Where Are the Old Theories of Organization? Prospects for Retrospection in Organization Theory

Abstract

Academy of Management ReviewVol. 38, No. 2 DialogueWhere Are the Old Theories of Organization? Prospects for Retrospection in Organization TheoryJohn Hassard, Julie Wolfram Cox and Michael RowlinsonJohn HassardManchester University, Julie Wolfram CoxMonash University and Michael RowlinsonQueen Mary London UniversityPublished Online:16 Apr 2013https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0100AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsDownload CitationsAdd to favoritesTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail View articleREFERENCESAdler P. (Ed.). 2009. The Oxford handbook of sociology and organization studies: Classical foundations. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarBuchanan D., Bryman A. 2009. The organizational research context: Properties and implications. In Bryman A.Buchanan D. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational research methods: 1–18. London: Sage. Google ScholarBurrell G., Morgan G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. Google ScholarCalás M. B., Smircich L. 2003. To be done with progress and other heretical thoughts for organization and management studies. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 21: 29–56. Google ScholarCornelissen J., Durand R. 2012. Dialogue—More than just novelty: Conceptual blending and causality. Academy of Management Review, 37: 152–154.Link , Google ScholarCunliffe A. 2011. Crafting qualitative research: Morgan and Smircich 30 years on. Organizational Research Methods, 14: 647–673. Google ScholarDaft R. L., Lewin A. Y. 1993. Where are the theories for the “new” organizational forms? An editorial essay. Organization Science, 4: i–iv. Google ScholarDavis G. F. 2010. Do theories of organization progress? Organizational Research Methods, 13: 690–709. Google ScholarDeetz S. 1996. Describing differences in approaches to organizational science: Rethinking Burrell and Morgan and their legacy. Organization Science, 7: 191–207. Google ScholarGreen S. E., Li Y. 2011. Rhetorical institutionalism: Language, agency, and structure in institutional theory since Alvesson 1993. Journal of Management Studies, 48: 1662–1697. Google ScholarHinings C. R. 1988. Defending organization theory: A British view from North America. Organization Studies, 9: 2–7. Google ScholarJackson N., Carter P. 1991. In defence of paradigm incommensurability. Organization Studies, 12: 109–127. Google ScholarKnorr Cetina K. D. 1991. Epistemic cultures: Forms of reason in science. History of Political Economy, 23: 105–122. Google ScholarKnorr Cetina K. D. 2010. The epistemics of information: A logic of knowledge consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10: 1–31. Google ScholarKnudsen C. 2003. Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of organization theory. In Tsoukas H.Knudsden C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organization theory: 262–288. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google ScholarKraatz M. S. 2011. Two cheers for institutional work. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 59–61. Google ScholarKuhn T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google ScholarKuhn T. 1977. The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google ScholarLaw J. 1994. Organizing modernity. Oxford: Blackwell. Google ScholarLaw J. 1999. After ANT: Complexity, naming, and topology. In Law J.Hassard J. (Eds.), Actor network theory and after: 1–14. Oxford: Blackwell. Google ScholarMcNall S., Johnson J. 1975. The new conservatives: Ethnomethodologists, phenomenologists and symbolic interactionists. Critical Sociology, 5: 49–65. Google ScholarMeyer R. E., Boxenbaum E. 2010. Exploring European-ness in organization research. Organization Studies, 31: 737–755. Google ScholarOswick C., Fleming P., Hanlon G. 2011. From borrowing to blending: Rethinking the processes of organizational theory building. Academy of Management Review, 36: 318–337.Link , Google ScholarReed M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis. Organization Studies, 18: 21–42. Google ScholarRhodes C., Pullen A. 2010. Editorial: Neophilia and organization. Culture and Organization, 16: 1–6. Google ScholarStern R. N., Barley S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theory's neglected mandate. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41: 146–162. Google ScholarSuddaby R., Hardy C., Huy Q. N. 2011. Introduction to special topic forum—Where are the new theories of organization? Academy of Management Review, 36: 236–246.Link , Google ScholarTsoukas H., Chia R. 2011. Introduction: Why philosophy matters to organization theory. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 32: 1–21. Google ScholarÜsdiken B., Pasadeos Y. 1995. Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks. Organization Studies, 16: 503–526. Google ScholarWillmott H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality. Organization Studies, 14: 681–719. Google ScholarWillmott H. 2011. Institutional work for what? Problems and prospects of institutional theory. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20: 67–72. Google ScholarFiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byBack to the Future: Can Counterhistory Accelerate Theoretical Advancement in Management?Per L. Bylund and Mark D. Packard2 June 2022 | Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 36, No. 2Editor's Comments: Why Theory?Roy Suddaby23 March 2018 | Academy of Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4 Vol. 38, No. 2 Permissions Metrics in the past 12 months History Published online 16 April 2013 Published in print 1 April 2013 Information© Academy of Management ReviewKeywordsTHEORYPARADIGM (Theory of knowledge)ORGANIZATIONAL sociologyMANAGEMENT researchDownload PDF