Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information on Marketing Management

Click here for more information on Marketing Management

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Journal of Management Inquiry
This Article
Right arrow Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schwarz, G. M.
Right arrow Articles by Miner, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

We See Dead People?

The State of Organization Science

Gavin M. Schwarz

University of New South Wales, Sydney

Stewart Clegg

University of Technology, Sydney

Thomas G. Cummings

University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Lex Donaldson

University of New South Wales, Sydney

John B. Miner

This essay responds to John Miner's (1984) assessment of the state of organizational science. Slightly more than two decades ago, Miner found little evidence of a correlation between organizational scholars' ratings of the importance of a theory, its use, and its estimated validity. In response, he suggested the need for organizational science to readjust its goals, paradigms, and basic processes so that it develops as a discipline. Despite this challenge, the intervening years have seen the field become seemingly more paradigmatically fragmented, promoting discussion on its place in the social sciences. The essay presents four reviews in response to what has followed since Miner's original study. It offers a judgment on Miner's evaluation, a suggestion for the field's development, a position paper, and a response from Miner. Combined, the ensuing dialog offers practical suggestions to the problem of a seemingly perennially emerging organizational science.

Key Words: [PLS. PROVIDE 4-5 KEYWORDS]

Journal of Management Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 4, 300-317 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1056492607310927
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Organization StudiesHome page
D. Andriessen and C. Gubbins
Metaphor Analysis as an Approach for Exploring Theoretical Concepts: The Case of Social Capital
Organization Studies, August 1, 2009; 30(8): 845 - 863.
[Abstract] [PDF]