Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Organization
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 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 Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kaghan, W.
Right arrow Articles by Phillips, N.
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?

Building the Tower of Babel: Communities of Practice and Paradigmatic Pluralism in Organization Studies

William Kaghan

University of Washington

Nelson Phillips

McGill University

In this paper, we argue that the work of Thomas Kuhn lends itself to two conflicting interpretations of the nature of scientific work, and that these have very different implications for debates on paradigmatic pluralism within organization studies. We begin by framing two ideal typical interpretations (a reductionist interpretation and an irreductionist interpretation) of the allegory of the Tower of Babel. We then explore in more depth the irreductionist interpretation of Kuhn that has driven research in the `social studies of science' over the last two decades. In line with irreductionist studies, we examine the concept of boundaries between scientific fields and between science and society and argue for a more fluid and dynamic conception than has been common in previous work. We suggest revisions of more traditional conceptions of paradigm, incommensurability, and mature and immature science. We end by briefly discussing these issues in the context of the debates on paradigmatic pluralism in organization theory and strategic management.

Organization, Vol. 5, No. 2, 191-215 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/135050849852003


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
Journal of Management InquiryHome page
M. Driver
Reviewer Feedback as Discourse of the Other: A Psychoanalytic Perspective on the Manuscript Review Process
Journal of Management Inquiry, December 1, 2007; 16(4): 351 - 360.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Management LearningHome page
N. Phillips
The Adolescence of Critical Management Studies?: A Postscript to Clegg, Kornberger, Carter and Rhodes
Management Learning, March 1, 2006; 37(1): 29 - 31.
[PDF]


Home page
Human RelationsHome page
C. Hardy, N. Phillips, and S. Clegg
Reflexivity in Organization and Management Theory: A Study of the Production of the Research `Subject'
Human Relations, May 1, 2001; 54(5): 531 - 560.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
OrganizationHome page
N. Phillips and S. Zyglidopoulos
Learning from Foundation: Asimov's Psychohistory and the Limits of Organization Theory
Organization, November 1, 1999; 6(4): 591 - 608.
[Abstract] [PDF]