Interpretivism in Organizational Research: On Elephants and Blind Researchers

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/274716501
Interpretivism in organizational research: On elephants and blind researchers
Chapter · January 2009
CITATIONS READS
10 1,538
2 authors:
Dvora Yanow Sierk Ybema

Wageningen University & Research Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
73 PUBLICATIONS 4,005 CITATIONS 34 PUBLICATIONS 872 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Innovation and organizational change in health care View project
Teaching interpretively View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Sierk Ybema on 10 April 2015.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

3
Interpretivism in
Organizational Research:
On Elephants and
Blind Researchers
Dvo r a Yan o w an d Sier k Yb em a
INTRODUCTION second, touching the tail, says it must be a

rope. Another, encountering an ear, is sure
The old Sufi tale about the blind men the elephant is a very large leaf. Happening
discovering the elephant has been drawn on a leg, the fourth declares the elephant the
on by many (Waldo, 1961; Westerlund and trunk of a tree. And the fifth, climbing onto
Sjostrund, 1979, Morgan, 1986; Adams, the beast’s trunk, is sure the elephant is a
1994) to illustrate an argument about percep- sturdy vine meant for swinging from tree to
tion and social realities. The details change tree. (The versions with a sixth man depict
from one version to another, as befits an him stroking the tusk and envisioning a spear.)
orally transmitted story, but in outline, for The men return to the town and tell about their
those unfamiliar with it, the plot proceeds discovery, but the townspeople are no more
along these lines. Townspeople hear that an enlightened for the conflicting details about
elephant has arrived, but as they have never ‘what an elephant really is’. The moral of the
encountered one before, they send five (or story is that what you see depends on where
six) men (never women, in the versions we you stand: perspective is all when it comes to
have read or heard) to scout the thing out. knowing and knowledge.
The creature is in a barn that is completely Whereas we find the story engaging and
dark, and so the men cannot see it (or it have used it ourselves in our teaching to illus-
is not dark, but they are blind, although trate this same point, the tale masks certain
we do not quite understand how they got features of what it seeks to illuminate. We find
there, then, or why). One, feeling its flank, both morals and maskings characteristic of
says the elephant must be a brick wall. A the methodological state of organizational
[18:23 5/12/2008 5271-Buchanan-Ch03.tex] Paper: a4 Job No: 5271 BUCHANAN:The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research MethodsPage: 39 39–60
40 THE SAGE HANDBOOK OF ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH METHODS
studies debates. However, the methodological underlying meanings are reinstantiated and
arguments have been, and still are, intertwined sustained—or changed. The relationship is
with substantive theoretical debates within a symbolic one, with artefacts representing
disciplinary subfields; and both are linked, their associated meanings. This, then, is why
intricately, with the construction of the field participant-observer, ethnographic, semiotic,
of study as a scientific discipline, including ethnomethodological, and other such methods
its curricula, professional associations and start with acts, physical objects, and/or texts,
conferences, and journals. In reflecting on the treating them as the embodiments and vehicles
state of interpretivism within organizational for the expression of human meaning and
studies, then, we find ourselves taking a seeking to draw out, through systematic obser-
‘science studies’ approach (e.g., Latour, 1987, vation sustained over time, the unspoken,
Latour and Woolgar, 1979) that shifts attention tacitly known, everyday, commonsensical
not to one organization or another, but to the values, beliefs, and/or feelings/sentiments that
discipline as a whole as a research site (Yanow, comprise those meanings.
2005a). This builds on an understanding of Phenomenology, the second central source,
a scientific paradigm, and the not unrelated focuses on accounting for processes of sense-
concept of the hermeneutic circle, as entailing making and the role therein of intersubjec-
not merely a particular way of looking at the tivity, lived experience, and prior knowledge.
world, but also the community of scientists Phenomenologists argued that humans make
sharing in that way of seeing, together with sense drawing on ‘more’ or other than merely
the research methods that comprise the way sense data; a whole interpretive scheme
of knowing accepted within that epistemic- (whether called a lens, a frame, a paradigm, a
interpretive community. To this is added weltanschaaung, a worldview, or some other
the enactments of theoretical and paradigm term) is called into play in the process of
debates in the professional practices that making sense of the world we encounter. Here,
constitute and structure the discipline (such too, interpretive research methods seek to
as graduate curricula, conferences, journals, track the processes through which meaning/s
and the like). is/are created.
Hermeneutics is one of the two major In both cases, interpretive analysis asks
philosophical-conceptual underpinnings of after multiple, and potentially conflict-
interpretive approaches to the study of ing, meanings made or held by different
organizations. As with other aspects of inter- interpretive-discourse-practice communities
pretivism, it is at once a theoretical approach using and interpreting the same artefact(s).
and a set of methods for carrying out that Critical theorists have criticized phenome-
approach. With its focus on, initially, the nologists, in particular, for ignoring power
Bible; later, other written texts; later still, dimensions; but whereas this point may hold
spoken words, film, and the like; and then built at the level of philosophy, in application to
spaces and other non-word-based artefacts organizations, public policies, and many other
(though possibly containing words) and acts areas of social scientific study, interpretive
treated as ‘text analogues’ (Taylor, 1971; see approaches engage various aspects of the
also Ricoeur, 1971), hermeneutics posits a political, including silences in discourse,
relationship between such artefacts and their whether silent by choice or silenced by
‘underlying’ meanings. It also encompasses force of some sort. In sum, this interpre-
the set of typically unspoken, yet tacitly tive turn in theorizing has provided the
known ‘rules’ shared by members of an grounding for methodologies within the
interpretive-practice community for making social sciences more broadly and organiza-
sense of those literal or other texts. Each tional studies in particular that are ontolog-
time an artefact is created, its creators ically constructivist (rather than realist) and
embed within it what is meaningful to epistemologically interpretive (rather than
them. Each time an artefact is used, its objectivist).
INTERPRETIVISM IN ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH: ON ELEPHANTS AND BLIND RESEARCHERS 41
Looking at developments over the last two inaccurate, really, to speak of a single field of
decades of the twentieth century, we sketch study. When conferences and journals began
out four different takes on the position of to bring those borders down, US journals and
interpretivism in organizational studies, each publishers exerted tremendous influence on
with its own blindspots. We describe (i) how the shape and perceptions of the field. Our
the field opened up for interpretive research, narrative reflects those limitations. Someone
embracing a polyphony of different voices; else might tell this history, or its parts,
(ii) how it might be seen as having taken differently. Then again, that is part of our
an ‘interpretive turn’; (iii) how these two story.
aspects were in part marked by some paradigm
struggle or ‘war’; as well as (iv) how efforts
at ‘peacemaking’ were advanced across those
divides. To make the distinctions vivid, we
designate these, tongue in cheek, as pluralists, The elephant in the organizational
revolutionaries, warriors, and peacemakers in
studies barn: preinterpretivist
Table 3.1, which summarizes the argument we
history
develop here.
The elephant tale helps us explicate this A common narrative about the history of
argument. Ours is not, then, primarily a scientific ideas suggests that in the 1960s
chronological tale, but one of framing and and 1970s, a behaviouralist-functionalist
reframing; in our view, these four aspects approach came to dominate the social sci-
unfolded in an intertwined, perhaps even at ences, organizational studies included. It took
times Hegelian fashion (of thesis, antithesis, the groundbreaking studies of ‘paradigms’
and synthesis). What is clearest is that these and perspectives in the history, philosophy,
two decades were a marked departure from and sociology of science and knowledge—
the prior state of affairs; there, it is easier to starting with Kuhn’s (1970/1962) unintended
see a rupture in time. So before sketching out popularizing of the first term—to chal-
these four ‘blind man’s’ takes on the position lenge that hegemony. Drawing the idea of
of interpretivism in organizational studies, paradigms into organizational studies, Burrell
we first narrate a history of the entrance of and Morgan (1979) suggested that rather than
interpretivism into the field, as that tale is manifesting a single, overarching paradigm,
frequently told. organizational studies’ theoretical arguments
One caution; we have struggled to present reflected a set of underlying methodological
a picture that, if not quite ‘global’, at presuppositions, each with its own ontological
least captures developments on both sides and epistemological perspectives. Along with
of the Atlantic, rather than the more usual functionalism, they included ‘interpretive’,
US-dominated view. We are hampered in this, ‘radical humanist’, and ‘radical structuralist’
however, by our own lived experiences; each paradigms. The parable of the blind men
of us was schooled in a different academic era and the elephant was taken up by many, as
and location and in different approaches to the it nicely expressed this image of competing
field (neither of them a now-standard business paradigmatic views of social realities, along
or management approach). One of us was with the possibility of paradigm-plurality.
‘disciplined’at the hands of the preinterpretive From the vantage point of the late
hegemony; the other, by some interpretivists 1970s–1980s, various authors (e.g., Astley
themselves. An additional factor shaping our and Van de Ven, 1979; Burrell and Morgan,
narrative comes from the development of the 1979; Bolman and Deal, 1984; Morgan 1986),
discipline itself; despite its Germanic origins looking back at the field during the first
(in Weberian bureaucracy theory), at a certain two-thirds of the twentieth century, argued
point in time the field of study became largely that it consisted of various ‘blind’ epistemic
nation-and/or language-based; and so it is communities, each looking at a different part
Table 3.1 The position of interpretivism in the organizational studies paradigm debates: four perspectives
[18:23 5/12/2008 5271-Buchanan-Ch03.tex]

Position of interpretivism Identity position Methods Contributions Limitations
I. ‘Pluralists’: breaking with One of several separate ‘blind’ The ‘new kid on the block’ (Re)turn to field research Proliferation, democratisation, Plurality without dialogue or
the paradigm hegemony perspectives living in (re)claiming (participant observation; emancipation of ‘minority cross-fertilization
of ‘normal science’ peaceful coexistence with territory/sovereignty ethnography) paradigms’
Paper: a4
alternative perspectives
II. ‘Revolutionaries’: The new, arguably-dominant ‘Winner’ crowing over (future) Assertive exploration of New epistemological Relativism as the new truth
Claiming the ‘interpretive (in its own eyes) mode of victory various ‘interpretive’ awareness, reflexivity claim (“everything is a
turn’ as a decisive, thinking about theories, methods, including subjective construction –
Job No: 5271

paradigmatic shift methods, and critical-theoretical modes except this statement”);
methodologies (e.g., semiotics, abduction) simplified dichotomy
(positivism/interpretivism)
III. ‘Warriors’: Fighting Resistance struggle against the ‘Warrior’ fighting the uphill [as above] Energizing vitality, clear Claims of superiority vis-à-vis
paradigm hostilities dominance of pre-existing battle of a ‘minority science’ demarcation of differences alternative paradigms,
‘normal science’ against ‘normal’ science theories, methodologies
IV. ‘Peacemakers’: Hegemonic attempt to bring ‘Peacemaker’, enlightened Assertion of ‘mixed methods’ Acknowledgement of Neglect or denial of paradigm
Advocating different interpretations leader, m/paternalistic; a (meaning ‘mixed alternative views; creative incommensurability;
multi-perspectivism and together in a unified, metastance, an external, methodologies’), interplay espoused constructivism
paradigm interplay multi-perspectival view omniscient narrator offering triangulation as solution to hides underlying realism
omniscient view from a ‘problem’ (seeing an elephant;
distance unaware of own
blindnesses)
BUCHANAN:The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research MethodsPage: 42

39–60
of the organizational beast, each arguing that among contending theoretical approaches was
it had the right view—the universal Truth—of essentially ontological, concerned with the
what made an organization an organization. ‘reality status’ of their focus. The four
Drawing attention to differences between lenses or frames could be seen, at heart, as
theories, several of these reflective authors competing frames of analysis, each intended
theorized disciplinary history in terms of four to provide the correct answer to the question,
or five different lenses (e.g., Bolman and ‘what is an organization?’ That logic assumes
Deal, 1984; Shafritz and Ott, 1996; Yanow, that organizations are empirical entities with
1987). From the start—according to this factual characteristics existing in the ‘real’
historical narrative—the key dimension of world; and it looks for the ‘nature’—the
organizations was their structure, building on essential character—of these organizational
Weberian bureaucratic and public adminis- realities as if they were facts existing in
tration ideas concerning hierarchical levels, nature. Organizational facts are objective,
spans of control, position definitions and in this view, and they are discoverable; the
tasks, and so forth (e.g., the work of Fayol, essence of ‘organization’ was to be grasped
Gulick and Urwick, and others). The transla- by analysing its attributes through some form
tion into English and spread of Freud’s ideas of objective—quantitative—analysis, shaped
in the 1930s, the Hawthorne experiments’ by the (structural-) functionalism that held
‘discovery’ of the informal organization, and sway at the time, itself marked—although not
Homans’ ideas about the group as a basic unit in any recognized way—by the ontological
of analysis, introduced a new contender in the and epistemological legacy of early twentieth
form of human relations theories, concerned century logical positivism (and its heritage
with roles, interpersonal relationships, and from earlier, nineteenth century forms of
other social psychological concepts. Still positivist thought; for further discussion see
other features of the ‘organizational elephant’ Bernstein, 1983, and Polkinghorne 1983 and
came into view when systems theories 1988; in organizational studies, Burrell and
developed by the military during World War Morgan, 1979; Hatch and Yanow, 2003).
II added complexity to structural theories, In other words, organizational studies
situating departments and organizations in through the late 1970s was diverse and
their respective ‘environments’. Similarly, the divided, carved up by theoretical differ-
enhanced level of general political activity ences. Many scholars hoped for a single
in the 1970s generated its organizational orientation—what later would be called a
studies counterpart in a more complex human paradigm—that would unite various con-
relations theory, putting contesting interests, tending parties. Drawing on what today we
power, and negotiation at the centre of analytic identify as a Kuhnian view of science, they
focus in a way that accommodates neither argued that a one-paradigm approach would
human relations theories’ emphasis on the enhance the field’s theoretical development
dysfunctionality of conflict nor structural and and help it to ‘mature’. Commenting on
systems theories’ ideas about authority and the battles between sociologically informed
control. ‘organizational theory’ (drawing also on
In this retrospective view, each of the bureaucracy theory, which was tied to public
four sets of theories or ‘lenses’ competed administration and political science) and
for standing as the best explanation of what (social-) psychologically informed ‘organi-
constituted the organizational elephant—e.g., zational behaviour’ in the 1970s, a former
much as ‘norms’ could not explain inputs, president of the Academy of Management
outputs, and feedback loops, ‘bargaining’ did illuminates what seems to have been, at that
not describe very well technology or task. time, the dominant perspective:
What emerges from this reflective narrative
of the history of the field is an understand- One source of the multiple identities that
ing that the logic underlying early battles affect organizational behaviour is the fact that
members [of the Academy] are psychologists and/or US disciplinary structures, ranging from
sociologists as well. If these disciplines could be graduate school curricula to the kinds of
collapsed into organizational behavior, … many
research that could be funded and accepted
identity conflicts would be removed, a major source
of fragmentation in the study of organizations for presentation at Academy of Management
would be eliminated, and the combined discipline panels or for publication in its and other
would not only be more powerful but larger leading journals. The empirical data remain
and more effective as well (Miner, 2007, p. 314; to be gathered, but analysis of one of
emphases added)
the premier journals provides evidence that
is, we warrant, suggestive of the field as
The sentiment underlying this desire for a whole. Publication of qualitative studies
unity stems from an understanding of science of work and organizations available in the
as intimately tied to the notion of progress, 1950s and early 1960s fell off precipitously
which could only be achieved through in the then-leading journals between 1965
adopting one, unifying set of principles. and 1975, at least as reflected in the
Kuhn’s influential treatment of ‘paradigm’ first 40 volumes of Administrative Science
associated the ‘possession’ of a paradigm Quarterly (Van Maanen, 1998, p. xviii),
with disciplinary maturity. In his view, the recovering only slightly over the next two
social sciences were without a paradigm. By decades, but never reaching their previous
logical inference, that must mean that they height.
are immature. The power of the rhetoric To this point, our history has been narrated
challenged social scientists; who wants to be largely from a North American perspective
allied with such a status? As the erstwhile (one likely to be familiar to organizational
Academy of Management president put it, studies scholars in other parts of the world
looking at the fragmented ‘picture of the which have enjoyed the ‘globalization’ of US
organization field’ suggested by analysis of academic textbooks and theories). However,
his 1977 data, ‘[I]n my mind the field was still this is only a partial history—or a perspectival
quite immature and had done little at that time one. The view from Europe and from those
to progress’ over the previous twenty years North American fields not dominated by the
(Miner, 2007, p. 314). Whether under the business orientation toward organizations that
influence of a Kuhnian view of paradigmatic developed in the 1980s and 1990s is rather dif-
science, or of the more general search for ferent. Within bureaucracy studies, developed
scientific unity within the discipline, the through the middle of the twentieth century,
various theoretical approaches to the study of organizational analyses both included treat-
organizations battled over what the key tool ments of the political within organizational
was that would join them all together and life, and held on to a participant-observer,
enable scientific ‘progress’. ethnographic, meaning-focused ‘case study’
What was not recognized at the time, at approach (e.g., Blau, 1953/1963; Becker
least not in the US, was that there was, et al., 1961; Crozier, 1964; Dalton, 1959; AQ: This is not
listed in Reference
in fact, a paradigm in play that united Gouldner, 1954; Kaufman, 1960; Selznick, list; ADDED
these competing theoretical approaches and 1949 and 1957; in subsequent generations,
their attendant methods—one informed by Allison, 1971; Lipsky, 1980; Ingersoll and
ontological and epistemological assumptions Adams, 1992, to name a few). But while
emanating from positivist philosophies (espe- such studies also remained part of the
cially logical positivism) as these had taken European organizational studies curriculum
root in social science research methods. The (e.g., Burrell and Morgan, 1979; Lammers,
theoretical debate, in other words, had its 1991 [1983]), they mostly disappeared on the
methodological counterpart, a then-dominant other side of the ocean.
objectivist-realist paradigm that came to With the development of the disciplines
hold hegemonic sway within organizational in US higher education, the late 1970s
studies. This was amply manifested within ‘take-off’ of business and management
schools and departments, and the grow- ideas as a contending set of theories each
ing marginalization of public administra- vying for dominance. It also marked a crucial
tion schools and departments, along with step in a fundamentally different way of
the increasing hegemony of behaviouralism, thinking about theories and theorizing—and
survey research, and quantitative methods, about methodologies and methods. This
qualitative studies of bureaucracies were ‘crucial step’ can be narrated from at least
largely severed from the organizational stud- four different angles. Each narrative casts
ies curriculum and consigned to the public the role of interpretivism in the field of
administration dust-heap (itself a topic of organizational studies somewhat differently.
study quarantined from business manage-
ment curricula). Because of the structures
of their university programs, European and Paradigm proliferation: from
British faculties did not hive off public an elephant to brick walls, ropes,
sector organizations from corporate ones;
leaves, tree-trunks, spears,
studies of governmental, nonprofit, and other
and vines
such agencies were (and are) still consid-
ered part of the field. European organi- The first take on interpretivism follows from
zational studies scholars were still versed the seminal statement by Burrell and Morgan
in the philosophical and methodological (1979) about multiple paradigms being
issues undergirding claims to knowledge; present in organizational studies. This led to a
‘ontology’, ‘epistemology’, ‘phenomenol- rise in reflexivity concerning claims to knowl-
ogy’, ‘hermeneutics’, and their theoretical edge and their sources, including a growing
proponents were not foreign names and awareness and understanding of the variety
concepts. It is no accident that Burrell and of ontological-epistemological perspectives
Morgan’s 1979 book came from the pens used in analyzing organizations. In addition
of two scholars schooled in Britain—few to their analysis, several other books and
US organizational studies scholars could articles advanced perspectival approaches,
have written such a book at that time— adding frames, metaphors, perspectives, and
or that studies of the symbolic dimensions lenses to the paradigm terminology (e.g.,
of organizational life took off in Europe Astley and Van de Ven, 1979; Scott, 1981;
more rapidly (e.g., through the first few Bolman and Deal, 1984; Morgan, 1986).
years of the Standing Committee on Organi- Together with functionalism and critical
zational Symbolism—SCOS—established in perspectives, interpretivism figures in the
the 1980s) and achieved a centrality that they Burrell and Morgan framework as one of
still lack in the US. the ‘characters’ that helped to break through
The new appreciation in the US the hegemonic normalcy of single paradigm
for epistemological polyphony, joined science.
with European visions of organizational A sense of ‘peaceful co-existence’ among
symbolism, enabled a shift in the vision of paradigms, a ‘live and let live’ mentality that
organizational studies as a science in search some read into the quadrant dividers in the
of an overarching theoretical paradigm portrayal by Burrell and Morgan of ‘paradigm
to seeing it as having grown up with a incommensurability’, is central to this shift
dominant methodological paradigm that from paradigm unity to paradigm plurality. In
was ontologically realist, epistemologically this quadrant-based view, no single paradigm
objectivist, and procedurally following can win the revolution, displace the others,
‘the scientific method’. The awareness of and lay claim to ‘the’ truth. In this sense,
divergent and contradictory philosophical adopting a multiperspectival view means
presuppositions underlying organizational considering different theories—or metaphors,
analyses not only provided useful ways of frames or ‘images’—of organizations in a
reconceptualizing the history of the field’s non-hierarchical order; the elephant’s leg,
for instance, claims no privilege over its

The interpretive turn as ‘paradigm
trunk or its ear or any other component.
revolution’: we are all blind wo/men
From the perspective of understanding what
comprises the elephant, all appendages have Paradigm plurality ‘matured the minds’ for
equal standing. a fundamentally different way of thinking
This view opened theorizing itself to alter- about theories and theorizing—and about
native, contrasting interpretations coexisting methodologies and methods. Without much
within a larger framework; each and every exaggeration, this second take on interpre-
theory, by implication, had to share its tivism depicts its role in organizational studies
hitherto-hegemonic claim to ‘the’ truth with as a paradigmatic revolution. The recognition
other theories. Rather than fuelling each that our thinking about organizational and
theory’s ambition to discover and describe other social realities is itself shaped by our
the ‘true’ elephant, this approach fostered a theoretical presuppositions radically under-
growing awareness of the inherent partiality mined the realist-objectivist foundations of
of any and every truth claim. It instructed functionalism and occasioned what has been
scholars of organizations—us—that our own referred to as an ‘interpretive turn’ within the
sight is limited and that that limited sight can social sciences (Rabinow and Sullivan, 1979
blind us to alternative interpretations. This and 1985; Hiley et al., 1991). The interpretive
view also suggested, to many, an equivalence turn occasioned other turns—among them the
between ‘paradigms’ and ‘eyeglasses’, as if linguistic turn (e.g., Van Maanen, 1995a);
switching paradigms were no more compli- the rhetorical turn (e.g., McCloskey, 1985);
cated than replacing one pair of glasses with and more recently the practice turn (Schatzki
another. et al., 2001), among others. Together, these
However, a multiparadigm view itself various turns brought the questions of
rests on a philosophical foundation that is knowledge claims and knowledge production
interpretivist in nature. It holds that paradigms to the fore—the quintessential concerns of
are more firmly rooted within individuals methodologies and their practical translation
than eyeglasses, and it also denies the into everyday methods. They shifted the
absolute authority of each and every truth terrain of analytic inquiry from an ontological
claim, including that of ‘normal science’. The focus on what an organization really is to
dawning of epistemological perspectivalism providing reflective epistemological accounts
within organizational studies brought with it of its ‘knowability’—how that knowledge
a critical awareness of the field’s hitherto was developed and known (including the roles
ontological realism. This is the apparent moral of positionality and reflexivity in knowledge-
of the elephant story; that what one understood creation). Such questioning itself engen-
an organization to ‘be’ depended on what dered a shift from the search for universal,
part of the organization one studied, and that generalizable principles or laws of human
there could be different ways of looking at behaviour to more situated, contextual knowl-
an elephant. It helped to grow a perception edge, in which both ‘knowers’ and ‘knowns’
of inherent blind spots in the field’s various (Jacobson and Jaques, 1990) are understood
ways of seeing and knowing—indeed, an to embody situation-specific characteristics.
awareness that theorizing itself is a way of What these ideas and arguments showed us
worldmaking, to borrow Nelson Goodman’s was that, ultimately, we are all blind women
(1978) phrase. In this sense, the turn away and men.
from a single-paradigm organization science In this view, organizations, like other
was a radical departure from the positivist ‘social realities,’ have no ab origine objective
paradigm that was now seen as having status. They are to be understood, instead, as
dominated the field of organizational studies objectifications of an intersubjective, social
almost since its inception. It was the beginning process of constructing realities (Berger and
of a new era. Luckmann, 1966). And that understanding
would come about not through external, that insisted on universal principles derived
objective, sense-based observation follow- through objective analysis, among other
ing the ‘rigorous’ steps of ‘the scientific things. In methodological terms, this binary
method’, but through subjective, hermeneu- was more commonly labelled ‘qualitative’
tic and phenomenological, systematically and ‘quantitative’, without engaging the
interpretive sense-making—that conducted philosophical presuppositions undergirding
through participant-observer, ethnographic, the duality (see Bryman, chapter 30, this
and other interpretive methods (on inter- volume). Interpretive science often positioned
pretive methodology and methods and the itself as an alternative to mainstream science.
difference between qualitative and interpre- In doing so, it offered itself, implicitly,
tive methods, see Yanow and Schwartz-Shea, as a perspective that had at least equal
2006). In organizational studies, Weick’s value and insight—as just another appendage
(1979) shift from organization to organizing on the elephant. But in some writings,
(organizational processes), Van Maanen’s interpretively-oriented scholars adopted a
(1979) reclaiming of qualitative methods, more defensive (or, from another perspective,
and new attention to organizational culture offensive) mode, implicitly laying claim to
and symbolism (Pettigrew 1979) marked this having a ‘better truth’, in the form of
interpretive turn. more adequate methodologies or theories
Such a position has profound implications than those offered by the methods or canons
not only for ‘truth claims’ but also for of ‘positivist’ organizational science. And
the research methods that generate them; the latter, finding their hegemony threatened
it provides the philosophical rationale for and feeling themselves under attack, fought
constructivist-interpretive methods. The num- back. These attacks, taking place also in the
ber of qualitative studies in Administrative social sciences more broadly, launched very
Science Quarterly, after falling off dramati- explicit ‘paradigm wars’ between positivists
cally through the mid-1970s, rallied slightly and interpretivists, making evident hitherto
between 1976 and 1995 (Van Maanen, 1998, unarticulated underlying tensions.
p. viii). According to some organizational
scholars (e.g., Clegg and Hardy, 2006; Prasad,
Paradigm wars and warriors:
2005), the interpretive turn occasioned a
duelling blind scholars
‘methodological turn’ within organizational
studies from positivist-inflected quantitative Paradigm plurality—the notion that we are
methods to more constructivist-interpretive all partially-sighted—not only held out the
methods. Looking at several special issues promise of a peaceful proliferation and
in leading journals and the contents of democratization of different approaches and
various handbooks, Clegg and Hardy (2006, perspectives within the organizational (and
p. 432) recently concluded that ‘new ways other social) sciences. It also set in motion
of doing and thinking about research are the emancipation of ‘minority paradigms’,
clearly emerging and, increasingly, receiving growing the awareness of paradigmatic
some degree of blessing from bastions divides. Such paradigm differences surfaced
of orthodoxy, such as the Academy of and collided in the 1980s across a number
Management’. Organizational sciences, like of organizational studies’ subfields, first
the social sciences at large (Lincoln and Guba, and foremost around the topic of culture
2000, p. 163), have taken a distinct turn toward in organizational life. The appearance of
more interpretive, postmodern, and criticalist ‘organizational culture’ as a field of study
research practices along with their attendant constituted a revolution in the organizational
theorizing. sciences as it itself embodied the ontological
These developments gave organizational and epistemological polyphony promised by
studies a new taxonomy—an interpretivist the interpretive turn, awareness of which
approach alongside a positivist approach came to many organizational culture scholars
later, through the vehicle of the ‘cultural functionalist and generalizable side of the
revolution’ (see Prasad and Prasad, chapter 8, coin was also still present; others saw
this volume). The latter enabled a perception ‘corporate culture’ as a tool that managers
of the paradigmatic unity of the field’s could use to control employees and improve
preceding schools of thought; their shared organizational efficiency and/or effectiveness
positivist presuppositions now came clearly by creating ‘stronger’ cultures, assuming that
into view (and, in fact, organizational culture organizations had a unitary culture, which
as a concept and field of study itself split was subject to control by executives and
between realists and interpretivists, as we upper level managers (e.g., Deal and Kennedy,
discuss below). The colliding of paradigm 1982; Peters and Waterman, 1982; Ouchi,
differences may have been occasioned by 1981; see Kunda, 1992 for a critique of
the development of organizational culture as this view). This contrasted with the more
a field of study, but it precipitated them interpretive view of culture as potentially less
for the discipline as a whole; many of the unitary, also reflecting ‘subcultural’groupings
paradigm battles that were played out initially existing within a single, bounded organization
on organizational culture’s pages came to along professional, managerial, race-ethnic,
mark the broader field of study. gender, and other work-related occupational
As the scope of the discipline is too large to and demographic lines. And this orientation
trace these methodological developments in drew different methods into play.
all its areas, we use organizational culture and For those more inclined to take an inter-
its related domain, organizational symbolism, pretive approach to the topic than a positivist-
as a lens through which to portray these functionalist one, doing organizational culture
developments, and then note in brief their studies was often an act of academic resistance
appearance in a couple of other subfields. This played out methodologically as well as
narrative illustrates that the ‘interpretive turn’ theoretically, even to the point (at that time)
in organizational studies did not simply add of signalling membership on the radical fringe
another appendage of equal weight but also, of the discipline. Both the subject of study
at times, occasioned rather heated debate. and the researcher were understood to be
The examples show that the interpretive turn situated in specific contexts; generalizable
was not about organizational scholars quietly typologies were judged not possible, in this
embracing a new, more interpretivist view, view. ‘Culture’ came to stand in for a
but rather involved ‘blind scholars’ openly different ontological, epistemological, and
arguing over the ‘true’ organizational reality, methodological position, one that broke with
continuing the battle for ideational supremacy the functionalist, positivistically-influenced
that had marked the field’s early history, paradigm that dominated organizational stud-
although now on new grounds. ies. Whereas the latter could be prosecuted
‘Organizational culture’ was heralded as through objective fact-gathering means, gen-
a new paradigm in organizational studies, erating ‘laws’ or principles that are (posited
a theoretical and methodological revolution to be) generalizable across organizations, an
that built on the new awareness of possible interpretive position approaches culture as a
alternatives to dominant modes of theorizing. way of seeing organizations; theorizing and
Viewing culture as a new ‘root metaphor’ methods are joined.
(Smircich, 1983), a new way of seeing In this view, ‘organizational culture’ meant
and understanding organizational life, many not only theories of culture(s) operating within
scholars positioned it against ‘mainstream organizations, but also ‘cultural’ analyses
thinking’, proclaiming it a more vital, more of organizations; the use of those methods
grounded alternative to the lifeless, people- that generated situation-specific knowledge
less systems and other theories that largely reflecting both organizational actors’ under-
ignored human agency and the ‘subjective’ standings of their situations and researchers’
dimensions of everyday organizing. But the interpretations of those understandings as
well as of their own experiences. To see theoretical writings underscored this point,
and perhaps even experience ‘other’ cul- arguing that the text is as much, if not
tural groupings within an organization— more, an interpretive representation created
subcultures, countercultures, etc.—and the by the author, as it is a realist reflection of
values, beliefs, and feelings (or sentiments) the subject of the study. In sociology and
that were meaningful to them required a anthropology, initially this extended to the
researcher to become familiar with the internal recognition that scholarly theorizing is itself
workings of the organization under study, shaped by societal metaphors (e.g., Brown,
from the shop floor level in lieu of or in 1976; Gusfield, 1976) and that writing, too,
addition to the executive suite. In opposition to is a way of worldmaking that constitutes
the large-scale survey research of contingency the very subject being (re)presented (Clifford
theorists and those who wished to promul- and Marcus, 1986; Geertz, 1988; Richardson,
gate generalizable laws of organizational 1994; Van Maanen, 1988; similar arguments
life, organizational culture scholars oriented engaged museum exhibiting practices, e.g.,
toward situation-specific, meaning-focused Karp and Lavine, 1991). This perspective was
studies began to reclaim the ethnographic soon adopted in organizational studies as well
and other qualitative and interpretive methods (e.g., Brower et al., 2000; Golden-Biddle and
that had characterized earlier (but largely Locke, 1993 and 1997; Hatch, 1996; Van
forgotten) bureaucracy, work, and workplace Maanen, 1995a; Yanow, 1995).
studies. Exposure to the various angles of sight Similar battles are still being fought in
afforded by studying managerial, sub-, and other subfields. In organizational identity
countercultures reinforced an appreciation for scholarship, for example, the fundamental AQ: This is not
the range of multiple possible meanings that position established by Albert and Whetten listed in Reference
list. ADDED
could be encompassed within and interpreted (1985) stakes a claim to an a priori definition;
from the same organizational slogan, award organizational identity is central, enduring,
trophy, ceremony, or other symbol. and distinctive. Those who challenge that
Treating culture as an approach, rather definition, whether on theoretical or empirical
than as a variable to be studied, situated grounds, point out that nowhere does this
methodological concerns within their related treatment, whether by its authors or those
questions of knowledge and reality. This who have sought to build upon it, take into
linked ‘cultural’ studies of organizations to account the situatedness of organizations and
other contemporaneous theoretical develop- their actors, let alone of the researcher (see,
ments, among them feminist, critical, liter- e.g., Hatch and Schultz, 2002; Hatch and
AQ: This is not listed
ary, postcolonial, and postmodern theoretical Yanow, 2008; Ybema, 2006). In a similar vein, in the Reference list.
approaches. (These often linked to a new organizational learning scholars have been
field called ‘cultural studies’; including that battling over whether that term designates
here makes clear that we are using the learning undertaken by individuals within the
phrase with a different meaning.) Feminist, organization on its behalf or whether it can
critical, and postcolonial theorists called also designate collective action on the part of
attention to the fact that much of what is the organization as a whole (for explication
presented as neutral and universal knowledge and overviews, see Antonacopoulou, 1999;
is actually based on an assumed norm; for Cook and Yanow, 2006/1993; Easterby-Smith
feminist theorists, males; for critical theorists, and Araujo, 1999; Gherardi, 2000; Popper
a power-based status resting typically on class and Lipshitz, 2000; Weick and Westley,
and/or race and/or gender; for postcolonial 1996). Advocates of the first position tend
theorists, a viewpoint from North-Western to take an ontologically realist approach
Europe. These critiques call attention to with respect to the concept of learning
the situatedness—the ‘positionality’—of the (seeing it as something that can only be
researcher producing knowledge, as well as done by individuals who can, in the view
to the subject of knowledge. Analyses of of these scholars, be observed learning),
and to search for generalizable knowledge. approach, ‘that acknowledges a wider field
Those advancing the latter position tend to of vision but is no less myopic’ (Willmott,
focus on the situatedness of analysis and the 1990, p. 49), constraining analysis within a
more subjectivist epistemology of workplace single paradigm and excluding the possibility
practices (Nicolini, Gherardi, and Yanow, of forms of analysis that transcend that
2003)—a more interpretive approach. paradigm’s limitations. For such scholars,
The battles between the two approaches acknowledging the existence of different
in each of these subfields seemingly are paradigms and perspectives created the need
disagreements about theoretical argumen- to remove the blinders embedded in ‘one-
tations. However, underlying this surface sided’, monocular perspectives and bridge
engagement is in some sense a ‘deeper’ the boundaries of paradigmatic differences,
paradigm war between conceptualizations thereby arguing against ‘hermeticism’ (Has-
that retain a (logical) positivist influence sard, 1988) and paradigm closure (Willmott,
in their methods and goals or intentions 1990) and engaging in ‘paradigm crossing’
for their truth claims, and those influenced or ‘cross fertilization’ (e.g., Gioia and Pitre,
by hermeneutic-phenomenological presuppo- 1990; Hassard, 1991; Lewis and Kelemen,
sitions. The theoretical debates can usefully be 2002; Willmott, 1990 and 1993). From such
seen as a surrogate for these methodological a point of view, organizational theory was in
differences. The seriousness of the debate, need of boundary-transcending contributions;
which has been echoed more broadly across ‘There are many ringing denunciations of
the social sciences as a whole, was captured in opposing viewpoints, but too few attempts at
a series of plenary addresses and subsequent bridging or synthesis’ (Van de Ven and Poole,
panels at the Academy of Management and 1988, p. 25).
then in print (for the basic lines of argument, In order to build a case for boundary-
see Pfeffer, 1993 and Van Maanen, 1995b; crossing, these ‘multi-perspectivists’typically
see also Perrow, 1994). Organizational studies followed a rhetorical strategy in which they
seemed caught, trapped between two, if not first established a view of the field as being
more, incommensurable methodological— ‘at war’, its factions struggling for intellectual
philosophical—positions. For those who dominance (Martin and Frost, 1996), after
believed that the lack of a single paradigm which they argued in favour of ‘peace-
stood in the way of scientific progress, this making’, offering a multiperspectival hand
was an untenable position. holding out a treaty that would bring the
warring factions together in an overarching
framework or metatheory House of Peace
Multi-perspectival peace-makers’
of their devising. Among those advocating
offensives: seeing an elephant?
for cross-paradigmatic bridge-building were
While the discovery and description of Scott (1981) and Morgan (1986) in organiza-
different paradigms or perspectives sparked tional theory at large, and Martin (1992) in the
wars among some scholars, it inspired others subfield of organizational culture, while in the
to try (once again) to achieve a single- literature on organizational research methods,
perspective, unified paradigmatic approach, some sounded a similar call for combining,
launching what might in retrospect be called ‘triangulating’ or ‘mixing’ methods (Jick,
AQ: this is not listed a ‘peace offensive’. Burrell and Morgan 1979; Lee, 1991; Martin, 1990; Rousseau,
in Reference list (1992, p. 25) had argued that synthesis 1990; see Bryman, 2008, and Buchanan and
across paradigms was impossible—that they Bryman, 2007).
needed to remain separate, because they In his three-part treatment of organizational
are based on incommensurable ontological systems theories, Scott (1981) distinguished
and epistemological assumptions. Others, among rational, natural, and open systems
however, argued that the position set out by theories of organizations, suggesting that
Burrell and Morgan led, paradoxically, to an analysis drawing on all three frames provided
a fuller view of the organization being studied. view from a distance that sees more clearly
Morgan (1986), in an argument parallel to the differences among various theoretical
that of Brown (1976), who saw sociological positions in terms of their assumptions,
theories as influenced by various metaphors opinions, emphases, characteristics, methods,
of the social world, advanced the idea that and so on and is, therefore, able to bridge
different organizational theorists developed those differences and unite them under an
the analyses they did because of some overarching umbrella. This is in keeping with
underlying perception—he saw these images another moral embedded in the tale of the
in metaphoric terms—of the organizational elephant that contrasts quite strongly with
world. But unlike Brown, Morgan made the the ‘partial views of each individual blind
largely implicit assumption that scholars and man’ moral. By suggesting that there is, in
practitioners could and would achieve a better actual fact, something recognizable as an
understanding of organizations if they—we— elephant, this telling of the tale holds out the
could step out of our single-metaphor perspec- promise that we—or, at least, the narrator—
tives and see the organizational world as a may deduce the true nature of the thing by
combination of all of the metaphoric images adding up or combining the different reports
he outlined, as if they could be synthesized from various blind men. The structure of the
into a superior vision (Burrell, 1996, p. 652). narrative posits a perspective outside of and
It is a view similar to Schon’s (1979), who above the events it narrates. It has, after all,
argued that making explicit the metaphors an omniscient narrator who is external to the
shaping our perceptions (of actions, policies, unfolding events; otherwise, how would we
and the like) would yield a more accurate know that the creature that came to town and
rendering of social reality, a move that Miller that was perceived by the blind men, however
(1985) critiques as impossible. hands-on in fashion their observation was, in
Martin (1992) also challenged the one- fact, an elephant?
sidedness of a single perspective view, arguing From this perspective, the story tells an
that this enabled seeing certain aspects sharply objectivist tale, rather than the constructivist
but at the same time blinded visions of one it is usually used to illustrate! The moral
others. She advocated for a multiperspective of the story in this telling is that perfect,
approach to overcome those shortcomings complete, objective knowledge is, after all,
and avoid drawing a one-sided picture of possible—if we could but remove those (silly)
cultural reality. Although at times she seems blinders and turn on the lights. Then we could
to be claiming that integration, differentiation, learn how to look in the correct way, as
and fragmentation perspectives are part of we would see how to combine the various
organizational realities and at other times partial views into the greater whole. In terms
treats them as if they were theorists’ views, of Scott’s, Morgan’s or Martin’s theorizing,
the overarching theme of her argument is this moral of the elephant story is that the
that in order to make for more effective researcher needs to use all three frames, all
theories and understandings of organizational nine metaphors, and all three perspectives.
life, theorists need to articulate all three For those holding their work out as exemplary
approaches, integrating them into a single of interpretivist presuppositions, such a claim
analysis in order to capture the social reality poses a paradox; it renders those presenting
that is the organization (Ybema, 1996, 1997). a unifiable multiperspectival view not much
Joining different perspectives within an different, in a sense, from those who advanced
overarching framework, as advocated by paradigm wars, both groups advocating for
these and other theorists, offers a wider the unity of science, each holding out their
metastance with respect to methodological own ‘worldview’ as the more realistic, and
and theoretical differences. It suggests the therefore better, understanding.
possibility of being outside of theories and A similar realism underlies Plato’s story of
theorizing, allowing an external, omniscient the men in the cave seeing their shadows.
It is a position that appears to want things those who would still argue for universal
both ways—an ontological realism coupled principles and scientific laws, but not com-
with an epistemological constructivism. This fortable with the seeming nihilism of much
is the stance of critical realists (e.g., Collier postmodernist theorizing and research, are
1994), and it has its counterpart in research those who are contending with shadows on
methods (see Reed, chapter 25, and Ackroyd, the cave wall, trying through ethnographic,
chapter 31, this volume). Murphy’s (1980) ethnomethodological, practice-grounded, and
qualitative methods analogy (or at least, some other sorts of studies to achieve, as Hockney
interpretations of it) to the mid-nineteenth put it about Picasso’s methods and their
century Wild West wagons in the US circling results, a view that is not ‘always from a
the campfire at the end of the day, read distance and [not] always in a kind of stopped,
as implying that capturing views from the frozen time’ (quoted in Hatch and Yanow,
perspective of each wagon will enable a 2008, p. 27).
complete portrayal of the finite and very
real (and therefore knowable) fire. As with
the elephant and the cave, such an approach Blind-sided by the elephant?: or
suggests that there is an organizational reality, elephants and turtles all the way
which can, at the end of the day (so to speak), down
be rendered as the ethnographer or other There is an Indian story … about an Englishman
interpretive researcher captures all possible who,
perspectives and voices on the research having been told that the world rested on a platform
question. which rested on the back of an elephant
which rested in turn on the back of a turtle,
Picasso-ian portraiture expresses a similar
asked …, what did the turtle rest on?
multiplicity of viewpoints; but instead of an Another turtle.
unnatural realism showing various angles of And that turtle?
his subjects’ faces as if the observer could ‘Ah, Sahib, after that it is turtles all the way down.’
take multiple perspectives at once, Picasso
Clifford Geertz (1973, pp. 28–29; line breaks
sought to capture time’s motion on the two-
not in original)
dimensional canvas, thereby conveying a
more natural view closer to real life than No man stands on truth.
that presented by earlier renderings that froze They are merely banded together as usual,
time and motion, as contemporary artist David one leaning on another and all together on nothing;
Hockney noted (cited in Hatch and Yanow, as the Hindoos made the world rest on an elephant,
and the elephant on a tortoise,
2008). This is the kind of dynamism that
and had nothing to put under the tortoise.
interpretive methodologies seek to capture.
Yet, even in such methodological positions, Henry David Thoreau (1852, 4 May; line breaks
the complexities of organizational life and not in original)
the partiality of scientific knowledge of
them are, in the end, often resolved by What do we learn from these debates
omniscient researchers who, through the tools over paradigms and perspectives? What good
of reflexivity (that considers and explores have ‘paradigm pluralists’ (emphasizing the
their positionality) and negative case analysis incommensurability of different paradigms,
and member-checking (that safeguard against à la Burrell and Morgan), ‘paradigm revolu-
premature analytic closure), explain away its tionaries’ (those who see in the ‘interpretive
chaos by imposing pattern and order (Law, turn’ a revolutionary transformation, with
2004). interpretivism the new, dominant way of
This is, we think, where things stand thinking), ‘paradigm warriors’, and ‘multi-
in organizational studies with respect both perspectival peacemakers’ brought us? Our
to its theorizing and to its methods and treatment of the topic so far, despite our use of
methodological positions; ranged opposite terms such as war and battle, presents the topic
in a rather antiseptic way. We ourselves have Atlantic, where deep divides between inter-
practised the blind men and elephant story pretivism and positivism have hardly been
in the way we presented the four different bridged at all and the US positivist-informed
views on interpretivism in organizational and/or-inflected methodological hegemony
studies by outlining the characteristics and still prevails (as it does there in political and
contributions of each ‘argumentational move’ other social sciences, as well).
in the paradigm debates, whether aimed at US scholars trying to do interpretive
‘pluralistic co-existence’, ‘revolution’, ‘war’ research on the whole still feel beleaguered,
or ‘peace’. If, however, we are to take facing opposition from the hiring front to get-
Kuhn’s observations seriously, claiming the ting published. A glance at most any issue of
status of ‘paradigm’ is a political statement. Organizational Research Methods, the journal
To see its implications, we need to return of the Academy of Management’s Research
to the reflective stance on our discipline’s Methods Division, confirms their invisibility:
professional practices that constitutes the interpretive (or qualitative) methods articles
science studies perspective. have been rare, the exceptions being two
From one point of view, the paradigm special issues (Volume 5:1, in 2002, and
debates have certainly served a purpose; Volume 11:3, in 2008), along with a handful of
for interpretive scholars, at least, paradigm qualitative-interpretive articles that appeared
‘plurality’ and the ‘interpretive turn’ in a recent volume, including a themed issue
created space and legitimacy for alternative on ethnostatistics. Although the Academy of
approaches, and ‘paradigm wars’ were Management’s Critical Management Studies
invigorating, productive, and thought- Interest Group has become a platform for
provoking. Within organizational culture, interpretive research, those methods are still
for example, the debates opened analysis difficult to find in the pages of the Academy’s
up to the symbolic, meaning-making journals, and such research is likely to be held
dimensions of organizational life and, more to standards more appropriate to positivist
generally, to interpretive methodological science (see, e.g., Eden, 2003). The first US
approaches. Culture was set apart from conference devoted to qualitative methods
‘mainstream’ thinking, and the debates (Is in organizational studies (organized by Ann
culture manageable? Is it a unifying force?) Cunliffe, at the University of New Mexico, in
helped to articulate arguments and gain March 2008) had as its purpose, at least in part,
new insights. Those who sought to include to give these methods a visibility (and hence
multiple paradigms or perspectives in their legitimacy) that they have not been accorded
thinking—the ‘peacemakers’—provided since the 1960s.
useful overviews and opened up different Indeed, US scholars conducting inter-
perspectives, persuading some to get out of the pretive research are more likely to find
trenches and think ‘outside the box’. Paradigm readership, and colleagues, on the other side of
‘wars’in this context were, at times, positive in the ocean, where researchers are at least more
their outcomes and inspiring of further work. or less versed in the terminology (‘ontology’
On the other hand, within the context and ‘epistemology’), concepts, and argu-
of academic departments and their hiring ments, even when they oppose interpretivist
and promotion practices, professional associ- positions. Ocean-crossing largely began with
ations and ‘air-time’ for presenting papers at the development of the SCOS conference
meetings, and journals’ editorial positionings, and its celebration of organizational culture
which view of the elephant scholars took and symbolism. Others have been drawn
had implications for their professional lives. by the more theoretically inclined European
Nowhere is this clearer than in the contrasts Group on Organizational Studies (EGOS)
between another binary, imperfect as it conferences, which have made space for
might be; those schools and departments, feminist and critical theories as well; a more
associations, and journals on either side of the recent creation, the British-based Critical
Management Studies (CMS) conference; and observing the extent to which ‘North Atlantic
the ongoing [Metaphor and] Organizational Theories of Organisation’(NATO) are equated
Discourse conference in London/Amsterdam. with ‘international studies of organizations’.
EGOS’ journal, Organization Studies, and (For a related argument noting the ‘over-
the independent (and intentionally ocean- whelmingly western’ roots of management
crossing) Organization have, since their and organizational studies scholarship, see
respective inceptions, been outlets for inter- Frenkel and Shenhav, 2006; see also Yanow,
pretive theoretical and/or methodological 2005b; Weir, 2009; and the emerging literature
scholarship the likes of which would be on ‘Afrocentric management’.) Another arti-
hard to find in an Academy of Management cle reflects on the effect of such hegemony on
journal. On the US side, only the frame- scholarship, linking theoretical orientations
breaking Journal of Management Inquiry to research methods in noting the role of
(JMI) and, occasionally, Organization Science ‘nationality’ among the elements shaping a
publish articles of similar theoretical or researcher’s positionality with respect to the
methodological orientation and scope. study of organizational discourses:
At the same time, European and British
scholars typically find it difficult to have [In] North American business schools … [which] are
work accepted for publication in US journals. dominated by positivist approaches to science …
JMI created the position of European editor ODA [organizational discourse analysis] will be an
interesting but marginal, even odd, approach to
some years ago in an effort to counteract the study of organization. Training, senior faculty
this invisible boundary—but no leading US support and co-authors may be hard to come by.
journal has followed suit. The issue is one In the absence of exposure to qualitative research
of style, best expressed in terms of epistemic training, one may feel too insecure to proceed,
communities and their ‘paradigms’; scholars or one can suffer the hubris of assuming that
anyone who can talk and read can do discourse
largely write in separate worlds, speaking analysis. In the UK and Europe, ODA fits well
past each other even when trying to engage with the more mainstream interpretive and critical
one another’s arguments (see Bryman and traditions. In Australasia, ‘refugees’ from North
Buchanan, chapter 41, this volume). American and UK systems mix with Kiwis and
We have, unfortunately, minimal sense of Aussies in more intellectually diverse departments.
All of the non-US researcher positions must relate
the state of affairs in other parts of the to the American domination of the intellectual field,
world. Australia, New Zealand, India, Latin hierarchical ranking of journals, etc. (Prichard et al.,
America—all have active and growing organi- 2004, p. 216).
zational studies scholarly communities. Asian
and Pacific Researchers in Organizational We can only hazard some guesses as to how
Studies (APROS) has sought to bring many to explain these differences. Unlike the US,
of these together, and interpretive research has Britain and Europe have not (yet) experienced
been well represented there. At the same time, the wholesale colonization of organizational
there is considerable pressure on scholars studies by business and management faculties,
in these areas, as elsewhere, to adopt US and scholarship is still often found within
models of scholarship, driven by textbook and social science faculties (although Britain’s
journal publishing as well as by conferences Research Assessment Exercise and EU-
(e.g., the British Academy of Management driven reward structures instantiate increas-
and EURAM; see Prichard et al., 2007). What ingly constricting productivity measures that
this bodes for interpretive methodologies is threaten to change this). In Britain and Europe,
unclear. faculty and students seem still to be close
Writing from their institutional location in to their countries’ blue collar backgrounds,
New Zealand, Prichard et al. (2007, p. 27) social democratic governments, and/or still
note the dominance and centrality of North more level socio-economic-class playing
Atlantic journals, conferences, and societies fields (although all of this is also changing),
in management and organizational studies, leading perhaps to a greater inclination to
conduct the shop floor studies that have position could render ironic the sense of supe-
drawn, historically, on interpretive methods riority inherent in all points of view that see
and which enjoy a rich tradition there (e.g., in themselves as having a corner on the market of
early Tavistock Institute studies). Truth. In the meantime, however, the presence
That said, the paradigm divisions are not of this variety of perspectives—including pre-
without cost, too, to the culture of schol- interpretivist positivism-informed studies—
arship. What interpretivism initially brought within contemporary organizational studies
to the table was a certain playfulness. That explains why it is necessary today to be so
playfulness introduced alternative paradigms, explicit in detailing methodological ground-
opened our eyes to our own blindnesses, ings for research. As long as one does research
started ‘wars’, wrote ‘peace treaties’, and within a single epistemic community, one
debated new boundaries, without ever taking need not spell things out quite as much
itself too seriously, at first. When debates or in the same way; but with increasingly
on organizational culture, for example, cross- (not to say inter-) disciplinary work,
were alive and kicking, academic life was such as in organizational studies, being more
enjoyable—for some; it was intellectually explicit and more transparent seems called
challenging, and one could feel part of a for. ‘Testability’, one of the two hallmarks of
movement. For others, seeking to explore science (the other being sytematicity), cannot
‘interpretive’ positions that run counter to be carried out at the level of theory and meth-
normative business school traditions led to ods alone; and engaging it methodologically
an often-punitive disciplining, manifested requires a reflective transparency with respect
in various areas of disciplinary practices, to the presuppositions on which those theories
among them hiring, tenure, and publication or methods stand.
processes. This led to a sense of not belonging Are debates in the field of organizational
(see, e.g., Cunliffe, 2008, pp. 9–10; she also studies today open and playful, showing an
cites an article by David Boje referring to his awareness of potential blindness as well as
feelings of being an ‘outcast’). At times, some the potential of alternative interpretations? As
‘paradigm pluralists’, ‘paradigm revolution- we have shown, interpretivism has certainly
aries’, ‘paradigm warriors’, and ‘paradigm gained prominence in the field. In Europe,
peacemakers’, in their more hegemonic interpretive analysis is no longer (if it ever
efforts to establish paradigmatic dominance in was) a counterculture or a discriminated-
the field, or simply to defend a theory or claim against ‘minority’ voice; in the US-based
space for a different perspective, seemed to and -influenced academy, where positivist-
want to colonize the entire discipline. Despite inflected methods and arguments (still) hold
the proclaimed openness of interpretivism to sway (even, as Ann Cunliffe reminds us [per-
multiple rather than universal-generalizable sonal communication, 5 June 2008] within
versions of social realities, some of the qualitative research), oppositional theoretical
advocates of a multiperspectival position voices seem no longer quite as isolated
tended to advance claims to the whole as they were 20 years ago, thanks in no
research enterprise, not just arguing for ‘equal’ small part to the space created for them
space and time—and to do so with charged by the Critical Management Studies group
rhetoric (a more adequate explanation is, ipso within the Academy of Management. Their
facto, a more ‘advanced’ one), which lent the methodological presence, however, continues
arguments a feeling of superiority. in many departmental curricula and in the
In not acknowledging their own blind- halls of science to have to battle for air-
nesses, those interpretive scholars alienated time and legitimacy. As some of our British
themselves from the underlying assumptions colleagues remind us, what from the western
of interpretivism by forgetting to put their own side of the Atlantic might appear more
‘truths’ in quotation marks, and in the plural. accepting of interpretive and/or pluralistic
Remembering the self-contradiction of this approaches as valuable research, the Research
Assessment measurement system that priv- today remains giving voice to alterity, because
ileges publication in tier-1 journals, with these approaches still retain the potential to
its own implications for controlling tenure, enable a continuous, running commentary on
promotion, and scholarly respect, is heavily our theory constructions, smiling ironically at
slanted away from such work. Even funding our neatly crafted frameworks and clear-cut
for attending workshops on interpretive and distinctions.
other theoretical and methodological topics is
discouraged in many British business schools,
as being ‘not the kind of thing that we should Acknowledgements
be doing’. Interpretive scholarship is, in a We are grateful to Christine Coupland, Ann
word, ‘dissed’—not respected, dismissed—as Cunliffe, Mary Jo Hatch, and Peregrine
being not true scholarship, and those British Schwartz-Shea, as well as the two editors, for
scholars manning the barriers often turn to US comments on earlier drafts of this chapter. A
journals and scholars to back up their claims section of the chapter draws on previously
privileging positivist-informed research over published material (Yanow, 1987; Yanow and
other forms (Christine Coupland, personal Adams, 2000/1997).
communication, May 2008).
Although the hostilities may have lessened,
then, the paradigm wars continue (Bryman
2008); but this is now largely a cold war, REFERENCES
having lost its initial playful vitality. Rivals
Adams, G.B. (1994) ‘Blindsided by the elephant’, Public
have retreated to safety in the trenches (on
Administration Review 54(1): 77–83.
different sides of the Atlantic, for instance),
Allison, G. (1971) Essence of decision. Boston: Little-
writing in separate worlds, in many ways Brown.
successfully ignoring each other. Interpretive Antonacopoulou, E. (1999) ‘Developing learning
approaches have proliferated into different managers within learning organizations’, in Mark
strands of research (such as practice theory, Easterby-Smith, John Burgoyne, and Luis Araujo,
discourse analysis, or organizational identity), (eds), Organizational learning and the learning
abandoning a term like organizational culture organization, 217–42. London: Sage.
in favour of seemingly more vivid terms Astley, W.G. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1979) ‘Central
like ‘discourse’, ‘hegemony’, ‘institutions’, perspectives and debates in organization theory’,
‘identities’, ‘aesthetics’ or ‘practices’. The Administrative Science Quarterly 31: 78–108.
Becker, H.S., Geer, B., Hughes, E. and Strauss, A. (1961)
retreat into one’s own ‘community of interest’
Boys in white. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
established what looks like a dominant
Berger, P.L. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The social
‘cold war’ style ‘paradigm peace’—no overt construction of reality. New York: Anchor Books.
fights and a somewhat phony peace—that Bernstein, R.J. (1983) Beyond objectivism and relativism.
hides paradigmatic contentions from view, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
deadening the lively and thought-provoking Blau, P. (1963) [1953] The dynamics of bureaucracy.
debates of the 1980s and 1990s. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Although it is still hard to tell, today’s Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1984) Reframing organizations.
‘cold war’ seems to add a new chapter to San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
the story of interpretivism in organizational Brower, R., Abolafia, M.Y. and Carr, J.B. (2000) ‘On
studies. We wonder what a newly enrolled improving qualitative methods in public adminis-
tration research’, Administration and Society 32:
doctoral student, coming of age in a post-
363–97.
interpretive-turn world, would make of this
Brown, R.H. (1976) ‘Social theory as metaphor’, Theory
narrative. If interpretivists do not derive their and Society 3: 169–97.
identity as much from offering an alternative Bryman, A. (2008) ‘The end of paradigm wars?’, in Pertti
or an addition to mainstream functionalism Alasuutari, Leonard Bickman, and Julia Brannen,
any more, the challenge for interpretive (eds), The Sage handbook of social research methods,
approaches to studying organizational life 13–25. London: Sage.
Buchanan, D.A. and Bryman, A. (2007) ‘Contextualizing Gherardi, S. (2000) ‘Practice-based theorizing on
method choice in organizational research’, Organiza- learning and knowing in organizations’, Organization
tional Research Methods 10 (3): 483–501. 7: 211–23.
Burrell, G. (1996) ‘Normal science, paradigms, Gioia, D.A. and Pitre, E. (1990) ‘Multiparadigm perspec-
metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis’, in tives on theory building’, Academy of Management
Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord, Review 15 (4): 584–602.
(eds), Handbook of organization studies, 642–658. Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (1993) ‘Appealing work:
London: Sage. An investigation of how ethnographic texts convince’,
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Organization Science 4: 595–616.
paradigms and organisational analysis. Portsmouth, Golden-Biddle, K. and Locke, K. (1997) Composing
NH: Heinemann. qualitative research. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.
Clegg, S. and Hardy, C. (2006) ‘Representation and Goodman, N. (1978) Ways of world-making.
reflexivity’, in Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Thomas B. Lawrence, and Walter R. Nord, (eds), Gusfield, J.R. (1976) ‘The literary rhetoric of science’,
The Sage Handbook of Organization Studies, (second American Sociological Review 41: 16–34.
edn.), 425–443. London: Sage. Hassard, J. (1988) ‘Overcoming hermeticism in
Clifford, J. and Marcus, G.E. (eds) (1986) Writing culture: organization theory: an alternative to paradigm
The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: incommensurability’, Human Relations 41: 247–59.
University of California Press. Hassard, J. (1991) ‘Multiple paradigms and organiza-
Collier, A. (1994) Critical realism: An introduction to Roy tional analysis: a case study’, Organization Studies
Bhaskar’s philosophy. London: Verso. 12: 275–99.
Cook, S.D. and Yanow, D. (2006) [1993] ‘Culture and Hatch, M.J. (1996) ‘The role of the researcher: An
organizational learning’, in Barbara Czarniawska, analysis of narrative position in organization theory’,
(ed.), Organization theory, vol. 1, 259–276. Journal of Management Inquiry 5: 359–74.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Hatch, M.J. (2004) ‘Dynamics in organizational culture’,
Crozier, M. (1964) The bureaucratic phenomenon.
in Marshall Scott Poole and Andrew Van de Ven, (eds),
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Handbook of organizational change and innovation,
Cunliffe, A.L. (2008) ‘Alterity, Ricoeur, and the poetics
190–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
and politics of self and scholarship’, Inaugural Lecture,
Hatch, M.J. and Schultz, M. (2002) ‘The dynamics
University of Hull Business School (12 May).
of organizational identity’, Human Relations 55:
Dalton, M. (1959) Men who manage. New York: Wiley.
989–1019.
Deal, T.E. and Kennedy, A.A. (1982) Corporate cultures:
The rites and rituals of corporate life. Reading, MA: Hatch, M.J. and Yanow, D. (2003) ‘Organizational
Addison-Wesley. studies as an interpretive science’, in Christian
Donaldson, L. (2003) ‘Organization theory as a Knudsen and Haridimos Tsoukas, (eds), The Oxford
positive science’, in Christian Knudsen and Haridimos handbook of organization theory: Meta-theoretical
Tsoukas, (eds), The Oxford handbook of organiza- perspectives, 63–87. New York, NY: Oxford University
tion theory: Meta-theoretical perspectives, 39–62. Press.
New York: Oxford University Press. Hatch, M.J. and Yanow, D. (2008) ‘Methodology by
Easterby-Smith, M. and Araujo, L. (1999) ‘Organiza- metaphor: ways of seeing in painting and research’,
tional learning: Current debates and opportunities’, Organization Studies 29: 23–44.
in Mark Easterby-Smith, John Burgoyne, and Luis Hiley, D.R., Bohman, J.F. and Shusterman, R. (eds)
Araujo, (eds), Organizational learning and the (1991) The interpretive turn. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
learning organization, 1–22. London: Sage. University Press.
Eden, D. (2003) ‘Critical management studies and Ingersoll, V.H. and Adams, G.B. (1992) The tacit
the Academy of Management Journal’, Academy of organization. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Management Journal 46: 390–94. Jacobson, S. and Jacques, R. (1990) ‘Of knowers,
Frenkel, M. and Shenhav, Y. (2006) ‘From binarism back knowing and the known’, Presented to the Academy
to hybridity: A postcolonial reading of management of Management Annual Meeting, August.
and organization studies’, Organization Studies 27: Jick, T.D. (1979) ‘Triangulating on mixing qualitative
855–76. and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action’,
Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures. NY: Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 602–11.
Basic Books. Karp, I. and Lavine, S.D. (eds) (1991) Exhibiting
Geertz, C. (1988) Works and lives: The anthropologist cultures: The poetics and politics of museum display.
as author. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Kaufman, H. (1960) The forest ranger. Baltimore, MD: B. Miner, ‘We see dead people? The state of
Published for Resources for the Future by Johns organization science’, Journal of Management Inquiry
Hopkins Press. 16 (4): 300–17.
Kuhn, T. (1970) The structure of scientific revolutions, Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization. Beverly Hills,
(second edn.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CA: Sage.
Kunda, G. (1992) Engineering culture. Philadelphia: Murphy, J.T. (1980) Getting the facts. Santa Monica:
Temple University Press. Goodyear.
Lammers, C.J. (1991) [1983]. Organisaties vergeli- Nicolini, D., Gherardi, S. and Yanow, D. (2003) ‘Toward
jkenderwijs: Ontwikkeling en relevantie van het a practice-based view of knowing and learning in
sociologisch denken over organisaties [Organizations organizations’, in Davide Nicolini, Silvia Gherardi,
in comparison: Development and relevance of and Dvora Yanow, (eds), Knowing in organizations:
sociological thinking about organizations]. Utrecht: A practice-based approach, 3–31. Armonk, NY:
Het Spectrum. M. E. Sharpe.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: How to follow Ouchi, W.G. (1981) Theory Z: How American business
scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA:
Harvard University Press. Addison-Wesley.
Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1979) Laboratory life: The Perrow, C. (1994) ‘Dialogue: Pfeffer slips!’, Academy of
construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Management Review 19: 191–94.
Law, J. (2004) After method: Mess in social science Peters, T.J. and Waterman, R.H. (1982) In search of
research. London: Routledge. excellence. NY: Harper and Row.
Lee, A.S. (1991) ‘Integrating positivist and interpretive Pettigrew, A.M. (1979) ‘On studying organizational
approaches to organizational research’, Organization cultures’, Administrative Science Quarterly 24 (4):
Science 2: 342–65. 570–81.
Lewis, M.W. and Kelemen, M.L. (2002) ‘Multiparadigm Pfeffer, J. (1993) ‘Barriers to the advance of organiza-
inquiry: Exploring organizational pluralism and tional science: Paradigm development as a dependent
paradox’, Human Relations 55 (2): 251–75. variable’, Academy of Management Review 18(4):
Lincoln, Y.S. and Guba, E.G. (2000) ‘Paradigmatic 599–620.
controversies, contradictions, and emerging conflu- Polkinghorne, D.E. (1983) Methodology for the human
ences’, in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonne S. Lincoln, sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
(eds), Handbook of qualitative research, (second Polkinghorne, D.E. (1988) Narrative knowing and the
edn.), 163–188. London: Sage. human sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Lipsky, M. (1980) Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Popper, M. and Lipshitz, R. (2000) ‘Organizational
Russell Sage. learning: Mechanisms, culture, and feasibility’,
Martin, J. (1990) ‘Breaking up the mono-method Management Learning 31 (2): 181–96.
monopolies in organizational analysis’, in John Prasad, P. (2005) Crafting qualitative research: Work-
Hassard and Denis Pym, (eds), The theory and ing in the postpositivist traditions. Armonk, NY:
philosophy of organizations: Critical issues and new M. E. Sharpe.
perspectives, 30–43. London: Routledge. Prichard, C., Jones, D. and Stablein, R. (2004) ‘Doing
Martin, J. (1992) Cultures in organizations: Three research in organizational discourse: The importance
perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press. of researcher context’, in David Grant, Cynthia
Martin, J. and Frost, P.J. (1996) ‘The organizational Hardy, Cliff Oswick, and Linda Putnam, (eds), Sage
culture war games: a struggle for intellectual handbook of organizational discourse, 213–236.
dominance’, in Stewart R. Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and London: Sage.
Walter R. Nord, (eds), Handbook of organization Prichard, C., Sayers, J. and Bathurst, R. (2007)
studies, 599–621. London: Sage. ‘Franchise, margin and locale: Constructing a
McCloskey, D.N. (1985) The rhetoric of economics. critical management studies locale in Aotearoa
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. New Zealand’, New Zealand Sociology 22 (1): 22–44.
McGregor, D. (1957) ‘The human side of enterprise’, The Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W.M. (eds) (1979) Interpretive
Management Review 46(11): 22–8. social science. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Miller, D.F. (1985) ‘Social policy: An exercise in Rabinow, P. and Sullivan, W.M. (eds) (1985) Interpretive
metaphor’, Knowledge 7(2): 191–215. social science, (second edn.), Berkeley: University of
Miner, J.B. (2007) ‘Where is organizational science California Press.
headed?’ in Gavin M. Schwarz, Stewart Clegg, Rein, M. and Schon, D.A. (1977) ‘Problem setting in
Thomas G. Cummings, Lex Donaldson, and John policy research’, in Carol Weiss, (ed.), Using social
research in policy making, 235–251. Lexington, MA: Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of
Lexington Books. change in organization and management, 19–63.
Richardson, L. (1994) ‘Writing: A method of inquiry’, Cambridge MA: Ballinger.
in Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, (eds), Van Maanen, J. (1979) ‘The fact of fiction in
Handbook of qualitative research, 516–29. Thousand organizational ethnography’, Administrative Science
Oaks, CA: Sage. Quarterly 24: 539–50.
Ricoeur, P. (1971) ‘The model of the text’, Social Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the field: On writing
Research 38: 529–62. ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rousseau, D.M. (1990) ‘Assessing organizational Van Maanen, J. (1995a) ‘Style as theory’, Organization
culture: The case for multiple methods’, in Benjamin Science 6: 133–43.
Schneider, (ed.), Organizational climate and culture. Van Maanen, J. (1995b) ‘Fear and loathing in
San Francisco: Jossey Bass. organization science’, Organization Science 6:
Schatzki, T.R., Knorr-Cetina, K. and von Savigny, E., 687–92.
(eds) (2001) The practice turn in contemporary theory. Van Maanen, J. (ed.) (1998) Qualitative studies of
New York: Routledge. organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Schein, E.H. (1985) Organizational culture and leader- Waldo, D. (1961) ‘Organization theory: an elephantine
ship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. problem’, Public Administration Review 21(4):
Schein, E.H. (1992) Organizational culture and leader- 210–25.
ship, (second edn.), San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weick, K. (1979) The social psychology of organizing,
Schon, D.A. (1979) ‘Generative metaphor’, in Andrew (second edn.) New York: Random House.
Ortony, (ed.), Metaphor and thought, 254–283. Weick, K.E. and Westley, F. (1996) ‘Organizational
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. learning: affirming an oxymoron’, in Stewart R.
Scott, W. R. (1981) Organizations: Rational, natural, and Clegg, Cynthia Hardy, and Walter R. Nord,
open systems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (eds), Handbook of organization studies, 440–58.
Selznick, P. (1949) TVA and the grass roots. Berkeley: London: Sage.
University of California Press. Weir, D. (2009) Management in the Arab world.
Selznick, P. (1957) Leadership in administration: A Cheltenham: Edward Elgar (forthcoming).
sociological interpretation. New York: Harper and Westerlund, G. and Sjostrand, S.-E. (1979) Organiza-
Row. tional myths. NY: Harper and Row.
Schultz, M. and Hatch, M.J. (1996) ‘Living with White, J.D. (1992) ‘Taking language seriously: toward
multiple paradigms: the case of paradigm interplay a narrative theory of knowledge for administrative
in organizational culture studies’, Academy of research’, American Review of Public Administration
Management Review 21 (2): 529–557. 22: 75–88.
Shafritz, J.M. and Ott, J. S., (eds) (1996) Classics Willmott, H. (1990) Beyond paradigmatic closure
of organization theory, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: in organizational enquiry’, in John Hassard and
Wadsworth. Denis Pym, (eds), The theory and philosophy of
Smircich, L. (1983) ‘Concepts of culture and organiza- organizations: Critical issues and new perspectives,
tional analysis’, Administrative Science Quarterly 28: 44–60. London: Routledge.
339–58. Willmott, H. (1993) Breaking the paradigm mentality’,
Taylor, C. (1977) [1971] ‘Interpretation and the sciences Organization Studies 14: 681–721.
of man’ in Fred R. Dallmayr and Thomas A. McCarthy, Yanow, D. (1987) ‘Ontological and interpretive logics in
(eds), Understanding and social inquiry, 101–31. organizational studies’, Methods 1 (2): 73–89.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press. Yanow, D. (1995) ‘Writing organizational tales’,
Thoreau, H.D. (1852) Journals, part IV (excerpts). Avail- Organization Science 6: 225–6.
able at http://www.sniggle.net/Experiment/index. Yanow, D. (2005a) ‘In the house of “science”, there are
php?entry=excerpts04#04May52 (last accessed 20 many rooms: Perestroika and the “science studies”
May 2008). turn’, in Kristen Renwick Monroe, (ed.), Perestroika!
Tuana, N. (1989) ‘The weaker seed: The sexist bias of The raucous rebellion in political science, 200–217.
reproductive theory’ in Nancy Tuana, (ed.), Feminism New Haven: Yale University Press.
and science. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Yanow, D. (2005b) ‘Public administration in
Press. “translation”: non-Western and other administrative
Van de Ven, A.H. and Poole, M.S. (1988) ‘Paradoxical practices. Introduction to the Symposium on “non-
requirements for a theory of organizational change’, Western administrative practices”’. Administrative
in Robert E. Quinn and Kim S. Cameron, (eds), Theory & Praxis 27: 81–5.
Yanow, D. and Adams, G.B. (2000/1997) ‘Organiza- organizations, 39–61. Amsterdam: VU University
tional culture’, in Jay Shafritz, (ed.), Defining public Press.
administration, 137–146. NY: Westview Press. Ybema, S. (1997) ‘Telling tales. Contrasts and common-
Yanow, D. and Schwartz-Shea, P. (eds), (2006) alities within the organization of an amusement park:
Interpretation and method: Empirical research Confronting and combining different perspectives’,
methods and the interpretive turn. Armonk, NY: in Sonja A. Sackmann, (ed.), Cultural complexity in
ME Sharpe. organizations: Inherent contrasts and contradictions,
Ybema, S. (1996) ‘A duckbilled platypus in the 160–185. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
theory and analysis of organisations: Combinations Ybema, S. (2004) ‘The temporal construction of identity
of consensus and dissensus’, in Willem Koot, Ida change and continuity’, in Dawn Caseby and Gabriele
Sabelis, and Sierk Ybema, (eds), Contradictions in Morello, (eds), In search of time, 89–106. Palermo:
context: Puzzling over paradoxes in contemporary ISIDA.
View publication stats

Interpretivism in Organizational Research: On Elephants and Blind Researchers

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

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

Interpretivism in Organizational Research: On Elephants and Blind Researchers

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Interpretivism in organizational research: On elephants and blind researchers

Chapter · January 2009

Dvora Yanow Sierk Ybema

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Innovation and organizational change in health care View project

Teaching interpretively View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

INTRODUCTION second, touching the tail, says it must be a

[18:23 5/12/2008 5271-Buchanan-Ch03.tex]

Job No: 5271

BUCHANAN:The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Research MethodsPage: 42

for instance, claims no privilege over its

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche