Download Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies

Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Eero Vaara
Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
Runeberginkatu 14-16
00100 Helsinki
FINLAND
t. +358-9-43138584
f. +358-9-43138880
email: [email protected]
1999-07-12
Marja-Liisa Kakkuri-Knuuttila
Academy of Finland/
Helsinki School of Economics and Business Administration
Runeberginkatu 14-16
00100 Helsinki
FINLAND
email: [email protected]
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies:
Towards reflective pragmatism?
Critical Management Studies Conference
Strategy stream
1
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies:
Towards reflective pragmatism?
Introduction
This paper focuses on epistemological issues in strategic management studies. We
argue that in spite of a growing interest in epistemological, praxeological and
axiological issues there is still a lack of critical reflection in the context of strategic
management studies.
It is not easy to clearly define the scope and borders of ‘strategic management
studies’ in distinction to other management or organization research. ‘Strategic
management studies’ are not either an internally coherent body of knowledge (see
e.g. Knights and Morgan, 1991; Hatch, 1997; Mintzberg, Ahlstrand and Lampel,
1998). There exists, for example, a crude division of the strategic management
literature into ‘practically oriented’normative literature the scientific status of which
has been seen as questionable and ‘scientific’ literature dominating the leading
journals of the field (e.g. Strategic Management Journal).
Critical assessments of strategic management studies indicate that there are major
problems that should be tackled (see e.g. Knights and Morgan, 1991; Mintzberg,
1994). These include development of such knowledge that is not really useful for
practitioners, spreading of western models without reflection of the cultural
contexts and consequences (not only within the particular organization but also
spreading unintended consequences with global effects), and creation and
strengthening of power structures that result in dominance and exploitation.
This paper argues that much of the problems stem from a still prevailing ‘modernist’
orientation of strategic management studies, characteristic of which has been an
‘empiricist’ tendency to value such knowledge that is represented in abstract
decontextualized statements and ‘law-like’ causal claims based on empirical
regularities without recognition of the theory-ladenness of empirical observations,
an ‘enlightenment’conception of the ability of this research program to lead to more
effective management and organizational performance, and a ‘positivist’ distinction
between facts and values.
2
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
While many management and strategic management scholars do not accept
‘modernist’ epistemological bases, this is not the case with mainstream management
research in general or strategic management research in particular. Neither is this the
case with research practice, reflected, for example, in actual criteria for publication
in leading journals. For example, Numagami (1998) argues that “their conduct is
still implicitly dominated by the procedures that would be relevant only if the search
for invariant laws were predominant in the social world” (p. 3). For example, case
studies in particular receive criticism based on a limited number of cases or limited
external validity in terms of statistical generalization.
A number of alternative epistemological approaches have been proposed and
elaborated to produce more ‘critical’ management research. Interpretive
organization and management studies are as such based on anti-positivist
epistemological foundations (see Silverman, 1968, 1970; Burrell and Morgan,
1979). In fact, from the 1970s to date, many scholars have drawn ideas from
different streams of sociology or social psychology, as manifested in hermeneutics,
phenomenology, ethnography, narrative or discourse analysis. Many of these studies
have taken a relativist epistemological starting point with a focus on the actors’ and
researchers’own interpretations.
Of the approaches that have attempted to both savor some ‘real’ foundations of the
phenomena to be studied and understand the role of interpretations, ‘scientific’ or
‘transcendental realism’ is worth specific attention because of its conception of
causality. Outlined by Bhaskar (1975, 1979) and Harré and Madden (1975), this
approach has been brought to organization and management studies, for example,
by Tsoukas (1989). According to this view, one needs to distinguish observable
events from the processes and mechanisms that produce them.
‘Critical theory’, developed by Habermas (1972) and others, has received significant
attention in management studies when considering the consequences of the research
conducted and the role of researchers. For example, Alvesson and Willmott (1996)
have elaborated this approach and suggested how the ideas of critical theory may
lead to better management research and practice. Closely related, for example,
‘feminist’ scholars have also suggested new epistemological bases for management
3
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
research (Calás and Smircich, 1996). Another alternative is offered by proponents of
‘pragmatism’. Developed, for example, in the work of Rorty (1989), the pragmatist
epistemology – that does not distinguish ‘truth’ and ‘justification’ – has been
considered a viable alternative for ethical organization studies (see Wicks and
Freeman, 1998).1
Scholars have also drawn ideas from sociology, such as the work of Giddens (see
Whittington, 1992). ‘Post-modernism’ and ‘post-structuralism’ are labels attached
to several philosophical approaches that have been specifically important sources for
‘critical’ reflection. Although it is very difficult to summarize these dispersed ideas,
most would agree that the basic tenet lies in a critical view on scientific knowledge
production and progress. Foucault’s (1973, 1980) ideas have recently been given
specific attention in management studies. For example, Knights and Morgan (1991)
and Knights (1992) have argued that strategic management could (and should) be
studied from the perspective of archaeological, genealogical and ethical account of
discourses and social practices. Derrida (1978, 1982) is another new source of
inspiration. Knights (1997), for instance, has elaborated how an approach of
deconstruction may help to understand how ideas or narratives that do not comply
with the dominant logic are marginalized.
Rather than looking for postmodern epistemological bases, some organization and
management scholars have turned to ‘pre-modern’ ideas (Toulmin, 1990;
Cummings, 1996; Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). Kakkuri-Knuuttila (1996)
Tsoukas and Cummings (1997) and have, for example, elaborated ideas of how
Aristotelian thoughts could be rediscovered and used in contemporary management
and organization research.
In order to structure this critical debate in strategic management studies, we
concentrate on five crucial epistemological issues:
- Universalism vs. contextuality
- Conception of causality
1
Our conception of pragmatism echoes in many ways the work of such authors as Rorty but the
positions outlined here are not based on or always consistent with this particular philosophical
approach.
4
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
- Conceptualizations and narrative rationality
- Relation of scientific knowledge and practice
- Value-laden nature of knowledge and ethical implications of research
Following an old Aristotelian idea of ‘endoxa’ (Aristotle, 1984), that is ‘beliefs of
reputable persons’ or ‘best knowledge available’, this paper draws from various
epistemological approaches when building pragmatic positions for future research
on strategic management. The idea is to develop such positions that are both able to
tackle much of the criticism provided but also provide reasonable bases for strategy
research, reflecting the Aristotelian idea of ‘saving the appearances’.
This leads to the elaboration of pragmatic positions that may help strategy
researchers to produce knowledge that is both relevant for practice and reflective in
terms of its societal implications. We conclude by arguing that future strategy
research does not have to follow any particular ‘ism’ but can be based on both
traditional Aristotelian concepts and recent postmodern considerations.
Critical epistemological issue #1: Universalism vs. contextuality
The modernist-positivist epistemological foundation is built on knowledge of the
‘general’ nature of phenomena. In the context of strategic management, this has
promoted the view that the objective of research is to reveal and provide ‘universal’
knowledge of strategy processes, strategy formulation and the consequences of
different strategic choices. As a result, much of the discussions concerning strategy
have been characterized by a high level of abstraction.
There are great problems with this attempt to strive for as universal knowledge as
possible. A general criticism of social sciences is that looking for similarities and
general features in different socio-cultural settings leads to an ignorance of the
contextual nature and embeddedness of social phenomena (see e.g. Granovetter,
1985). It seems specifically correct to criticize positivistically oriented strategic
management research for its decontextualized and ahistorical grasp of reality, since
5
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
it seldom shows any interest in the culturally and historically limited conditions
under which organizations operate (see e.g. Whitley, 1984; Knights, 1992; 1997). In
fact, there are a great deal of examples of strategic management research that have
been adopted across the globe without critical reflection of how the knowledge
developed in particular contexts may or may not be relevant for others. For good
reasons, especially the U.S. cultural dominance should be viewed with a critical eye.
As such, the call for culturally and historically sensitive research is no news for
management scholars. Interpretive research approaches are usually based on
methodologies that favor local presence and representations of local knowledge. In
fact, by concentrating on the actors’ interpretations, they focus on the social
construction of the organizational and management processes at particular contexts
(see e.g. Burrell and Morgan, 1979). There is also a stream of more historically
oriented management research that has as a starting point a recognition of the
contexts of these processes (see e.g. Pettigrew, 1973).
Many postmodernists have also lately emphasized the importance of historical
contingencies, locality, uniqueness and particularisms (e.g. Knights, 1992; 1997).
For example, Foucault’s genealogical approach can be interpreted as a search for
historical conditions that help to understand the development of particular types of
practices and thus the specific dilemmas faced in particular situations (see e.g.
Knights, 1992). This approach has also an in-built criticism in the sense that it
emphasizes that the particular ideas are (almost arbitrary) products of the particular
circumstances but are no necessarily particularly relevant for other contexts. Some
of the more radical postmodernist scholars have gone as far as taking a position that
all the knowledge is local and that one should not strive for any type of
generalizations. This position is, however, untenable as it provides no reasonable
basis for arguments concerning similarities or differences in terms of the relevant
social structures or actual practices. In fact, notions such as ‘uniqueness’ or
‘particularism’ require, for their full comprehension, understanding of the more
general, to which the particular is compared to.2
2
It should be noted that the argument for locality can also imply suppressing normative research. For
example, Löwendahl and Revang (1998) claim that giving advice to managers is not the task of
strategic research, since the concept of advice "by definition requires a generalist perspective where a
6
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
A pragmatist epistemological position is to see strategy work, strategy formulation
processes and strategic decision making as activities which are firmly rooted in the
particular historical-cultural settings. While the mainstream of strategy research has
paid little attention to these conditions when searching for universal knowledge,
there are fortunately streams of research that have taken a more historicalcontextual epistemological starting point. Traditionally, the studies that focus on the
strategy processes have been less ahistorical and more culturally sensitive than the
mainstream research (see e.g. Pettigrew, 1992).
Of the more recent approaches, it is worth noting efforts to conceptualize strategy
work as social practice. Whittington (1993, 1996), for example, has developed such
views based on the ideas of Giddens. What is interesting is that, according to the
‘structuration’ idea, this perspective provides a basis that takes into account both
the existing social structures and the processes through which the actors (re)create
the structures in strategy work. Consequently, it provides a basis where one can
examine how particular institutions guide the strategy work and how the strategy
processes may reproduce specific institutions or power structures. However, it also
possible to study how actors may in specific conditions be able to be free themselves
from the established social structures and ideologies and create novel ideas and new
practices.
Here one confronts the ontological question of what is the role of discourse.
Scholars have lately provided perspectives which take the ontological position that
strategy is discourse (see e.g. Barry and Elmes, 1997; Hendry, 1999). While
certainly not wanting to play down the role of discourse, we want to promote the
view that social practices include both more concrete or tangible sociocultural
elements and the discursive ones. Consequently, one can specifically examine the
discursive elements in strategy work but it would be a mistake not to acknowledge
the linkage to the more concrete sociocultural practices.
postmodern reality asks for particularist solutions. As a result, the need to avoid normative
conclusions may be at the core of postmodern research." (p. 769). This point should not be adopted as
such because we clearly have several notions of advice depending on our view of the relation between
theory and action. Thus we believe that the issue is not whether to conduct normative research or not
but rather what kind of normative research.
7
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Critical issue #2: Conception of causality
The modernist-empiricist conception of research has emphasized the role of law-like
causal statements. These are also assumed to have predictive power, which may
help practitioners to make better decisions once the laws have been discovered.3 A
focus on the discovery of law-like causal statements is very popular in strategy
studies. A glance at the empirical studies made clearly indicates that research
settings focusing on explanation of ‘success’ or ‘performance’ by different
‘strategies’and ‘success factors’have been extremely popular.
There are, however, great problems with these kinds of studies. First, in the social
world, regularities are difficult to observe. This is because there are many types of
processes and mechanisms at play influencing the observed outcome (see e.g.
Bhaskar, 1975; Harré and Madden, 1975; Cartwright, 1983; 1989). Thus an
observed regularity could have been caused by other processes and mechanisms
than the one presumed. Respectively, because of the many other possible processes
and mechanisms, it is often very rarely that one can observe the presumed causal
mechanism create the expected outcome. Consequently, studies finding a link
between particular strategies and financial performance may simply bark at the
wrong tree. Intended strategies may lead to apparent similarities in financial
performance trends, but the effects may be results of the unintended consequences.
Apparent success may also often be the result of positive demand development
rather than particular strategic choices.
Second, there is the question of direction of causality in such studies. There are
many studies that tend too take it for granted that it is the particular strategies that
produce the financial performance, if such a link is found. However, it could often
be vice versa. The positive financial performance could create such organizational
3
The idea of causality as a form of regularity derives from the Humean (see e.g. Hume, 1955)
criticism of the notion of cause as a necessity. The weaker part of his criticism fails simply because
Hume does not to distinguish between logical and natural necessities, a distinction which was already
made during the 14th century discussions on natural necessity but that one hardly finds in the
Aristotelian scriptures. Hume's more convincing argument is based on the empiricist presupposition
that knowledge is based on observation. Since we cannot observe causes, but merely events following
one another, causality is not a notion referring to reality, but merely a habit of mind formed as a result
8
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
behavior that would be manifested in the strategies (see e.g. March and Sutton,
1997). This is often likely to be the case with studies that concentrate on particular
fashionable strategies and financial performance. These studies easily fall into the
trap of not realizing how organizations with financial resources are the ones that can
afford to invest in fashionable models of operation. Third, there is the problem in the
strategy field that especially in industrial competition success often requires ‘a
competitive advantage’ or ‘edge’ that distinguishes the company from the others in
the field (see e.g. MacIntyre, 1981; March and Sutton, 1998; Numagami, 1998).
This means that there ‘success’ is not likely to be caused by particular strategies but
many different types of choices, which evidently is not often visible as an empirical
regularity. Furthermore, it might also be the case that if and when competitors
imitate the successful companies, this competitive advantage disappears, and so
does the empirical regularity.
Fourth, such law-like statements are also problematic if they are given without
specifying their range of validity. Unfortunately, it is often the case that
generalizations, whether deterministic or statistical in form, are stated without
specifying under which conditions they hold. Fifth, related to the previous point,
there are problems of using the invariant laws as a basis for prediction because the
findings may be relevant only for the particular historical setting. Sixth, even when
such regularities are found, they are often at such an abstract level that they are not
very useful for practitioners.
The modernist-empiricist conception of causality as empirical regularities is thus
extremely problematic. This leads to two alternative epistemological positions. The
first is to discard causal rhetoric altogether. Many simply question the existence of
causal relations in the social realm on the whole. According to Winch (1958), "The
central concepts which belong to our understanding of social life are incompatible
with concepts central to the activity of scientific prediction" (p. 94). Since causal
notions are part of the latter, they are, according to this view, thus conceptually
incompatible with notions relevant for social life.4 This is similar to the widely held
of observing regularly concomitant occurrences.
4
Winch formulates his strongest point against causality in the sphere of human action as a criticism
against views of motives as dispositions. Winch writes: "N's reasons must be understood in terms of
9
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
argument that distinguishes ‘explanation’ and ‘understanding’ (von Wright, 1971).
According to this view, explanations involve causality but understanding does not.
This view has been (often implicitly) shared by those management researchers
adopting interpretative methodologies for studying organizations (see Burrell and
Morgan, 1979; Burrell, 1996). In brief, adopting the hermeneutic approach has
usually implied epistemological rhetoric where ‘causality’ has no role. This is the
position favored by many postmodern scholars emphasizing the need for knowledge
that is ‘local’, ‘contingent’or ‘unique’, as elaborated in the previous section.
However, the positions that give no room for any type of causal knowledge are also
problematic. It is very difficult to be able to do without any notions such as ‘cause’
or ‘explanation’, which are an essential part of our language, when talking about
social phenomena (see e.g. Salmon, 1998). This is especially the case in strategic
management research that is very much based on the idea of examining the effects
of different types of intended or unintended, planned or emergent strategies (see e.g.
Mintzberg and Waters, 1985).
The other alternative is to adopt a different conception of causality (for a review of
different notions of causality, see e.g. Salmon, 1998). Interestingly, the common
sense discourse does not identify regularity, prediction and causality in the
positivist-empiricist manner. The common sense discourse uses often terms such as
‘powers’, ‘forces’, ‘mechanisms’, ‘tendencies’ and ‘trends’ when speaking about
causality which are to be logically distinguished from regularities. What is important
is that researchers adopting a ‘scientific realism’ epistemological stance have
developed an alternative notion of causality that is similar to this common sense
discourse (Bhaskar, 1975; Harré and Madden, 1975; Cartwright, 1983, 1989).
These views have found some response also within management research (Tsoukas,
1989). Scientific realism gives a natural way of distinguishing between causality,
the accepted standards of reasonable behaviour current in his society, not in terms of dispositions"
(1958, p. 81). Dispositions are understood as causal factors. Where Winch fails is his insistence on
the internal nature of social rules, based on the internal relations between ideas which form the core
of social rules (p. 123). This is in no way incompatible with a causal analysis of motives. Motives in
the form of internalized social rules can be regarded as causal factors that move human beings. This is
not in contradiction with the fact that beliefs and desires gain their meaning in the wider context of
social rules. Winch himself comes close to this very same idea when stating that "Historical trends are
in part the result of intentions and decisions of their participants (p. 93).
10
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
regularities and prediction. Causes are inherent and potential properties of
structures, often called forces or mechanisms. They may actualize or not, depending
on relevant conditions. Regularities result, for instance, when one or more forces
actualize in the same set of conditions. A pure case of regularity is to be found in
the ideal world which supposes the functioning of one force only ceteris paribus.
But one and the same regularity may, in principle, actualize under many different
conditions by different combinations of forces. Thus the mere existence of a
regularity need not guarantee the existence of causal relations or mechanisms.
There are two basic reasons why predictions are difficult to achieve in this view of
causality. For one thing, we may not know what structures with their inherent
mechanisms are interacting in the situation in question, and we may not know under
what conditions they are acting. However, if we can assess how the present forces
will develop and what their mutual strength will be, we shall be in a much better
position for predicting. The most interesting point for us in this connection is that
this type of thinking does not presuppose regularities for the possibility of
prediction. Regularities may be useful for prediction, but not always. Especially
when the environment is undergoing deep changes, it does not seem wise to base
one's predictions on regularities, but rather on one's knowledge of relevant forces
and the assessment of their relative strength.5
Critical issue #3: Conceptualizations and narrative rationality
The positivist-empiricist tradition has ignored the theory-ladenness of empirical
observations. Ignoring the role of interpretative or constructive processes is at the
very heart of critique of positivist-empiricist social science. While more
organizationally oriented management research has been able to draw upon various
types of interpretive schools (see Burrell and Morgan, 1979), this is not the case of
mainstream strategic management research. Here often the ‘naive realist’ orientation
has favored the view that has given little room for considering the processes through
which researchers and practitioners socially construct reality.
5
‘Tendencies’ can from this perspective seen as changes in the relative strength of forces, not as
11
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Conceptualizations should be evaluated critically. Most agree that it is important to
be able to conceptually ‘capture’ the ‘essential’ features of the phenomena in
question. Sayer (1989), for example, by applying Marx’s term ‘chaotic
conceptions’, criticizes such work that does not recognize the important social
structures in question. From this perspective, one can, for example, criticize the
traditional view in management literature that sees the management as a unified
change agency and the personnel as the subjects of change efforts without paying
attention to finer grained divisions among managers or personnel.
However, as pointed out by postmodernist reflections, the conceptual and
theoretical models in strategic management discourse, as in other fields, necessarily
provide simplifications of the phenomena in question. For example, analyses
drawing from Foucault have emphasized that the concepts developed in particular
contexts are bound to the limitations of those particular historical-cultural
conditions (see Knights, 1992, Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). This perspective
calls for criticality in terms of understanding the ‘usefulness’ or ‘applicability’ of
particular concepts or discourses in other contexts. For strategic management
research, it is interesting to consider the implications of the historical roots of much
of the rhetoric used. Many of the key concepts, such as ‘strategy’ or ‘tactics’ come
from the military vocabulary and reflect, whether we want it or not, certain
ideological connotations. It also the case that contemporary postmodern
organizations are characterized by external and internal complexity that make them
as such differ from ‘traditional’ organizations (see e.g. Löwendahl and Revang
1998). This undermines the basics of traditional strategic thinking as adaptation to
the environment, or as designing the organization and buffering core operations to
face the turbulence of the environment. As the hierarchical, bureaucratic form of
organization collapses, for example, ‘the machine metaphor’ looses its grip and the
notion of strategic apex looses its reference both as a center of information and as a
center of power and authority.
Conceptualizations are also often characterized by problematic dualisms or
dichotomies (see e.g. Knights, 1997; Calori, 1998). For example, the strategic
empirical regularities.
12
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
management literature tends to hold on to such divisions as ‘analysisimplementation’,
‘thinking-acting’,
‘rational-emotional’
or
‘management-
organization’. In view of providing knowledge that is useful for practitioners,
especially the distinction of analysis and implementation is problematic (see e.g.
Mintzberg, 1994). This is the traditional view of strategic management literature
that emphasizes the role of specific strategic analysis and decision making in order
to develop understanding of the organization and its environment and to choose a
correct strategy or course of action. This has also been closely linked to an in-built
normative effort to provide practitioners with tools to conduct such analysis. While
this focus has undoubtedly benefited practitioners in focusing attention on the ideals
or planning and analysis, it has also proved to provide an unrealistic picture of how
ideas are turned into actions, how top management is able to lead or influence the
organization, bottom-up processes where ideas originate from the initiatives,
experiences or skills of people who are not members of top management or formally
in a position of strategizing, or the environment’s impact on the ‘realized’ strategies.
The dichotomy of thinking and acting is also problematic (see e.g. Grand, von
Krogh and Pettigrew, 1999). Especially in the strategic management literature, this
separation has continued to provide a view where the work of the strategists is often
only described as thinking. This view clearly promotes the view that strategy work
is mostly cognitive work and discards such features as political action in
organizational processes.
In addition, the separation of rationality and emotion has created problems (see e.g.
Calori, 1998). There is a clear tendency in strategic management studies to label
emotions only as organizational processes and to recognize feeling as a source of
reason. Finally, the very basic distinction of management and organization in
management studies is very problematic. This easily leads to the view that decision
making or strategizing is only done by the people belonging to (usually top)
management while the others constituting the organization or personnel are
supposed to follow these strategies. The problems with this conceptualization relate
to viewing management as a coherent whole, a lack of appreciation of the ideas that
come from lower down in hierarchy and to an unrealistic assumption of the division
of work in contemporary organizations. We suggest that this prevailing overly
13
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
simplistic view may, in fact, help to understand the common experiences that many
strategic projects seem to lead to disappointments or clear failures.6
It is also important to recognize the role of narrative rationality. Lately, there has
risen an interest in the narrative nature of much of human and social knowledge
(Geertz, 1973, 1988; Bruner, 1986, 1990; Lyotard, 1979; Czarniawska, 1997;
Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). This view emphasizes that stories and narratives are
important means through which knowledge is being stored and shared. Narratives
provide a possibility to appreciate contextuality, historical contingencies and
particularisms, which have been called for by many criticizing the current state of
management research. For strategic management research, this implies that often the
interesting stories that highlight contextuality and specific choices made in those
contexts have the greatest impact and relevance for practitioners (see e.g.
Czarniawska, 1997; Barry and Elmes, 1997). Interestingly, this narrative rationality
may also explain much of the popularity of the books written for practitioners.
Many of these books that have not gained much scientific acceptance contain
interesting descriptions of often firsthand experiences written in ways that dramatize
particular events, choices and outcomes.
Conceptualizations are thus inherent with problems that are very difficult or almost
impossible to remedy by individual researchers. We promote the pragmatist view
that recognizes these problems but still does not take an overly skeptical position
that would render meaningful scientific work impossible. We also want to stress that
it is important not to forget that much of the descriptive and explanatory power of
conceptualizations and narrative presentations are dependent on their ability to
provide valid descriptions of the organizational processes. This very basic question
is often considered insignificant in radical postmodern literature that only emphasize
the aesthetic properties and ideological connotations of concepts and discourse.
However, in terms of developing meaningful knowledge, it is rather clear that those
6
These simplifications are often manifested, for example, in the organizational processes followed by
major strategic decisions. Frequently, for example, the ‘strategic benefits’ of mergers and acquisitions
turn out to be overestimated and the organizational problems experienced underestimated by the
managers (see e.g. Buono and Bowditch, 1989; Haspeslagh and Jemison, 1991; Vaara, forthcoming).
Much of these problems seem to relate to the fact that the dominant conceptions in mergers and
acquisitions provide overly simplistic models for decision makers (see Vaara, 1998).
14
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
conceptualizations and narratives that most accurately and illuminatively describe
‘real’organizational phenomena are of the most value.
Critical issue #4: Relation of scientific knowledge and practice
The modernist conception of the relation of research and practical action is based on
the idea of application of law-like statements with clear predictive power in practical
settings. This is consistent with the ‘enlightenment’ notion that increasing
knowledge leads to better understanding, and in the case of management science,
better and more effective control of organizations and improved performance. There
are, however, problems with this conception of the adoption of scientific knowledge
for practice.
As discussed in the previous sections, there are great problems with aims to provide
universal knowledge and to strive for law-like causal statements. In addition to the
problems already reviewed, one should note that there are great difficulties of using
any observed regularities as bases of prediction. These relate to the possibility of
innovation in human action (see e.g. Winch, 1958; MacIntyre, 1981). We cannot
predict our own decisions, since this would presuppose the decision already being
made. The same holds for technological innovations the prediction of which would
require the innovation already being discovered in some form. More importantly,
this is the case with social action as in organizational decision making or economic
competition. It is very difficult to anticipate the actions of others and even more
difficult to anticipate their effects on own actions. Many also argue that these
problems of prediction are particularly severe in the postmodern era because of
unprecedented organizational and environmental complexity (see e.g. Löwendahl
and Revang, 1998).
There are also many scholars coming from different traditions who have emphasized
that the contribution of management research may largely lie in providing different
conceptual tools for practitioners (see e.g. Calori, 1998; Numagami, 1998;
Löwendahl and Revang, 1998). It also appears to be the case that many
15
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
practitioners mostly value different types of conceptual models that may help them
cope with the particular challenges that they are facing.7
In addition, there are problems with the nomothetic model according to which the
application of general rules or statements is a fairly unproblematic, straightforward
procedure which require no specific intellectual capacities except the ability to
connect general notions to particular instances (see e.g. MacIntyre, 1981; Knights,
1992; Alvesson and Willmott, 1996; Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997; March and
Sutton, 1998). There is also more recent management and organization literature
concentrating on how actors adopt, use or create knowledge that clearly illustrate
how the modernist conceptions provide an oversimplified and an unrealistic picture
of these processes (see e.g. Schon, 1983, 1987; Orr, 1990; Brown and Duguid
1991; Nonaka, 1994). These studies clearly indicate that competent practical action
requires ‘practical knowledge’ that is very different from the general abstract
knowledge of the ideal of modernism. For strategic management research, it is
especially important to recognize that the realized strategies are often more results
of internal innovations, bottom-up processes or evolution of competitive fields
rather than outcomes of top management-led strategies.
These problems have, in fact, inspired rather skeptical statements concerning the
possibility of the nomothetic model to provide knowledge that is useful for
practitioners (see e.g. MacIntyre, 1981; March and Sutton, 1997). MacIntyre
(1981), for instance, argues that the conception of management research as
successful in producing law-like regularities with strong predictive power is a
fiction, and accordingly, the notion of managerial expertise an illusion (p. 102).
Since managerial expertise an illusion, a more realistic attitude would lead into an
awareness of the modest competence of managers, realizing the limitations of social
scientific generalizations. However, according to MacIntyre (1981), claims of this
kind do not achieve power and authority within bureaucratic organizations. March
and Sutton (1998) provide similar arguments. After discussing current problems
7
At the same time, one should be sceptical towards the academic merit and consulting practices that
easily lead to an overflow of new concepts. For example, March and Sutton (1997) have argued that
the newer concepts appear the better. In fact, many of the management fashions seem to be
characterized by a rediscovery of old ideas wrapped in new packages.
16
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
within management and organization research, they conclude that much of the
critique on the nomothetic model is no news for most of the scholars. However, the
nomothetic model still prevails in research and consulting practices. This is because
the academic merit and consulting practices are based on prestige that is founded
upon generally applicable research results and advice.
This critique clearly implies that the modernist-nomothetic model is not likely to
provide knowledge that is most useful for practitioners. This calls for new
assessments of the role of researchers as advisors of organizations and managers.
One perspective advocated by many coming from different research traditions is to
clearly see the role of researchers as providers of new conceptual models and ideas
that provide means for a reflective dialogue in the specific research setting or in
society in general (see e.g. Numagami, 1998; Löwendahl and Revang, 1998).
There are, however, other views that advocate more conscious participation in the
social processes that one studies – in stark contrast to the positivistic ideology of
seeing researchers as neutral observers (see e.g. Calori, 1998). For those conducting
action research, the starting point is that of making the researcher a part of the
social change processes (Eden and Huxham, 1996).8 The underlying assumptions of
action research though vary greatly in terms of whether the goal is simply to help
managers to achieve predefined goals without much reflection of the role of the
researcher. The ethnographic research tradition, in turn, provides a perspective
which emphasizes the need of reflexivity concerning the researcher’s relation to the
target organization and its effect on the research results (see e.g. van Maanen, 1988;
Hammersley, 1992).
The postmodernist perspective, as reflected in the interpretations of Foucault or
Derrida (Knights, 1992; 1997), claims that researchers are in any case participants in
organizational processes. This happens, if not in more concrete form, then at least in
the form of participation in production and reproduction of organizational and
management discourse.
8
Ironically, it is often the case that even those researchers in this field who are involved in active
consulting with many companies do not use these connections as a priori form of evidence or try to
hide these connections in empirical reports if the research is indeed based on such encounters.
17
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
The pragmatist view is to acknowledge the role of researchers as participants is the
social change processes in question but not to exaggerate the potential influence.
This perspective accepts that the role can be very different depending on the
circumstances and that one role is not a priori better than the other. What is,
however, important is reflexivity in terms of constant evaluation of the role of the
researcher and its impact on both the research results and the organizational
processes at hand.
18
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Critical issue #5: Value-laden nature of knowledge and ethical implications of
research
A specific characteristic of the positivist model of science is that it aims at objective
value-neutral knowledge. Positivism, as linked to the enlightenment optimism, sees
science as a means towards progress but does not contemplate the possible
unintended consequences of ‘progress’. Research can accordingly only provide
‘instrumental’ or ‘technical’ knowledge that is then used by the practitioners. As
positivism implies an understanding of science as value-free activity, it thus not able
to provide a meaningful foundation for ethically conscious strategic management
research.
Even a most cursory reading of the strategic management literature (e.g. Long
Range Planning, Harvard Business Review or Strategic Management Journal)
reveals that there is little reflection upon the ends of strategic management, the
inherent value-ladenness in this literature, or its ethical grounds. This is not to say
that there would not be excellent critical pieces of ethical analysis in management or
wider social science literature but merely that a lack of value-based or ethical
reflection is a major characteristic of current strategic management research.9
9
Why should strategic management scholars then pay specific attention to the political or ethical
consequences of the research conducted? First, ‘strategic management’ is about decisions which have
important societal consequences. Not all the central decision makers in this world are necessarily
following the particular models developed by strategic management research. However, it appears that
corporations are gaining more power in this respect compared to other institutions, such as the nationstate (see Korten, 1996). It also seems that ideas and discourses developed in the ‘corporate realm’ are
also adopted in other spheres. For example, in Scandinavia, during the last few years, such public
organizations as government offices, universities, schools or hospitals, which previously had little to
do with the management practices of the private sector, have been eagerly adopting, for better and for
worse, precisely the most fashionable models of ‘strategic management’.
Second, ‘strategic management’ is about making decisions that often have rather direct influences on
the stakeholders of the companies and the competitive situation. In fact, for example, mergers and
acquisitions are phenomena that fundamentally reshape particular industries (see Whittington, 1993).
This development also has its down-side, often manifested in increase of corporate power at the
expense of competition. This development, which is often not in the interests of customers or
suppliers, is something that is rarely examined in strategic management studies, adopting the
perspective of the merging corporations and usually its top management.
Third, strategic decisions also have rather direct influences on the people working with the
organizations. While many observers have, from an historical perspective, come to the conclusion that
the development during this century has not been all that negative from the perspective of the
employees and that many management practices, for example, developed in the human resource
management literature, have created positive effects by emphasizing employee motivation, this is not
the view shared by all. In fact, some sceptics argue that often even the rhetoric specifically dedicated
to ‘empowerment’ is a tool of domination (see Willmott, 1993; Alvesson and Willmott, 1996).
19
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Unfortunately, the strategic management literature seems to promote primarily the
increase of corporate power, increase of shareholder value or improved
organizational effectiveness with little consideration of how these relate to such
concerns as personnel satisfaction, gender or racial equality, global distribution of
wealth, environmental responsibility or sustainable growth. In fact, the
‘corporatization’ and ‘globalization’ trends may be directly conflicting with such
concerns, as discussed, for example, by Korten (1996). For instance, it is easy to see
how the organizational performance and employment concerns are contradictory
aims in the recent fads to ‘re-engineer processes’ (see e.g. Grind and Case, 1998) or
‘create synergies in mergers and acquisitions’ (see e.g. Buono and Bowditch, 1989;
Vaara, forthcoming). Similarly, it is self-evident how ‘creation of shareholder value’
and, for example, ‘equal distribution of wealth’are conflicting goals.
The proponents of critical theory have probably most clearly advocated the
epistemological position that rather than neutral observers researchers should be
seen as active participants is social (and societal) change processes. In a sense,
proponents of the critical theory share the idea of enlightenment that comes from
cumulation of knowledge with positivists but rather see it as ‘emancipation’. For
example, Alvesson and Willmott (1996) coin the program of ‘CT’as follows:
“In sum, the intent of CT is to foster a rational democratic development of
modern institutions in which self-reflective, autonomous and responsible
citizens become progressively less dependent upon received understandings of
their needs, and are less entranced by the apparent naturalness or inevitability of
the prevailing politico-economic order. To this end, CT encourages the
questioning of ends (e.g. growth, profitability, productivity) as well as the
preferred means, such as dependence upon expert rule and bureaucratic control,
A counter-argument for these ethical deficiencies of strategic management research is that perhaps it
not the role of strategic management studies to examine these ‘other effects’ or ‘consequences of
unintended strategies’. These questions could rather be studied by management researchers
specializing in personnel issues or environmental questions, or by critical sociologists. However, there
are important counter-counter arguments. First, if these ‘other voices’ or ‘unintended consequences’
of strategies are not addressed, strategic management studies as social activity lie on a very
problematic moral ground per se. For example, Alvesson and Willmott (1996) claim that “As the
political quality of management practice is denied or trivialized, consideration of the personal, social
and ecological costs of the managerial methods of enhancing growth, productivity, quality and profit
is largely ignored.” (p. 37). Second, if strategic management studies limit themselves to only to the
particular managerialist perspectives, the understanding created of the social phenomena to be studied
is likely to be distorted and poor, as elaborated in the previous section. Third, strategic management
scholars should in any case acknowledge these orientations in order to be able to develop grounds for
an ideal division of work and cooperation across disciplines that has often been argued for but
difficult to achieve (see e.g. Knights and Willmott, 1997).
20
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
the contrivance of charismatic corporate leadership, gendered and deskilled
work, marketing of lifestyles, etc.” (p. 17).
They specifically call for organizational action that is based on the process of critical
self-reflection and want to see people come aware of different types of domination
embedded in management practices.
While many agree on the position that researchers should acknowledge
responsibility as social change agents, there is, however, a question concerning
whether this means adopting the view that there are general ethical principles or
whether the considerations should be situation specific. For example, critical theory
can be interpreted as a program that especially seeks to promote the position of the
employees. It is, in fact, often labeled as anti-management since it usually reflects
the distinction between those that rule (to be criticized) and those that are ruled (to
be helped). Similar general principles can also be found, for example, in feminist
oriented research. A contrast is provided by many others that argue that ethical
principles are very difficult and therefore favor more situation specific
understandings (see e.g. Toulmin, 1990). This emphasis on locality of ethical
questions is also the position usually adopted by post-modern scholars.
We argue here that a position that combines both more general and situation
specific considerations is worth striving for. This position is consistent with
pragmatist views of research as ‘practical experimentation’ that is never perfect but
is still worth doing (Wicks and Freeman, 1998). Interestingly, this position is also
consistent with old Aristotelian ideas. Of the many key ideas of Aristotle, the
distinction of three types of knowledge – ‘episteme’, ‘techne’ and ‘phronesis’ – in
Nichomachean Ethics is particularly relevant for this purpose. In brief, ‘episteme’
consists of deductions from basic principles. ‘Techne’ is craft knowledge about how
to make things. ‘Phronesis’ is the highest level of knowledge which combines these
previous two and deals with what is good for human beings and the ability to put
that in practice.
As noted earlier, the influences of strategic management research are not only
limited to the propensity of decision makers to follow the strategic models or
recommendations of researchers. This research may also influence the society in
21
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
more subtle ways, for example, in developing particular types of discourses that
constitute social (also power) structures (spread, for example, by universities,
consultants or business press).
The writings of Foucault and Derrida, in particular, have inspired authors within
organization and management studies to critical assessments of the power
implications of management discourses (see e.g. Knights, 1992, 1997). Central for
the understanding of the ethical grounds is accordingly the examination of the
development of the discourses and social practices of strategic management over
time across different historical and cultural contexts (see e.g. Knights, 1992;
Knights and Morgan, 1995; Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). This reveals how
management as a science has developed into a particular type of discourse and how
strategic management has become a particular kind of institutionalized discipline
within management studies. From this perspective, as most of the research on
strategic management is related to the problems of making important decisions in
(usually corporate) organizations, governing organizations or solving particular
types of organizational problems, it is difficult to escape these historically and
culturally specific ideologies and power structures that have formed the basis of this
discipline.
It is important to note that an essential part of these dominant concepts and
discourses are such ‘dualisms’that tend to privilege one side over the other (see e.g.
Knights, 1997). This easily leads to ‘logocentrism’ where theories, concepts,
narratives and ideas that do not comply with the dominant logic are discarded or
marginalized. In the context of strategic management, it is not too difficult to reveal
dualisms such as ‘means-ends’, ‘rationality-irrationality’, ‘objective-subjective’,
‘universal-particular’, ‘quantitative-qualitative’, ‘owner-employee’, ‘managementpersonnel’, or ‘masculine-feminine’. The point to be made is that many of the issues
or ideas that would be important in terms of developing ethical consciousness are
easily forgotten or marginalized in the dominant discourse.
Specifically important is the distinction of means and ends. This separation of
‘means’ (strategies) and ‘ends’ (success) is problematic as it places all the
responsibility for goal formulation for the managers. Ironically, in the modernist-
22
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
positivist model, the capacity of managers to find the best for the organization is
seldom questioned. From a postmodernist perspective, this distinction may also be
seen as an inevitable result of the development of the managerial discourses from
the need to solve managerial problems and an example of the most problematic
dualisms that characterize strategic management discourse.
Interestingly, Aristotle does not make the distinction of means and ends or facts and
values (see also Tsoukas and Cummings, 1997). In Aristotelian philosophy
individuals and objects are defined in terms of their purposes or the roles that they
are expected to fulfill. For strategic management practice, this might mean
understanding that good strategic managers do what strategic management
professionals are expected to do. However, the ethical implication is not that
researchers should be satisfied with the status quo where a good manager is one that
mainly thinks of organizational down-sizing or shareholder value. According to
Aristotle, it is, in fact, important to take into consideration individual decision
making situations, what constitutes a good life, and what is good for the society.
Central in creating these ‘norms’of what ‘good’ conduct is the community (‘polis’).
It is not far fetched to claim that it is consistent with his ideas that in contemporary
society researchers take up the role of active participants in creating these norms by
critically evaluating what is ‘good conduct’from a wide societal perspective.
What kind of strategic management studies could then meet this challenge of
avoiding the means (strategy) and ends (success) distinction? Clearly not studies of
success strategies or factors that are inherently problematic in terms of the causal
relations found and do not provide a possibility for ethical reflection. This rather
calls for studies that focus on how the managers make decisions in different
contexts, how managers think and act, how strategies are being developed and how
they emerge in organizations including symbolic aspects, studies of internal politics,
studies of institutionalization of strategies and management fashions, and other
studies of the processes where strategies are being produced.
Postmodernists emphasize that ‘truth’ in scientific work is an effect of powerknowledge relations rather than as such an outcome of successful scientific
endeavor. This means that any ideas or models that are being developed by strategic
23
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
management research should be viewed with a critical eye as they, perhaps more
than anything else, reflect and reproduce specific ideologies and power structures.
This therefore calls for questioning attitudes so that researchers can understand
what types of political or ethical consequences the particular models that they deal
with imply. This approach is, however, far from easy. What is a specific problem for
researchers is that this critical epistemological base does not really provide any
“firm” or “comfortable” foundations. Knights (1992) coins this problem as follows:
“He [Foucault] refuses to let “comfortable” assumptions and practices alone,
whether these support a conservative or critical account of organizational or
social life. Instead, he is forever questioning ideas and turning upside down the
institutions that support these ideas. Because critical theorists of management
tend to cling precisely to these 19th-century ontologies and to the humanist faith
in liberation that grounds them, they are too profoundly threatened by a project
that continually undermines knowledge, including the knowledge that it has
produced” (p. 520-521).
While this reflection should be taken seriously, we suggest that it is combined with a
pragmatist view that accepts the imperfect nature of research knowledge but still
sees research as an effort worth making (see e.g. Wicks and Freeman, 1998). This
means, as in postmodernism, rejection of the privileged status of science. Science is
rather seen as one moral technique for coping with the world. According to this
view, what science could (and should) do is to develop ‘pragmatic knowledge’ that
is useful for the specific purpose at hand. This, however, requires constant reflection
of the value-ladenness of concepts and terms and understanding of the
consequences of promoting particular ideas or models.
24
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Towards reflective pragmatism?
We have outlined significant epistemological problems that modernist-oriented
strategic management research is faced with. We have also proposed new pragmatic
approaches that provide means to redirect research towards such studies that are
more relevant for practical decision making and are ethically conscious. This has led
to sketches of epistemological positions, which are provocatively contrasted with
the dominant modernist and radical postmodernist stances in the table below.
25
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Pragmatist positions for strategic management studies
Epistemological questions
Dominant modernist stances
in strategic management
research
Radical postmodernist stances
Reflective pragmatist positions
Universalism vs. contextuality
Strive for general abstract
knowledge
Focus on contextuality,
historical contingencies and
particularisms
Appreciation of contextuality,
historical contingencies and
locality without discarding
meaningful generalizations
Conception of causality
Search for invariant causal
laws based on empirical
regularities
Disregard of causal rhetoric
Conception of causality as
capacities and powers inherent
in social structures
Conceptualizations and
narrative rationality
Disregard of
conceptualization
Focus on discourses as basis
of social construction of
reality
Recognition of conceptual
simplifications and narrative
rationality
Relation of scientific
knowledge and practice
Researchers provide universal
knowledge for practitioners;
researcher and researched
roles are distinguished
Researchers are seen as
(re)producers of managerial
practices and discourses
Recognition of the role of
researchers as participants in
social processes with an
emphasis on reflexivity
Value-laden nature of
knowledge and ethical
implications of research
Researchers are seen as
neutral observers
Researchers are seen as
(re)producers of managerial
practices and discourses
Recognition of the role of
researchers as social change
agents and (re)producers of
managerial discourses with an
emphasis on reflexivity
27
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
In this paper, we have searched for ‘middle ground’ between clearly problematic
modernist epistemological stances and radical postmodern positions. We have
specifically attempted to take a step forward from untenable positivist positions
while not falling into radical constructivism that would not provide any convenient
way to talk about ‘real’ phenomena. We have also tried to step away from disguises
of value-free research while not building a negativist or anti-management attitude
that often characterizes, for example, critical theory (see e.g. Alvesson and
Willmott, 1996) or post-structuralist (see e.g. Knights, 1992, 1997) oriented
research.
Following principles already established by pre-modernists, we have tried to
encourage ‘both-and’ positions and methodological plurality, recognizing the limits
of particular research efforts and science in general. The epistemological positions,
in fact, encourage both more traditional research in search of more general
structures, mechanisms and practices in strategy processes and, for example, very
situation-specific hermeneutic analyses of the construction of practices in strategy
work. Both are clearly needed. The epistemological positions also invite both
theoretical/conceptual analyses and empirical work where the researcher is actively
involved in the strategizing processes that one studies. Particularly interesting
conceptual developments are approaches that link strategy processes to social
practices and discourses. Specifically promising empirical research approaches are
action research and ethnographic methods that provide possibilities for open
engagement in a dialogue with the research subjects. Such pluralism does not,
however, imply acceptance of any type of research. Clearly, the requirement of
reflexivity is a fundamental issue that should be taken seriously in any research
efforts on strategic management.
A common theme in which these pragmatic positions echo more radical postmodern
stances is the rejection of such managerial rhetoric which does not serve very well
any practical purposes and leads to ethically questionable practices. The sole
function of this type of rhetoric may, in fact, be the promotion of the power
positions of the managerial profession. MacIntyre (1981), for instance, describes in
his work After Virtue the relation between managerial expertise and organizational
27
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
research by noting that the power position of the manager "requires for its
vindication a justified conception of social science as providing a stock of law-like
generalizations with strong predictive power". MacIntyre thus sees that the
justifications and requirements offered by philosophy of science for social scientific
research yield a legitimization for the power position of managers through the
results of such social research. Likewise, Alvesson and Willmott (1996) state a
conspiracy-theory type of idea that it may be precisely the function of abstract
scientific management research to create and legitimize “an image and ideal of
managers as impartial experts whose prerogative is associated with, if not founded
upon, scientifically respectable bodies of knowledge, and not because there is any
realistic prospect of this research addressing, let alone solving, the problems or
deficiencies of management” (p. 27).
It should be emphasized that the position elaborated here is not to discourage
research on strategic management, as might be the conclusion of some critiques of
this field. In fact, it seems to be the case that in order not to surrender to the
powerful trends of liberalism, corporatization and globalization, the need for
strategic thinking is greater than ever.
In conclusion, this paper has been an attempt to developed pragmatic stances
towards problematic epistemological questions. Future research does not have to be
based on any ‘ism’. One problem is that such ‘isms’ may be linked with particular
images that are not politically unproblematic for all the researchers. Another is that
trying to follow a particular ‘ism’ may very difficult, and by doing so researchers
easily only produce further debates concerning purism. We simply suggest that
researchers in strategic management studies are encouraged to look for
epistemological approaches that make it possible to produce research that is more
useful to practice than before and which is reflective in terms of its assumptions and
ethical consequences.
28
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
References
Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. (1996) Making sense of management: A critical
introduction. Sage, London.
Aristotle (1984) The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation I
and II, ed. J. Barnes. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Barry, D. and Elmes, M. (1997) Strategy retold: Toward a narrative view of
strategic discourse. Academy of Management Review 2, 429-452.
Bhaskar, R. (1975) A realist theory of science. Leeds Books, Leeds.
Bhaskar, R. (1979) The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of
contemporary human sciences. Harvester press, Brighton.
Brown, J. S. and Duguid, P. (1991) Organizational learning and communities-ofpractice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization
Science 2, 40-57.
Bruner, J. (1986) Actual minds, possible worlds. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Bruner, J. (1990) Acts of meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological paradigms and organizational
analysis. Heinemann, London.
Burrell, G. (1996) Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and
genealogies of analysis. In Handbook of organization studies, ed S. R. Clegg, C.
Hardy and W. R. Nord. Sage, London.
Buono, A. F. and Bowditch, J. L. (1989) The human side of mergers and
acquisitions. Managing collisions between people, cultures, and organizations.
Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Calás, M. and Smircich, L. (1996) From “the woman’s point of view: Feminist
approaches to organization studies. In Handbook of organization studies, ed S. R.
Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord. Sage, London.
Calori, R. (1998) Essai: Philosophizing on strategic management models.
Organization Studies 19, 281-306.
Carwright, N. (1983) How the laws of physics lie. Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Carwright, N. (1989) Nature's capacities and their measurement. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.
Cummings, S. (1996) Back to the oracle: Postmodern organization theory as a
resurfacing of pre-modern wisdom. Organization 3, 249-266.
29
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Czarniawska, B. (1997) Narrating the organization. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Derrida, J. (1978) Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Derrida, J. (1982) Margins of philosophy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (1996) Action research for the study of organizations. In
Handbook of organization studies, ed S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy and W. R. Nord. Sage,
London.
Foucault, M. (1973) The order of things: The archaelogy of human sciences.
Vintage Books, New York.
Foucault, M. (1980) Power/knowledge, ed. C. Gordon. Harvester Press, Brighton.
Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books, New York.
Geertz, C. (1988) Work and lives: The anthropologist as author. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Grand, S., von Krogh, G. and Pettigrew, A. (1999) Strategic thinking and acting
under ambiguity. Paper presented at the 15th Colloquium of the European Group of
Organisational Studies, Warwick, July 4-6.
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology 91, 481-510.
Grind, K. and Case, P. (1998) The violent rhetoric of re-engineering: Management
consultancy on the offensive. Journal of Management Studies 35, 557-577.
Habermas, J. (1972) Knowledge and human interests. Heinemann, London.
Hammersley, M. (1993) What’s wrong with ethnography? Routledge, London.
Harré, R. and Madden, E. H. (1975) Causal powers: A theory of natural necessity.
Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Haspeslagh, P. C. and Jemison, D. B. (1991) Managing acquisitions: Creating
value through corporate renewal. The Free Press, New York.
Hatch, M. J. (1997) Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern
perspectives. Oxford University Press, New York.
Hendry, J. (1999) Strategic decision making, discourse, and strategy as social
practice. Paper presented at the 15th Colloquium of the European Group of
Organisational Studies, Warwick, July 4-6.
Hume, D. (1955): An enquiry concerning human understanding. Bobbs-Merrill,
Indianapolis.
30
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Kakkuri-Knuuttila, M.-L. (1996) Aristoteelista tieto-oppia jälkipositivisteille.
Sosiologia 33, 179-190.
Knights, D. (1992) Changing spaces: The disruptive impact of a new
epistemological location for the study of management. Academy of Management
Review 17, 514-536.
Knights, D. (1997) Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism,
gender and postmodernism revisited. Organization Studies 18, 1-19.
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1991) Corporate strategy, organizations and
subjectivity: A critique. Organization Studies 12, 251-273.
Knights, D. and Morgan, G. (1995) Strategy under the microscope: Strategic
management and its financial services. Journal of Management Studies 32, 191-214.
Knights, D. and Willmott, H. (1997) The hype and hope of interdisciplinary
management studies. British Journal of Management 8, 9-22.
Korten, D. (1996) When corporations rule the world/ Kumarian Press, West
Hartford, CA.
Lyotard, J.-F. (1979) The postmodern condition: A report on knowledge.
Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Löwendahl, B. and Revang, Ö. (1998) Challenges to existing strategy theory in a
postindustrial society. Strategic Management Journal 19, 755-773.
MacIntyre, A. (1981) After virtue: A study in moral theory. Duckworth, London.
March, J. G. and Sutton, R. I. (1997) Organizational performance as a dependent
variable. Organization Science 8, 698-706.
Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning Reconceiving roles for
planning, plans, planners. Prentice-Hall, New York.
Mintzberg, H. and Waters, J. A. (1985) Of strategies, deliberant and emergent.
Strategic Management Journal 6, 257-272.
Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998) Strategy safari: A guided tour
through the wilds of strategic management. Prentice Hall, London.
Nonaka, I. (1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.
Organization Science 5, 14-37.
Numagami, T. (1998) The infeasibility of invariant laws in management studies: A
reflective dialogue in defense of case studies. Organization Science 9, 2-15.
Orr, E. J. (1990) Sharing knoledge, celebrating identity: Community memory in a
service culture. In Collective remembering, ed D. Middleton and D. Edwards. Sage,
London.
31
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973) The politics of organizational decision making. Tavistock.
London.
Pettigrew, A. (1992) The character and significance of strategy process research.
Strategic Management Journal 13, special issue (winter), 5-16.
Rorty, R. (1989) Contingency, irony and solidarity. Cambridge University Press,
New York.
Salmon, W. C. (1998) Causality and explanation. Oxford University Press, New
York.
Sayer, A. (1992) Method in social science. A realist approach. Routledge, London.
Schon, D. A. (1983) The reflective practitioner. Avebury, Aldershot, UK.
Schon, D. A. (1987) Educating the reflective practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco.
Shrivastava, P.
Silverman, D. (1968) Formal organizations or industrial sociology: Towards a social
action analysis of organizations. Sociology 2, 221-238.
Silverman, D. (1970) The theory of organizations: A sociological framework..
Heinemann, London.
Toulmin, S. (1990) Cosmopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Tsoukas, H. (1989) The validity of idiographic research explanations. Academy of
Management Review 14, 551-561.
Tsoukas, H. and Cummings, S. (1997) Marginalization and recovery: The
emergence of Aristotelian themes in organization studies. Organization Studies 18,
655-683.
Vaara, E. (1998) Cultural differences and postmerger problems: Misconceptions
and cognitive simplifications. Paper presented at the 14th Colloquium of the
European Group of Organisational Studies, Maastricht, July 9-11.
Vaara, E. (forthcoming) Role-bound actors in corporate combination: A study of
decision making in change processes following a merger, Scandinavian Journal of
Management.
Van Maanen, J. (1988) Tales of the field. On writing ethnography. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.
Whitley, R. (1984) The fragmented state of management studies: Reasons and
consequences. Journal of Management Studies 21, 331-348.
32
Critical epistemological issues in strategic management studies: Towards reflective pragmatism?
Whittington, R. (1992) Putting Giddens into action: Social systems and managerial
agency. Journal of Management Studies 29, 693-712.
Whittington, R. (1993) What is strategy – and does it matter? Routledge, London.
Whittington, R. (1996) Strategy as practice. Long range planning 29, 731-735.
Wicks, A. C. and Freeman, R. E. (1998) Organization studies and the new
pragmatism: Positivism, anti-positivism and the search for ethics. Organization
Science 9, 123-140.
Willmott, H. (1993) Strength is ignorance; slavery is freedom: Managing culture in
modern organizations. Journal of Management Studies 30, 515-552.
Winch, P. (1958) The idea of a social science and its relation to philosophy.
Routledge, London.
Von Wright, G. H. (1971) Explanation and understanding. Routledge, London.
33