Search results

Relativism, at least in some of its forms, is antithetical to sociology as traditionally practiced and conceived. (See, for instance, Benton and Crabb, 2001, pp.50‐74 and 93‐1006; Collins 1996a; Mann, 1998; Murphy, 1997; and Taylor‐Gooby, 1994). Hence, sociologists should consider abandoning traditional sociology or rejecting relativism. An example of the sort of relativism I have in mind is the philosophical theory that the truth and falsity of propositions is relative to the social context of their promulgation. Such epistemological relativism is expressed by Newton‐Smith when he says: “The central relativist idea is that what is true for one tribe, social group or age might not be true for an other tribe, social group or age” (Newton‐Smith, 1982, p.107).

Introduction Relativism of all shades and kinds is in fashion. For some decades, it has been trying to enter the very bastion of the academic heartland by questioning the prevailing cognitive realism in the philosophy of science (Kuhn, Feyerabend). More recently a somewhat different and stronger version of relativism has made some extraordinary advances in literary criticism (the movement of “deconstruction”) and spawned some controversy in the field of law (critical legal studies). The same tendencies have now emerged in architecture (Jencks). More alarmingly, perhaps, in the social sciences we observe a brand new interest in so‐ called “post‐modern” perspectives: post‐modern ethnography in anthropology (Tylor), new voices in sociology (Lash and Urri), and, of course, also the novel ideas representing economics as discourse with a distinctly post‐modern flavor (Amariglio; Rossetti; Milberg; Ruccio).

This paper aims to initiate a timely discussion about the epistemological advantages of Web 2.0 as a non‐foundational network‐centric learning space in higher education.

A philosophical analysis of the underpinning design principles of Web 2.0 social media and of conventional “foundational” and emergent “non‐foundational” learning and which uses Wikipedia as a case study.

For academics in higher education to take a more informed approach to the use of Web 2.0 in formal learning settings and begin to consider integrating Web 2.0's architecture of participation with a non‐foundational architecture of learning, focused on acculturation into networks of practice.

The paper argues that the continuing dominance and therefore likely application of conventional old paradigm foundational learning theory will work against the grain of, if not undermine, the powerful affordances Web 2.0 social media provides for learning focused on social interaction and collaborative knowledge construction. The paper puts the case for non‐foundational learning and draws attention to the importance of aligning Web 2.0's architecture of participation with a non‐foundational architecture of acculturation as the latter is better epistemologically placed to more fully realise the potential of Web 2.0 to position students on trajectories of acculturation into their new networks of practice.

This paper exposes the epistemological dilemma Web 2.0's participatory culture poses for academics wedded to conventional ideas about the nature of knowledge and learning as is, for instance, clearly evidenced by their sceptical disposition towards or outright rejection of, Wikipedia.

The purpose of this systematic narrative review is to discourse on vision and organizational performance. By analysing work-life and organization studies journals, the authors respond to a call to view the process of visioning more holistically.

The methodological approach is a discourse-oriented qualitative content analysis. The authors explore visioning through an epistemological lens, which emphasizes both the connections and differences between “traditional” philosophical approaches.

The findings show how the different interpretations of vision and related concepts are tied to the following themes: clarity, causality, embodiment and sensory experiences and actionability.

Through the frameworks of scientific realism and relativism, the authors illustrate novel insights into the ways in which visioning occupies a place in knowledge management.

The paper aims to describe the inadequate nature of both “mono‐objectivist” approaches, which deny any role of social influence in science, and relativist social constructions, which fail to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. It outlines an alternative conceptual framework that allows for the possibility of social construction of science, while preventing epistemological relativism.

The study utilizes the cybernetic concept of recursion to show how science can bend back on itself, investigating its own foundations, without undermining its ability to improve our empirical understanding of the world. The paper makes use of several case studies to define specific mechanisms that show how the process of knowledge production in science can steer a course between reduction to a single “right answer,” and fragmentation into subjective interpretations.

The paper concludes by showing how the cybernetic recursion of multiple objectivity can also be applied to cybernetics itself. In particular, it suggests that such recursive investigations allow us to reconsider the Law of Requisite Variety, and envision an alternative form that can better account for the complexity that arises in self‐generating systems.

The research is unlikely to be of use to scientists looking for epistemological proof of singular right answers, or social constructivists looking for proof of epistemological relativism.

The paper suggests that researchers in constructivism need not limit their work for fear that it will lead to relativist conclusions.

This paper fulfils an identified need to offer an alternative to current developments in the field of science and technology studies.

The purpose of this article is to chronicle the publication events in the 1980s and 1990s that framed the development of the series of controversies in marketing that are known as the “philosophy debates”.

The article uses a participant’s retrospective approach.

The article finds that seven publication events are key to understanding marketing’s philosophy debates. The seven are the publication of the “little green book” by Grid, Inc. in 1976; the philosophy of science panel discussion held at the Winter American Marketing Association Educators’ Conference in 1982; the special issue of the Journal of Marketing on marketing theory in 1983; three articles on the “critical relativist perspective” by the Journal of Consumer Research in 1986 and 1988; the “blue book” by South-Western in 1991; a trilogy of articles on truth, positivism and objectivity in the Journal of Marketing and the Journal of Consumer Research in 1990-1993; and an article on “rethinking marketing” in the European Journal of Marketing in 1994.

Chronicling the key publication events enables readers to understand what the debates were about and provides readers a starting point for further investigating the issues in the debates.

The intellectual trajectory of a central figure in contemporary organisation theory – Gareth Morgan – is identified and assessed through a detailed analysis of his published work over the last decade.

This is a rejoinder to Hoque et al. (2013) previously published in this journal. The purpose of this paper is to further elucidate and extend some of their key arguments related to the use of theoretical triangulation in accounting research.

This is a conceptual discussion focusing on how the understanding of the notion of theoretical triangulation can be enhanced from a critical realist perspective.

The author draws attention to some ambiguities in Hoque et al.’s (2013) reasoning and advance a critique of their rather under-developed conceptions of the relationship between ontology and epistemology, the epistemic premises influencing the choice of theories and the role of theories in conditioning empirical observations and scholarly knowledge claims. To address these issues the author advances a critical realist approach and discusses its implications for theoretical triangulation in accounting research.

The paper contributes to the ongoing debate about theoretical pluralism in accounting research by explicating how critical realism may further such pluralism and the inter-disciplinary accounting research project more generally.

To analyse the use of hermeneutics in library and information science (LIS).

Presents a literature‐based conceptual analysis of: the definition of hermeneutics in LIS; and the practical use of hermeneutics within recent LIS studies.

The use of hermeneutics in LIS has increased during the last decade, as has the number of authors discussing its scientific value for LIS. In many studies the interpretative character of the objects of study seen as hermeneutic in itself. This is a misconception which draws the attention away from hermeneutics as a scientific point of departure and methodology used in the study of these processes. The problem is specifically present in studies making explicit or implicit reference to a modern view of science, while studies referring to LIS as a postmodern field of study seem to be more at ease with hermeneutics.

Questions are raised on the fundamental use of hermeneutics in LIS. This may give rise to a deeper discussion on the scientific value and character of hermeneutics in LIS.

The paper questions the use of hermeneutics as a point of departure in LIS research by looking at the research made within the field. This perspective may increase understanding of the function of hermeneutics within LIS, something which is of value both for the research community and for students within LIS.

The purpose of this paper is to examine, from the perspective of different theoretical approaches, the relationship that exists between different ontological supports of knowledge and knowledge itself (the way it is created and its characteristics).

The paper proposes two different types of knowledge (knowledge of concrete situations and abstract knowledge) and two approaches (the constructivist view and the cognitive view) and provides a general classification of the different knowledge types. Second, it examines the underlying ontological support‐knowledge creation, characteristics or types of knowledge relationship in different approaches. Finally, conclusions are drawn that show how the conception of ontological support conditions the way in which knowledge is conceived.

The results of the paper consist of making explicit the ontological support‐knowledge creation, characteristics or types of knowledge relationship in different approaches; and enabling understanding of the fact that the ideas one has about knowledge (how it is created or what its characteristics are) come from one's beliefs about the supports in, or in interaction with, which it is created.

The implications for the different approaches to knowledge theory are important. The study proposes a change with regard to how one considers the ontological supports of knowledge. The limitation of the paper lies in the fact that this proposal needs to be presented in a more extensive format, through a series of different papers and analyses.

The originality of the paper stems from the fact that it focuses on the ontological supports of knowledge and highlights the idea that the conception of these supports leads to a particular way of conceiving knowledge.