scholarly journals Theory, explanation, and understanding in management research

2021 ◽  
pp. 234094442110124
Author(s):  
Jean-Etienne Joullié ◽  
Anthony M. Gould

Theory production has been a central focus of management research for decades, mostly because theory legitimizes both management research and, through its application, management practice as professional endeavors. However, such an emphasis on theory glosses over one of its constraining and particularized roles in scientific explanation, namely that theory codifies predictive knowledge. Committing to theory a ‘traditional’ or ‘critical’ understanding of theory, thus amounts to embracing the view that prediction is achievable within a circumscribed field of study. Such an embrace is non-controversial in natural science. However, within the realm of management studies, it necessitates and smuggles in a strawman view of human existence, one which does not accommodate freedom and responsibility. This limitation of management theory explains its inadequate utility. This article argues that alternative avenues for management research exist. JEL CLASSIFICATION: M10

2020 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 5-10
Author(s):  
Yu.P. Adler ◽  

Dr. Edwards Deming, whose 120th birthday falls on October 14, 2020, has made outstanding contributions to management theory and practice, mathematical statistics and many other areas of human endeavor. This work, written for the anniversary of E. Deming, examines the paradoxes arising from his teachings. They relate, inter alia, to competition, motivation and remuneration, the use of sampling methods, on-the-job training, operational definitions and much more. Resolving these paradoxes is the path to a deeper understanding of the modern world and to the improvement of management practice. Already during Deming’s lifetime, numerous attempts were made to revise his teachings, and now there is a desire to abandon the use and development of his heritage. This is alarming and worrying.


Author(s):  
Teresa Obolevitch

Chapter 6 shows the presence of the topic of the relationship between faith and science in the thought of the most influential literature figures, such as Fedor Dostoevsky and Lev Tolstoy. Although Dostoevsky stressed the role of faith, his account by no means was a mere fideism. Dostoevsky respected natural science, even if he definitively marked the limits of the scientific explanation. Hence, he strove for an integral attitude embracing faith and reason in a single spiritual unity. By contrast, Lev Tolstoy was concerned about the absolute comprehensibility and rational obviousness of Christian truths, yet denied the significance of natural science.


2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (8) ◽  
pp. 926-953
Author(s):  
Jesús De Frutos-Belizón ◽  
Fernando Martín-Alcázar ◽  
Gonzalo Sánchez-Gardey

Purpose The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three streams of thought. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the main approaches that have analysed this topic, drawing a number of conclusions. Findings The knowledge generated by academics in the field of management is often criticized because of its reduced relevance for professionals. In the review of the literature, the authors distinguish between three main perspectives. The review of the literature and the understanding of the research streams that have been addressed by the academic–practitioner gap in management has allowed us to clarify that what truly underlies each of these approaches is a different assumption or paradigm from which the management science focusses. To represent the findings of the literature review in this sense, the authors will present, first, a model that serves as a framework to interpret the different solutions proposed in the literature to close the gap from a positivist paradigm. Subsequently, they question this view through a reflection that brings us closer to a more pragmatic and interpretive paradigm of management science to bridge the research–practice gap. Originality/value In recent studies, researchers agree that there is an important gap between management research and practice, which may bear little resemblance to each other. However, the literature on this topic does not seem to be guided by a rigorously structured discourse and, for the most part, is not based on empirical studies. Moreover, a sizeable body of literature has been developed with the objective of analysing and contributing solutions that reconcile management researchers and professionals. To offer a more systematic view of the literature on this topic, the paper classifies previous approaches into three different perspectives based on the ideas on which they are supported. Finally, the paper concludes with some reflections that could help to reorient the paradigm from which the management research is carried out.


2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Spee Kosloff ◽  
Jeff Greenberg ◽  
Sheldon Solomon

Research on aggression and terror management theory suggests shortcomings in Nell's analysis of cruelty. Hostile aggression and exposure to aggressive cues are not inherently reinforcing, though they may be enjoyed if construed within a meaningful cultural framework. Terror management research suggests that human cruelty stems from the desire to defend one's cultural worldview and to participate in a heroic triumph over evil.


2002 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 387-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine M. Daily ◽  
Patricia P. McDougall ◽  
Jeffrey G. Covin ◽  
Dan R. Dalton

Corporate governance has been a central focus of strategic management research, particularly the associations among governance structures, strategic leaders, and firm performance. Extant research, however, provides little evidence of systematic relationships in these areas. There are a series of theoretical/conceptual rationales suggesting that such relationships might be more pronounced in entrepreneurial firms. Accordingly, we provide an overview and synthesis of the entrepreneurship literature addressing the intersection of governance and strategic leadership with firm performance. The strongest relationships reflected in this literature are consistent with a resource dependence perspective of the firm. We conclude with several suggestions for advancing research in this important domain.


Author(s):  
Stefan Tengblad

The chapter gives an overview of the most important studies about managerial work practices and the most important findings these studies shed on our general understanding of management as a societal phenomenon and as a field for scientific enquiry. These studies can be divided into major streams, one functionalistic and one ethnographic. Both streams identify work practices that are very different from mainstream management theory (reactive, fragmented, unsystematic, irrational, etc). While the first stream is oriented towards solutions to managers to act in a more rational manner, the second stream seeks to understand why normative management theory often is mere a rationalistic dream and a legitimizing ideology than a robust explanatory framework built on empirical results. Regardless of these limitations the chapter claims that it is possible to summarize both streams into an integrated theory about management practices that acknowledge the complexities and the multifaceted nature of management practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 15047
Author(s):  
Galina Shirokova ◽  
Tatiana S. Manolova ◽  
Tatiana Beliaeva ◽  
Anastasiia Laskovaia

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bor-Shiuan Cheng ◽  
An-Chih Wang ◽  
Min-Ping Huang

To complement Barney and Zhang's as well as Whetten's articles in this issue of Management and Organization Review, we offer ways to develop indigenous management theory to explain unique Chinese management phenomena. We first briefly review the imbalance of developing theories of Chinese management versus developing Chinese theories of management in Chinese research societies. We then describe a five-step research process that uses an indigenous research approach to theory development: discovery of interesting phenomena, field observations, construction of the theoretical framework, empirical examination, and theory refinement. This process may be useful not only in the Chinese context, but also in any other context. We identify several challenges in both Chinese and international academic societies that must be overcome to facilitate learning across the two approaches proposed by Barney and Zhang: the need for high quality journals in the Chinese language, international journals' efforts to ease the imbalance between the two approaches, and collaboration between Chinese and Western management schools.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document