The paradigm is dead, the paradigm is dead long live the paradigm:
The legacy of Burrell and Morgan. Omega, 28, 249268.
Gouldner, A. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York: Heinemann.
Green, S., & Li, Y. (2011). Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory
since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, 48, 16621697.
Greenwood. R., Oliver, C., Sahlin, K., & Suddaby, R. (Eds.) (2008), The Sage handbook of organizational
institutionalism. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE Publications
Grey, C. (2007). Possibilities for critical management education and studies. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 23, 463471.
Grey, C., & Willmott, H. (2005). Critical management studies: A reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105117). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Haas, P. (1989). Do regimes matter? Epistemic communities and Mediterranean pollution control.
International Organization, 43, 377403.
Haas, P. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International
Organization, 46, 135.
Habermas, J. (1984). Taking aim at the heart of the present. In D. Hoy (Ed.), Foucault: A critical reader (pp.
103108). Oxford: Blackwell.
Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity: Twelve lectures. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Hancock, P., & Tyler, M. (2001). Work, postmodernism and organization: A critical introduction. London:
SAGE Publications.
Hanseth, O., Jacucci, E., Grison, M., & Margunn, A. (2006). Reflexive standardization, side-effects and com-
plexity in standard-making. MIS Quarterly, 30, 563581.
Hardt, M., & Negri, A. (2000). Empire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hardy, C., Phillips, N., & Clegg, S. (2001). Reflexivity in organization and management theory: A study of
the production of the research subject. Human Relations, 54, 53160.
Harney, S. (2006). Management and self-activity: Accounting for the crisis in profit-taking. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 17, 935946.
Harney, S. (2007). Socialization and the business school. Management Learning, 38, 139153.
Hassard, J. (1991). Multiple paradigm research in organizations: A case study. Organization Studies, 12,
275299.
Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. (2006). Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives,
2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2000). Scaling the Tower of Babel: Relational differences between identity,
image, and culture in organizations. In M. J. Hatch, M. Schultz, & M. H. Larsen (Eds.), The expres-
sive organization: linking identity, reputation, and the corporate brand (pp. 1135). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hatch, M. J., & Yanow, D. (2003). Organization theory as an interpretive science. In H. Tsoukas, & C.
Knudsden (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives (pp. 63
87). London: Oxford University Press.
Hearn, J., & Parkin, W. (1983). Gender and organization: A selective review and critique of a neglected area.
Organization, 4, 219242.
Hinchliffe, S., Kearnes, M., Degen, M., & Whatmore, S. (2005). Urban wild things: A cosmopolitical experi-
ment. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 23, 643658.
Hodgson, D. (2000). Discourse, discipline and the subject. London: Ashgate.
Holland, R. (1990). The paradigm plague. Human Relations, 43, 2348.
Holt, R., & Sandberg, J. (2011) Phenomenology and organization theory. Research in the Sociology of
Organizations, 32, 215249.
Hosking, D. M., & McNamee, S. (Eds.) (2006). The social construction of organisation. Oslo: Liber.
Howard-Grenville, J., Golden-Biddle, K., Irwin, J., & Mao, J. (2011). Liminality as cultural process for cul-
tural change. Organization Science, 22, 522539.
Ingram, D. (1994). Foucault and Habermas on the subject of reason. In G. Gutting (Ed.), The Cambridge
companion to Foucault (pp. 215261). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (1991). In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organization Studies, 12,
109127.
Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (2007). Rethinking organisational behaviour: A poststructuralist framework.
London: Prentice Hall.
Jackson, N., & Carter, P. (2008). Baffling Bill McKelvey, the commensurability kid. Ephemera, 8, 403419.
Jacobs, M., & Hanrahan, N. (2005). Re-envisioning civic life: Normative and critical lessons from the
Blackwell companion. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association,
Philadelphia, August.
Jameson, F. (1991). Postmodernism, Or the cultural logic of late capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Jennings, P., Perren, L., & Carter, S. (2005). Guest editors introduction: Alternative perspectives on entre-
preneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 29, 145152.
Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in management research. Journal of Management Studies,
40, 12791303.
Jones, C. (2005). Practical deconstructivist feminist Marxist organization theory: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak.
Sociological Review, 53, 228244.
Jones, C., & Munro, R. (Eds.) (2005). Contemporary organization theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kelly, M. (Ed.) (1994). Critique and power: Recasting the Foucault/Habermas debate. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kilduff, M., & Mehra, A. (1997). Postmodernism and organizational research. Academy of Management
Review, 22, 453481.
Kilduff, M., Mehra, A., & Dunn, M. (2011). From blue sky research to problem solving: A philosophy of sci-
ence theory of new knowledge production. Academy of Management Review, 36, 297317.
Kirkwood, J., & Campbell-Hunt, C. (2007). Using multiple paradigm research methodologies to gain new
insights into entrepreneurial motivations. Journal of Enterprise Culture, 15, 219241.
Knorr Cetina, K. (1991). Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23,
105122.
Knorr Cetina, K. (2010). The epistemics of information: A logic of knowledge consumption. Journal of
Consumer Culture, 10, 131.
Knudsen, C. (2003). Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of organization theory. In H. Tsoukas,
& C. Knudsen (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory (pp. 262288). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Kuhn, T. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (Eds.) (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (1988). The pasteurization of France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Latour, B. (2003). Is re-modernization occurring and if so, how to prove it? A commentary on Ulrich Beck.
Theory, Culture and Society, 20, 3538.
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Law, J. (1994). Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell.
Law, J. (1999). After ANT: Complexity, naming and topology. In J. Law, & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor-network
theory and after (pp. 114). London: Blackwell.
Law, J. (2003). Ordering and obduracy. Working paper. Centre for Science Studies. Lancaster University,
UK.
Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.) (1999). Actor-network theory and after. London: Blackwell.
Lazzarato, M. (1996). Immaterial labour. In M. Hardt, & P. Virno (Eds.), Radical thought in Italy: A potential,
politics (pp. 133147). Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.
LePine, J., & Wilcox-King, A. (2010). Editors comments: Developing novel theoretical insight from reviews
of existing theory and research. Academy of Management Review, 35, 506509.
Lewis, M., & Grimes, A. (1999). Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms. Academy of
Lincoln, Y.S. (Ed.) (1985). Organizational theory and inquiry: The paradigm revolution. Beverly Hills, CA:
SAGE Publications.
Linstead, S. (Ed.) (2004). Organization theory and postmodern thought. London: SAGE Publications.
Llewellyn, N., & Hindmarsh, J. (Eds.) (2010). Organisation, interaction and practice: Studies in ethnometh-
odology and conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, K., & Golden-Biddle, K. (1997). Constructing opportunities for contribution: Structuring intertex-
tual coherence and problematizing in organizational studies. Academy of Management Journal, 40,
10231062.
Mannheim, K. (1936). Ideology and utopia. London: Routledge.
Masterman, M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the
growth of knowledge (pp. 5990). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McCann, L., Morris, J., & Hassard, J. (2008). Normalised intensity: The new labour process of middle man-
agement. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 343371.
McKelvey, B. (1997). Quasi-natural organisation science. Organization Science, 8, 352380.
McKelvey, B. (2008). Commensurability, rhetoric and ephemera: Searching for clarity in a cloud of critique.
Ephemera, 8, 420432.
McKinlay, A., & Starkey, K. (Eds.) (1998). Foucault, management and organization theory: From panopti-
con to technologies of self. London: SAGE Publications.
McLean, C., & Hassard, J. (2004). Symmetrical absence/symmetrical absurdity: Critical notes on the produc-
tion of actor-network accounts. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 493519.
Meyer, R., & Boxenbaum, E. (2010). Exploring European-ness in organization research. Organization
Studies, 31, 737755.
Mir, R., & Mir, A. (2002). The organizational imagination from paradigm wars to praxis. Organizational
Research Methods, 5, 105125.
Molyneux, J. (2010). Is Marxism deterministic? International Socialism Journal, 68, 1016.
Morgan, G. (1980). Paradigms, metaphors, and puzzle solving in organization theory. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 25, 606622.
Morgan, G. (1983). More on metaphor: Why we cannot control tropes in administrative science. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 28, 17.
Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. London: SAGE Publications.
Mouzelis, N. (1975). Organization and bureaucracy. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Mutch, A., Delbridge, R., & Ventresca, M. (2006). Situating organizational action: The relational sociology
of organizations. Organization, 13, 607625.
Newton, T. (2002). Creating the new ecological order? Academy of Management Review, 27, 523540.
Newton, T. (2010). Knowledge and practice: Organization studies within a historical and figurational context.
Organization Studies, 31, 13691395.
Newton, T., Deetz, S., & Reed, M. (2011). Responses to social constructionism and critical realism in organi-
zation studies. Organization Studies, 32, 726.
Norris, C. (1982). Deconstruction: Theory and practice. London: Methuen.
Okhuysen, G., & Bonardi, J-P. (2011). Editors comments: The challenge of building theory by combining
lenses. Academy of Management Review, 36, 611.
Orlikowski, W. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology
in organizations. Organization Science, 11, 404428.
Oswick, C., Fleming, P., & Hanlon, G. (2011). From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of
organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36, 318337.
Owen, D. (1995). Genealogy as exemplary critique: Reflections on Foucault and the imagination of the politi-
cal. Economy and Society, 24, 489506.
Parker, M. (2002). Against management. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Peters, M. (2001). Postructuralism, Marxism and neo-liberalism. New York: Rowan & Littlefield.
Peters, G. (2005). Institutional theory in political science. New York: Continuum.
Pfeffer, J. (1997). New directions for organization theory: problems and prospects. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Phillips, N., Sewell, G., & Jaynes, S. (2008). Applying critical discourse analysis in strategic management
research. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 770789.
Pullen, A., & Rhodes, C. (2009). Borderlines. In A. Pullen & C. Rhodes (Eds.), Bits of organization (pp. 917).
Copenhagen: Liber.
Rapport, F., Wainwright, P., & Elwyn, G. (2005). Of the edgelands: Broadening the scope of qualitative
methodology. Medical Humanities, 31, 3742.
Reed, M. (1997). In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis.
Organization Studies, 18, 2142.
Rehn, A., & Borgerson, J. (2005). Is there a cannibal in organization studies? Notes on anthropophagy and
organization (recipe included). Culture and Organization, 11, 6981.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations (2003). Post-modernism and management. London: Emerald.
Research in the Sociology of Organizations (2011) Philosophy and organization theory. London: Emerald.
Restivo, S., & Croissant, J. (2008). Social constructionism in science and technology studies. In J. Holstein,
& J. Bubrium (Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 213229). New York: Guilford Press.
Rhodes, C., & Pullen, A. (2010). Editorial: Neophilia and organization. Culture and Organization, 16, 16.
Romani, L., Primecz, H., & Topcu, K. (2011). Paradigm interplay for theory development: A methodological
example with the Kulturstandard method. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 432455.
Rorty, R. (1981). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rowlinson, M. (2008). From Marxism to critical management. Ephemera, 8, 204210.
Rowlinson, M., & Carter, C. (2002). Foucault and history in organization studies. Organization: the Critical
Journal of Organization, Theory and Society, 9, 527547.
Rowlinson, M., & Hassard, J. (2011) How come the critters came to be teaching in business schools?
Organization: the Critical Journal of Organization, Theory and Society, 18, 673689.
Rudy, A., & Gareau, B. (2005). Actor-network theory, Marxist economics, and Marxist political ecology.
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism, 16, 8590.
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2011). Ways of constructing research questions: Gap-spotting or problematiza-
tion? Organization, 18, 2344.
Sartre, J-P. (1966). Review of The order of things by Michel Foucault. LArc, 30, 8788.
Sarup, M. (1993). Post-structuralism and postmodernism. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Scheler, M. (1924). Attempts at sociology of knowledge. Munich and Leipzig: Duncker & Humbolt.
Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in
organizational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21, 529557.
Shoard, M. (2002). Edgelands. In J. Jenkins (Ed.), Remaking the landscape: The changing face of Britain (pp.
117146). London: Profile Books.
Silverman, D. (1970). The theory of organizations. London: Heinemann.
Sismondo, S. (2005). Boundary work and the science wars. Episteme, 1, 235248.
Sismondo, S. (2009). An introduction to science and technology studies. New York: Wiley.
Spoelstra, S. (2005). Robert Cooper: Beyond organization. Sociological Review, 56, 108119.
Suddaby, R., Hardy, C., & Huy, Q. (2011). Special topic forum on theory development: Where are the new
theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36, 236246.
Sveningsson, S., & Alvesson, M. (2003). Managing managerial identities: Organizational fragmentation, dis-
course and identity struggle. Human Relations, 56, 11631193.
Thanem, T. (2006). Living on the edge: Towards a monstrous organization theory. Organization, 13, 163193.
Thanem, T. (2011). The monstrous organization. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Thomas, R., & Davies, A. (2005). Theorising the micro-politics of resistance: Discourses of change and pro-
fessional identities in the UK public services. Organization Studies, 26, 683706.
Thompson, M. (2011). Ontological shift or ontological drift? Reality claims, epistemological frameworks,
and theory generation in organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 36, 754773.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2002). On organizational becoming: Rethinking organizational change. Organization
Science, 13, 567582.
Tsoukas, H., & Chia, R. (2011). Introduction: Why philosophy matters to organization theory. Research in the
Sociology of Organizations, 32, 121.
Tsoukas, H., & Knudsen, C. (Eds.) (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vachhani, S. (2012). The subordination of the feminine? Developing a critical feminist approach to the psy-
choanalysis of organizations. Organization Studies, 33, 12371255.
Vasquez, J. (1998). The power of power politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vogel, R. (2012). The visible colleges of management and organization studies: A bibliometric analysis of
academic journals. Organization Studies, 33, 10151043.
Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at work. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Weber, M. (1930). The protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. New York: Unwin Hyman.
Weedon, C. (2004). Feminist practice and post-structuralist theory. London: Blackwell.
Weick, K. (1999). Theory construction as disciplined reflectivity: Tradeoffs for the 90s. Academy of
Weiss, R. (2000). Taking science out of organization science: How would postmodernism reconstruct the
analysis of organizations? Organization Science, 11, 709731.
Whitford, M. (1991). Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. London: Routledge.
Whittle, A., & Spicer, A. (2008). Is actor-network theory critical? Organization Studies, 29, 611629.
Willmott, H. (1993). Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14, 681719.
Willmott, H. (2003). Organization theory as a critical science? Forms of analysis and new organizational
forms. In H. Tsoukas, & C. Knudsden (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: Meta-
theoretical perspectives (pp. 88112). London: Oxford University Press.
Winner, L. (1993). Upon opening the black box and finding it empty: Social constructivism and the philoso-
phies of technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 18, 362378.
Woolgar, S. (Ed.) (1988). Knowledge and reflexivity: New frontiers in the sociology of knowledge. London:
SAGE Publications.
Wright, S. (2007). Back to the future: Italian workerists reflect upon the operaista project. Ephemera, 7,
270281.
Zammito, J. (2007). Whats new in the sociology of knowledge? In S. P. Turner, & M. W. Risjord (Eds.),
Handbook of the philosophy of science: Philosophy of anthropology and sociology (pp. 791857). San
Diego: Elsevier.
Zietsma, C., & Lawrence, T. (2010). Institutional work in the transformation of an organizational field: The
interplay of boundary work and practice work. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55, 189221.
Author biographies
John Hassard (PhD, Organizational Behaviour, Aston University) is Professor of Organizational Analysis at
Manchester Business School (Manchester University). Previously he taught at London Business School and
the universities of Cardiff and Keele. From 2000 to 2011 he was Fellow in Management Learning at the
Judge Business School, Cambridge (visiting position). He has published 16 books and over 150 research
articles. His books include the monographs Sociology and Organization Theory (1993), Disorganization
Theory (2008) and Managing in the Modern Corporation (2009) and the edited volumes The Theory and
Philosophy of Organizations (1991), Postmodernism and Organizations (1993) and Actor Network Theory
and After (1999).
Julie Wolfram Cox (PhD, Organizational Behavior, Case Western Reserve University) is Professor of
Management (Organisation Studies) and Head of the Department of Management at Monash University. She
has recently been elected to the five year Division Chair track of the Organization Development and Change
Division of the Academy of Management. Her research interests include: interpretive and critical studies of
organizational change; organization development and resistance dynamics; organization theory and research
meta-theory; organizational aesthetics and identity politics; and occupational identity and professionalization.

3 Hassard Cox 2013

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

3 Hassard Cox 2013

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Organization Studies http://oss.sagepub.

Can Sociological Paradigms Still Inform Organizational Analysis? A Paradigm

The online version of this article can be found at:

European Group for Organizational Studies

Email Alerts: http://oss.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Oct 30, 2013

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Aug 7, 2013

Can Sociological Paradigms Still

Julie Wolfram Cox

approaches to organizational theorizing of recent times structural, anti-structural and

Argument and Approach

Creating a recipe for paradigm soup?

Defining Paradigms and Paradigm Relations

Paradigms as organizational fields

Table 1. Meta-theories for OT Paradigms.

Structural paradigm Anti-structural paradigm Post-structural paradigm

A New Meta-theoretical Framework

Assumptions about the nature of social science

Paradigm meta-theories for post-structuralism and postmodernism

Exploring Paradigms as Organizational Fields

Assumptions about the nature of society

Table 2. Typology of OT Research Domains: Examples of Theories, Theorists and Research.

Walby, S. (1986). Patriarchy at work. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Potrebbero piacerti anche