question archive Sociological Paradigms and Organisational AIlalysis Elements of the sociology of Corporate L({e Gibson BUlT'H'eBm lecturer in the Department of Behaviour in Organisations, University of Lancaster, England Gareth Morgalm Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Industrial Relations, York University
Subject:ManagementPrice:14.86 Bought3
Sociological Paradigms and Organisational AIlalysis Elements of the sociology of Corporate L({e Gibson BUlT'H'eBm lecturer in the Department of Behaviour in Organisations, University of Lancaster, England Gareth Morgalm Associate Professor of Organisational Behaviour and Industrial Relations, York University. Toronto ASHGATE © Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan 1979 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher Contents First published in 1979 by Heinemann Educational Books Reprinted 1980, 1982 Reprinted 1985, 1987, 1988 by Gower Publishing Company Limited Reprinted 1992 by Ashgate Publishing Limited page Ust of figures List of Tables Acknowledgements Introduction v v VI viii Reprinted 1993, 1994 by Arena PART I: IN SEARCH Of A FRAMEWORK Reprinted 1998, 2000, 200 I, 2003, 2005 by Ashgate Publishing Limited Gower House Cron Road Aldershot Bants GU 11 311R England n The Strands of Debate Analy'sing Assumptions about the Nature of Social Sci.ence 2 J British Library Cataloguing in Publication D:nta Burrell, Gibson Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis: elements of the sociology of corporate lite. I. Organization I. Title II. Morgan, Gareth 302.3'5 HMl31 ISBN 0 566 05148 6 Hbk 185742 1140 Pbk Printed and bound in Great Britain by Athenaeum Press Ltd, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear Assumptiolllls aboot the Nature off Soddy The Order-Conflict Debate 'Regulation' and 'Radical Change' Two Dimelllsioll1lS: ]four !Paradigms The Nature and Uses of the Four Paradigms The Functionalist Paradigm The Interpretive Paradigm The Radical Humanist Paradigm The Radical Structuralist Paradigm Exploring Social Theory Ashgale Publishing Company Suile420 101 Cherry Streel Burlington, VT 0540 1-4405 USA IAshgatc website:http://www.ashgate.com AssumptiOHlls lllbout the NllltlUlre oa' Social Sciellllce n 4 7 no 10 16 2ll 23 25 28 32 33 35 PART II: THE PARADIGMS EXPLORED ~ Functiollllalist Sociology Origins and Intellectual Tradition The Structure of the Paradigm Social System Theory Interactionism and Social Action Theory Integrative Theory Objectivism The Underlying Unity of the Paradigm :5 FIJlll1lctiomnRist Orglllrusllltiolll nlleory Theories of Organisation within the Functionalist Paradigm Social System Theory and Objectivism Theories of Bureaucratic Dysfunctions ters in Part i define the nature of our two key dimenSIOns of analysIs and the paradigms which arise within their bounds. In this analysis we polarise a number of issues and mance much use of rough dichotomisations as a means of presenting OUf case. We do so not merely for the purposes of classification but to forge a working tool. We advocate our scheme as a heuristic device rather than as a set of rigid definitions. in Part II we put our analytical framework into operation. For each of our four paradigms we conduct an analysis of relevant so.cial .theory and then proceed to relate theories of organisation to tillS wider background. lEach of the paradigms is treated in terms ~onsistent wit.h. it,S own distinctive frame of reference. No attempt IS made to cnticise and evaluate from a perspective outside the paradigm. S.uch criticism is all too easy but self-defeating, since it IS usually directed at the foundations of the paradigm itself. Ail four paradigms can successfUlly be demolished in these terms. What we seek to do is to develop the perspective characteristic off the paradigm and draw out some of its 'implications for social analysis. in so doing we have found that we are frequently able to strengthen the conceptualisations which each paradigm generates as far as the study of organisations is concerned. Our guiding rule has been to seek to offer something to each paradigm within the terms of its own problematic. The chapters in Part II therefore are ~ssentially eJ\pository i~ nature. They seek to' provide ~ detailed framework upon which future debate might fruitfully be based. Part. m. pre~ents a slJ(~rt conclusion which focuses upon some of the prinCipal Issues which emerge from our analysis. PART I: IN SEARCH OF A FRAMEWORK 10 Assumptions about the Nature of Social Science Central to our thesis is the idea that 'all theories of organisation are based upon a philosophy of science and a theory of society' .in this chapter we wish to address ourselves to the first aspect of this thesis and to examine some of the philosophical assumptions which underwrite different approaches to social science. We shall argue that it is convenient to conceptualise social science in terms of four sets of assumptions related to ontology, epistemology, human nature and methodology. All social scientists approach their subject via eJ\plicit or implicit assumptions about the nature of the social world and the way in which it may be investigated. First, there are assumptions of an ontological nature - assumptions which concern the very essence of the phenomena under investigation. Social scientists, for eJ\ample, are faced with a basic ontological question: whether the 'reality' to be investigated is eJ\ternal to the individual - imposing itself on individual consciousness from without - or the product of individual consciousness; whether 'reality' is of an 'objective' nature, or the product of individual cognition; whether 'reality' is a given 'out there' in the world, or the product of one's mind. Associated with this ontological issue, is a second set of assumptions of an epistemological nature. These are assumptions about the grounds of knowledge - about how one might begin to understand the world and communicate this as knowledge to fellow human beings. These assumptions entail ideas, for eJ\ample, about what forms of knowledge can be obtained, and how one can sort out what is to be regarded as 'true' from what is to be regarded as 'false'. Indeed, this dichotomy of 'true' and 'false' itself presupposes a certain epistemological stance. It is predicated upon a view of the nature of knowledge itself: whether, for example, it is possible to identify and communicate the nature of knowledge as being hard, real and capable of being transmitted in tangible form, or whether 'knowledge' is of a softer, more subjective, spiritual or even transcendental kind, based on eJ\perience and insight of a Assumptions about the Nature oj Social Science 2 SocioloRical Paradi/?ms and OrRanisational Analysis unique ~nd .essenti~lIy personal nature. The epistemological ~ssumptlOns In these Instances determine extreme positions on the Issue of whether knowledge is something which can be acquired on ~he one hand. or is something which has to be personally experIenced on the other. Associated with the ontological and epistemological issues. but concept~ally separate from them. is a third set of assumptions concermng human. nature an? in .particular. the relationship between human beings and their environment. All social science. clearly •.mu.st be predicated upon this type of assumption. since human ~Ife IS. essentially the subject and object of enquiry. Thus, we can Identify perspectives in social science which entail a view of human beings responding in a mechanistic or even deterministic fashion to the situations encountered in their external world. This view tends to be one in which human beings and their experiences are regarded as products of the environment; one in which humans are conditioned by their external circumstances. This extreme perspecti~e can be contrasted with one which attributes to human b~i~gs a m~ch more creative role: with a perspective where 'free will OCCUPI~S the ~entre of the stage; where man is regarded as the creator of hiS environment. the controller as opposed to the controlled, the master rather than the marionette. In these two ext~eme views of the relationship between human beings and their environment we are identifying a great philosophical debate between the advocates of determinism on the one hand and voluntarism on the other. Whilst there are social theories which adhere to eac~ of t~ese.extremes,as we shall see, the assumptions of many SOCial SCientists are pitched somewhere in the range between. The three sets of assumptions outlined above have direct implications of a metJlOdoloRical nature. Each one has important cons.eq~encesfor t~e way in Which.
Purchased 3 times