Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Academy of Management Proceedings |
| Volume | 2020 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 29 Jul 2020 |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Aug 2020 |
Abstract
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Academy of Management Proceedings, Vol. 2020, No. 1, 01.08.2020.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Systematicity
T2 - The Nature of Scientific Management and Organizational Knowledge
AU - Scholz, Markus
AU - Hoyningen-huene, Paul
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - We ask if and how one can demarcate scientific knowledge with regard to management and organizational phenomena from other kinds of knowledge (e.g., from practitioners’ knowledge or knowledge created by consultancy firms) that deal with the same subject matter. We find the answer to this question in systematicity theory as recently presented by philosopher of science Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2013). According to systematicity theory, scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge by being more systematic with regard to nine dimensions. We compare three pieces of knowledge regarding the chances of survival of a set of organizations in a particular environment: (1) Knowledge that is generated by a practicing manager with the help of her business network, (2) knowledge that is generated by a consultancy firm and (3) knowledge that is generated by organizational ecologists. Our analysis confirms our pre-theoretic intuitions that (1) is not scientific, that (3) is scientific, and that (2) is somehow in between. However, systematicity theory not only reproduces our pre-theoretic intuitions and thereby demonstrates its adequacy; it also offers insights into the reason for the given classification of the different kinds of knowledge as being more or less scientific."
AB - We ask if and how one can demarcate scientific knowledge with regard to management and organizational phenomena from other kinds of knowledge (e.g., from practitioners’ knowledge or knowledge created by consultancy firms) that deal with the same subject matter. We find the answer to this question in systematicity theory as recently presented by philosopher of science Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2013). According to systematicity theory, scientific knowledge differs from other kinds of knowledge by being more systematic with regard to nine dimensions. We compare three pieces of knowledge regarding the chances of survival of a set of organizations in a particular environment: (1) Knowledge that is generated by a practicing manager with the help of her business network, (2) knowledge that is generated by a consultancy firm and (3) knowledge that is generated by organizational ecologists. Our analysis confirms our pre-theoretic intuitions that (1) is not scientific, that (3) is scientific, and that (2) is somehow in between. However, systematicity theory not only reproduces our pre-theoretic intuitions and thereby demonstrates its adequacy; it also offers insights into the reason for the given classification of the different kinds of knowledge as being more or less scientific."
U2 - 10.5465/AMBPP.2020.13123abstract
DO - 10.5465/AMBPP.2020.13123abstract
M3 - Article
VL - 2020
JO - Academy of Management Proceedings
JF - Academy of Management Proceedings
SN - 0065-0668
IS - 1
ER -