Abstract

In the philosophy of science, an impression is created that scientific explanations are perhaps a preserve of physical and natural sciences. Although social scientists in organizational research have borrowed most modals of scientific explanations from natural scientists, they have met harsh criticism from their counterparts in the natural and physical sciences. This paper set out to explain how scientific explanations can be constructed successfully in organizational studies using modals borrowed from natural sciences. Basing on the critical literature review, the paper has successfully argued that, organizational research applies models of scientific explanations using sense making. In the case of the covering law model, it has been argued that the model connects well with sense making in organizational research in many respects since sense making recognizes explanandum in terms of organizational events that people experience in everyday life. The paper has also indicated that in the statistical-probabilistic model explanations are based on non-deductive reasoning and make it hard for the researcher to predict the explanandum with certainty except with some degree of probability. This applies in both organizational studies as well as in natural sciences. Like in the statistical probability model, causal-effect relationships can also be demonstrated statistically in organizational research. Moreover, the fact that organizational researchers have different traditions from those of ‘number crunchers’ does not make such traditions inferior. Lastly, the unification model portrays scientific explanations as constructed in a unified design. The paper has shown that in organizational research, unification manifests quite differently from the natural sciences. Organizations operate in unstable condition in the sense that there are so many disciplines under organizational research.

Highlights

  • In the deductive philosophy of science, an impression is created that scientific explanations are perhaps a preserve of physical and natural sciences

  • Unlike in International Journal of Philosophy 2019; 7(4): 167-172 natural sciences where scientific explanations have to be grounded in the phenomena, in organizational research the aim is to show why the event occurred in terms of prior events and laws [19]

  • There are misconceptions to the effect that deductive arguments in which conclusions flow from true premises should be a preserve of natural science [32, 34] The agreement shared among social and natural scientists is that theory construction on the basis of deductive reasoning cannot yield predictive power [34]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In the deductive philosophy of science, an impression is created that scientific explanations are perhaps a preserve of physical and natural sciences. Most scholars in the philosophy of science are bothered by how natural scientists construct scientific explanations to answer questions relating to phenomena in hard sciences [1, 2]. Such issues as why light is refracted by a prism; laws of optics by Maxwell's electrodynamics; the ideal gas law by the molecular-kinetic theory are some examples of the issues natural science tries to resolve [1]. It will be argued that unlike in natural sciences, organizational research applies sense making technique in order to contextualize scientific explanations

Conceptualizing Scientific Explanations in Organizational Research
Conceptualizing Sense Making in Organizational Research
Covering Law Model of Scientific Explanations and Sense Making
Statistical Probabilistic Model of Scientific Explanations and Sense Making
The Causal Model of Scientific Explanations and Sense Making
Unification Model of Scientific Explanations and Sensemaking
Discussion and Implications for Researchers in Organizational Science
Contribution of this Paper
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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 call