Theorizing the Organization
Part A: theorizing the organization
Organization theory can be observed from modern, symbolic interpretative, critical and postmodern perspectives that provide us with values, distinct beliefs and knowledge. In this essay, I will discuss on how modernists and postmodernist perspective differ in their basic ontological and epistemological assumptions, different ways of understanding and contributes to different ideas about power and the limits of power in organization.
Ontology and Epistemology are intertwined, as these philosophical choices explain basic differences between the perspectives of organization theory (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Both ontology and epistemology establish unique research methods, interest and beliefs even though they position themselves differently. Ontology refers to the objects of knowledge that emphasize on the fundamental and principle aspects of human minds (Coffey 1914). It also discusses on what people define to be real and their assumptions of reality. According to Cooper (1999), epistemology is the study of the certainty and truth of human knowledge, how knowledge is derived and the mental factors associating in knowing.
Modernist believes that subjective understanding result in bias, and bias is precisely what science seeks to remove in pursuit of the rational ideals of modernism (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). The modernist perspective involve in taking a positivist approach to generate knowledge and pay attention on the organization as an independent object entity. Modernist is inhibited by their assumption of objectivity by admitting the subjective to enter their science (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Hypothesis test is one of the modernist test methods in deriving a rational and quantitative framework that depend on the use of mathematical mode.
For postmodernist perspective, they believe that everything is subjective to them and does not believe in objective reality. Postmodernist pay no attention to in seeking truth
Organization theory can be observed from modern, symbolic interpretative, critical and postmodern perspectives that provide us with values, distinct beliefs and knowledge. In this essay, I will discuss on how modernists and postmodernist perspective differ in their basic ontological and epistemological assumptions, different ways of understanding and contributes to different ideas about power and the limits of power in organization.
Ontology and Epistemology are intertwined, as these philosophical choices explain basic differences between the perspectives of organization theory (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Both ontology and epistemology establish unique research methods, interest and beliefs even though they position themselves differently. Ontology refers to the objects of knowledge that emphasize on the fundamental and principle aspects of human minds (Coffey 1914). It also discusses on what people define to be real and their assumptions of reality. According to Cooper (1999), epistemology is the study of the certainty and truth of human knowledge, how knowledge is derived and the mental factors associating in knowing.
Modernist believes that subjective understanding result in bias, and bias is precisely what science seeks to remove in pursuit of the rational ideals of modernism (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). The modernist perspective involve in taking a positivist approach to generate knowledge and pay attention on the organization as an independent object entity. Modernist is inhibited by their assumption of objectivity by admitting the subjective to enter their science (Hatch & Cunliffe 2006). Hypothesis test is one of the modernist test methods in deriving a rational and quantitative framework that depend on the use of mathematical mode.
For postmodernist perspective, they believe that everything is subjective to them and does not believe in objective reality. Postmodernist pay no attention to in seeking truth
References: Cooper, DE, 1999, Epistemology: the classic readings, Blackwell Publishers Ltd, UK. Tilly, C 2007, ‘Wal-Mart and Its Workers: NOT the Same All Over the World’, Connecticut Law Review, vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 1807-1821, viewed 5 September, ProQuest Central Database.