What can we believe in? How a scientific community only got it half wrong in the aetiology of occupational stress

Mahony, KL

What can we believe in? How a scientific community only got it half wrong in the aetiology of occupational stress

Mahony, KL

Permalink

Publisher:: Waikato Management School, University of Waikato
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Electronic Journal of Radical Organisation Theory, 2001, 7 (1), pp. 1 - 12
Issue Date:: 2001-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2004004318.pdf		2.95 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Mahony, KL
dc.date.accessioned	2009-12-21T02:37:24Z
dc.date.issued	2001-01
dc.identifier.citation	Electronic Journal of Radical Organisation Theory, 2001, 7 (1), pp. 1 - 12
dc.identifier.issn	1173-6631
dc.identifier.other	C1	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5239
dc.description.abstract	The history of occupational stress research has not been linear, with new findings building on past knowledge. Several theories vie for dominance at any one time as new theories usurp old theories and old theories are resurrected.What can we believe in? Just when we are thoroughly convinced by a particular scientific community as to why it is that we behave the way we do, a new theory is heralded as a major scientific breakthrough and we are expected to change allegiance.The theory, which forms the case study for this paper has been cited so often during the last 30 years that it has become established, authoritative lay knowledge; a taken-for-granted reference, which is only now, at the turn of the century being questioned by the same scientific community who were previously so sure of its validity. The theory addressed is the so-called established link between Type A behaviour pattern, stress and coronary heart disease. The epistemologies of the structuralists and post-structuralists are invoked to explain these changes in theoretical consensus.
dc.format	Print
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Waikato Management School, University of Waikato
dc.relation.ispartof	Electronic Journal of Radical Organisation Theory
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.title	What can we believe in? How a scientific community only got it half wrong in the aetiology of occupational stress
dc.type	Journal article
utslib.citation.volume	7
utslib.citation.number	1	en_US
utslib.citation.startpage	1	en_US
utslib.citation.endpage	12	en_US
utslib.identifier.org	Finance and Economics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.declined	1970-01-01T00:00:00.0+1000

Abstract:

The history of occupational stress research has not been linear, with new findings building on past knowledge. Several theories vie for dominance at any one time as new theories usurp old theories and old theories are resurrected.What can we believe in? Just when we are thoroughly convinced by a particular scientific community as to why it is that we behave the way we do, a new theory is heralded as a major scientific breakthrough and we are expected to change allegiance.The theory, which forms the case study for this paper has been cited so often during the last 30 years that it has become established, authoritative lay knowledge; a taken-for-granted reference, which is only now, at the turn of the century being questioned by the same scientific community who were previously so sure of its validity. The theory addressed is the so-called established link between Type A behaviour pattern, stress and coronary heart disease. The epistemologies of the structuralists and post-structuralists are invoked to explain these changes in theoretical consensus.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5239