Theory and Organization Studies: The Need for Contestation

Mike Reed,Gibson Burrell

doi:10.1177/0170840617745923

Abstract

In this piece of provocation we focus on the words of people who we view as increasingly powerful institutional actors in the field of organization theory and what they signify about ‘what needs to be done’ and ‘how it needs to be done’ in order to rectify the many failings they identify. We suggest that their actions reflect a desire for an integrated, general theory of organizations and the conception of organization studies as a nomothetic science to which they (and perforce we) are philosophically and ideologically committed. These are seen to be intellectual and ideological forces at work on both sides of the Atlantic. We provide a critique of this emerging orthodoxy within contemporary organization theory, briefly drawing on Swift’s metaphor of Lilliputian ‘big enders’ and ‘little enders’ but also offer contemplation of the architectural metaphors of ‘cathedral’, ‘mystery house’ and ‘the tower of Babel’ (conceived of as ruination) to consider the alternative imaginary edifices that may influence the structure of our studies. Finally, we specify an alternative research agenda for organization theory which focuses upon ‘the organization of destruction’ rather than ‘the organization of production’ or ‘the organization of consumption’. Rather than seeing any contestation of intellectual traditions, analytical frameworks and methodological strategies as mental manacles and shackles which we need to ‘throw off’ to rediscover our true vocation as organization scientists, we contend that organization theory needs to reignite a fierce dialogue over ‘organization’ and its relation to order and disorder that has stretched over, at least, two millennia and still speaks to our lives today and tomorrow.

Highlights

This article sits within the ‘X and Organization Studies’ section as a contentious piece of provocation designed to comfort and discomfort those who read it, though not in equal measure
We suggest that if they have their way in ‘celebrating Organization Theory’ (Davis, 2015; Lounsbury & Beckman, 2015), our current institutional thought leaders will witness the conversion of organization studies into something resembling a post-positivistic biosocial science that will provide an essential intellectual aid to policy elites attempting to develop solutions to ‘(super) wicked problems’ (Conklin, 2005; Ferlie, McGivern, Dopson, & Fitzgerald, 2013)
We argue for an organization theory which attends to the ‘sociology of the hubbub’ and rejects the search for ecological laws, nomothetic science and disciplinary closure

Summary

Introduction

This article sits within the ‘X and Organization Studies’ section as a contentious piece of provocation designed to comfort and discomfort those who read it, though not in equal measure. We believe that the offer of two architectural models such as these demonstrates that the putative crisis in organization studies is an entirely manufactured and spurious ‘crisis’, serving to legitimate the status of institutional theory as a unitary paradigm through which normal science can proceed hierarchically upwards, unencumbered by philosophical doubt or theoretical controversy.

Results

Conclusion