The Death of Organization Science

Abstract

I n their article, “The Truth About Social Construction in Administrative Science,” Meckler and Baillie (2003) aim to provide philosophical grounding to unify disparate approaches to the study of organizations. Even though there is a rich literature of reflection and debate on the fragmented nature of organization studies (e.g., Astley, 1985; Astley & Ven de Ven, 1983; Daft, 1980; Donaldson, 1995; Pfeffer, 1993, 1995; Pfeffer, Leong, & Strehl, 1977; Van Maanen, 1995; Zammuto & Connolly, 1984), Graham Astley, who unfortunately passed away in 1996, is identified as a key villain who wrongheadedly hindered organizational researchers from joining hands in the singing of “Kum Ba Ya.” In particular, Meckler and Baillie motivate their philosophical wanderings by deconstructing Astley’s 1985 article, “Administrative Science as Socially Constructed Truth,” which provides a detailed argument about how different subjective worldviews of researchers maintain the fragmentation of organizational studies. In the process, however, Meckler and Baillie distort the work of Astley and reveal themselves as anti-social constructivists who seek to promote the development of a universalistic organization science that has paradigmatic unity. After revisiting the Astley article in an effort to critically probe the arguments made by Meckler and Baillie, I argue that it is time to move beyond the narrowly conceived organizational science project that they advocate and embrace a more cosmopolitan approach to the field of organizational analysis that celebrates variety.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 18 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.