We see dead people?: The state of organization science

Schwarz, GM; Clegg, S; Cummings, TG; Donaldson, L; Miner, JB

We see dead people?: The state of organization science

Schwarz, GM Clegg, S

Cummings, TG Donaldson, L Miner, JB

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Management Inquiry, 2007, 16 (4), pp. 300 - 317
Issue Date:: 2007-12-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	2007002676.pdf		201.79 kB	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	Schwarz, GM	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Clegg, S https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6083-4283	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cummings, TG	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Donaldson, L	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Miner, JB	en_US
dc.date.issued	2007-12-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Management Inquiry, 2007, 16 (4), pp. 300 - 317	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1056-4926	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5346
dc.description.abstract	This essay responds to John Miner's (1984) assessment of the state of organizational science. Slightly more than two decades ago, Miner found little evidence of a correlation between organizational scholars' ratings of the importance of a theory, its use, and its estimated validity. In response, he suggested the need for organizational science to readjust its goals, paradigms, and basic processes so that it develops as a discipline. Despite this challenge, the intervening years have seen the field become seemingly more paradigmatically fragmented, promoting discussion on its place in the social sciences. The essay presents four reviews in response to what has followed since Miner's original study. It offers a judgment on Miner's evaluation, a suggestion for the field's development, a position paper, and a response from Miner. Combined, the ensuing dialog offers practical suggestions to the problem of a seemingly perennially emerging organizational science. © 2007 Sage Publications.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Management Inquiry	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1177/1056492607310927	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Business & Management	en_US
dc.title	We see dead people?: The state of organization science	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	16	en_US
utslib.for	1503 Business and Management	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Business/Management Discipline
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	16	en_US

Abstract:

This essay responds to John Miner's (1984) assessment of the state of organizational science. Slightly more than two decades ago, Miner found little evidence of a correlation between organizational scholars' ratings of the importance of a theory, its use, and its estimated validity. In response, he suggested the need for organizational science to readjust its goals, paradigms, and basic processes so that it develops as a discipline. Despite this challenge, the intervening years have seen the field become seemingly more paradigmatically fragmented, promoting discussion on its place in the social sciences. The essay presents four reviews in response to what has followed since Miner's original study. It offers a judgment on Miner's evaluation, a suggestion for the field's development, a position paper, and a response from Miner. Combined, the ensuing dialog offers practical suggestions to the problem of a seemingly perennially emerging organizational science. © 2007 Sage Publications.

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

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/5346