Resumen
La ciencia administrativa atraviesa una transformación epistemológica impulsada por la complejidad organizacional, la incertidumbre y los cambios sociotecnológicos contemporáneos. Este estudio desarrolló una revisión fundamentada de literatura publicada entre 2015 y 2024 para analizar las principales tensiones epistemológicas presentes en el campo administrativo. Los resultados identificaron disputas entre objetividad y construcción social del conocimiento, predictibilidad y complejidad, así como entre rigor científico y relevancia práctica. Asimismo, se evidenció una transición progresiva desde enfoques positivistas hacia perspectivas más pluralistas, interpretativas y contextualizadas. Se concluye que la evolución de la ciencia administrativa requiere marcos epistemológicos integradores y flexibles frente a escenarios organizacionales inciertos.
Citas
[1] G. Burrell and G. Morgan, Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. London, UK: Heinemann, 1979.
[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.
[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.
Descargas
La descarga de datos todavía no está disponible.