The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

We critically examine three major assumptions of modernist organization science: rational agency, empirical knowledge, and language as representation. With these assumptions problematized, we are positioned for a postmodern turn in the discipline. From a postmodern standpoint, we are moved to replace rational agency with communal rationality, empirical knowledge with social construction, and language as representation with language as action. Outcomes for an organization science place special emphasis on reconstructing and enriching the aims and methods of research and on critical reflection, generative theorizing, and scholarly action within organizations.

This article contends that scientific inquiry is the proper vehicle for examining organizational dynamics and promoting organizational effectiveness. However there are two sets of obstacles that hinder the development of a science of organizations. One set involves the influence of academic ideologies such as behaviorism, humanistic psychology, and postmodernist deconstruction. The other set reflects the reluctance of organizations to alter their practices based on the results of empirical research. We conclude the article with an example of a successful organizational intervention that exemplifies the main themes of the article.

Knowledge produced by empirical research can have external validity, which means it is relevant to the everyday world. Actionable knowledge is that knowledge required to implement the external validity (relevance) in that world. The claim is made that the concept of causality that underlies much rigorous empirical research makes it difficult to transform knowledge with high external validity into actionable knowledge. Moreover, this concept of causality can lead to knowledge that, if made actionable, could inhibit learning and, in some cases, produce undesirable unethical consequences. A different concept of causality is proposed that enhances actionability. Design causality is defined, and how it can be implemented is illustrated.

Recently, the organization sciences have been subjected to severe disputes about fundamental premises. To a degree, these battles appear to have involved disagreements about ontology and epistemology. This article analyzes two of these conflicts, the so-called Paradigm War in Britain and a related set of controversies in North America, using an agnostic interest-oriented framework. The analysis revealed a new perspective on the debates and the current direction of the field. Among other things, this new perspective suggested that previous interpretations of the debates have overstated the role of ontological and epistemological causes and understated the role of differences in interests. Moreover, recent development can be seen as accepting high degrees of metaphysical uncertainty and recognizing that interests or values have been and continue to be major factors in shaping what constitutes knowledge in the field.