Abstract
Three common criticisms of management science are highlighted: first, the tendency of researchers to subjectively bias substantive approaches, methodologies and research findings; second, the failure to establish within the discipline a core of consensually validated knowledge or commonly accepted body of truth about the nature of management; and three, the inability of management theory to provide tools and techniques of greater pragmatic relevance to corporate decision‐makers. Though a basis for these characterizations of management science is confirmed, their significance is reinterpreted. Instead of being regarded as pathologies, they are viewed as inevitable, and not necessarily dysfunctional, concomitants of the emergence and development of management science as a field of intellectual activity possessing reality and significance in its own right.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
