Kuhn's concept of paradigm and Burrell and Morgan's paradigms continue to exert considerable influence on contemporary thinking in business and management research. Indeed, recent contributions to the ‘paradigm wars’ have provoked scholars to remark upon the longevity of this debate. Consequently, this paper argues that it is timely to revisit the concepts of paradigm(s) and the controversy surrounding them. It begins by discussing how Kuhn's and Burrell and Morgan's paradigm(s) are underpinned by structural linguistics and how scholars have argued this is problematized by deconstruction. Next, the methodology describes the literature search, offers a brief introduction to rhetoric, and introduces the form of rhetorical analysis employed in this study. Moving on, a rhetorical analysis of key articles from the paradigm wars is presented. This develops understanding of this dispute by illustrating how it is inherently dialogic; arguments for paradigm incommensurability, paradigm integration, paradigm pluralism and paradigm dissolution are constructed to counter each other. The paper identifies three main rhetorical strategies employed by scholars in these arguments: constructing identities for individuals and groups by attributing assumptions, values and interests to them; transferring agency to concepts; and managing accountability for their claims. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the analysis for understanding of the paradigm wars, the concept of paradigm incommensurability, and the practice of reflecting on one's own metatheoretical assumptions. Finally, potential applications of rhetorical analysis to contemporary debates in management research are identified.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 81 citations exist upstream.