Abstract
Administrative science is undergoing an epistemological transformation driven by organizational complexity, uncertainty, and contemporary sociotechnological changes. This study developed a grounded literature review of publications from 2015 to 2024 to analyze the main epistemological tensions present in the administrative field. The findings identified disputes between objectivity and the social construction of knowledge, predictability and complexity, as well as scientific rigor and practical relevance. Likewise, a progressive transition was observed from positivist approaches toward more pluralistic, interpretive, and contextualized perspectives. It is concluded that the evolution of administrative science requires integrative and flexible epistemological frameworks in response to uncertain organizational scenarios.
References
[2] T. S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, 1962.
[3] P. K. Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London, UK: New Left Books, 1975.
[4] P. L. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York, NY, USA: Doubleday, 1966.
[5] E. G. Guba and Y. S. Lincoln, “Competing paradigms in qualitative research,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln, Eds. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage, 1994, pp. 105–117.
[6] R. Bhaskar, The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique of the Contemporary Human Sciences, 3rd ed. London, UK: Routledge, 1998.
[7] H. Willmott, “Breaking the paradigm mentality,” Organization Studies, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 681–719, 1993, doi: 10.1177/017084069301400504.
[8] M. W. Lewis and A. J. Grimes, “Metatriangulation: Building theory from multiple paradigms,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 672–690, 1999, doi: 10.5465/amr.1999.2553247.
[9] J. Hassard, “Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study,” Organization Studies, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 275–299, 1991, doi: 10.1177/017084069101200206.
[10] M. Schultz and M. J. Hatch, “Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 529–557, 1996, doi: 10.5465/amr.1996.9605060220.
[11] H. Tsoukas and C. Knudsen, Eds., The Oxford Handbook of Organization Theory: Meta-Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003.
[12] H. Tsoukas, “Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 132–153, 2017, doi: 10.1111/joms.12219.
[13] J. Sandberg and M. Alvesson, “Meanings of theory: Clarifying theory through typification,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 487–516, 2021, doi: 10.1111/joms.12587.
[14] J. Sandberg and H. Tsoukas, “Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 338–360, 2011, doi: 10.5465/amr.2009.0183.
[15] P. Anderson, “Complexity theory and organization science,” Organization Science, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 216–232, 1999, doi: 10.1287/orsc.10.3.216.
[16] R. D. Stacey, “The science of complexity: An alternative perspective for strategic change processes,” Strategic Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 477–495, 1995, doi: 10.1002/smj.4250160606.
[17] F. J. Milliken, “Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment: State, effect, and response uncertainty,” Academy of Management Review, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 133–143, 1987, doi: 10.5465/amr.1987.4306502.
[18] A. Kieser and L. Leiner, “Why the rigour–relevance gap in management research is unbridgeable,” Journal of Management Studies, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 516–533, 2009, doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2009.00831.x.
[19] R. L. Daft and A. Y. Lewin, “Perspective—Rigor and relevance in organization studies: Idea migration and academic journal evolution,” Organization Science, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 177–183, 2008, doi: 10.1287/orsc.1070.0346.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.