Search results

In this chapter, the approach of radical interactionism is juxtaposed against symbolic interactionism, its older conservative turned rival cousin, to highlight primarily the major differences between them. The five key differences identified are as follows: (1) the major progenitors for symbolic interactionism are Mead and Blumer, while those for radical interactionism are Park and, by default, myself; (2) although radical interactionism presumes that domination and power are always of great importance for understanding human group life, symbolic interactionism assumes that they now have only limited importance for understanding it; (3) radical interactionism makes it mandatory for researchers to examine the role of dominance and power during social interaction, whereas symbolic interactionism makes it only discretionary; (4) while radical interactionism stresses the impact of individuals’ and groups’ unstated assumptions on their interaction with one another, symbolic interactionism de-emphasizes their impact on it; and finally (5) radical interactionism discourages, while symbolic interactionism encourages researchers falling into the trap of linguistic phenomenalism. Thus, unlike radical interactionism, symbolic interactionism facilitates sociologists not only falling prey to linguistic phenomenalism, but also conservative and idealistic biases, while allegedly conducting “value-free research.”

Open access publishing is an increasingly popular trend in the dissemination of academic work, allowing journals to print articles electronically and without the burden of subscription paywalls, enabling much wider access for audiences. Yet subscription-based journals remain the most dominant in the social sciences and humanities, and it is often a struggle for newer open access publications to compete, in terms of economic, cultural, and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 2004). Our study explores the meanings of resistance held by the editors of open access journals in the social sciences and humanities in Canada, as well as the views of university librarians. To make sense of these meanings, we draw on Lonnie Athens’ (2015) radical interactionist account of power, and expand on this by incorporating George Herbert Mead’s (1932, 1938) theory of emergence, arguing that open access is characteristic of an “extended rationality” (Chang, 2004) for those involved. Drawing on our open-ended interview data, we find that open access is experienced as a form of resistance in at least four ways. These include resistance to (1) profit motives in academic publishing; (2) access barriers for audiences; (3) access barriers for contributors; and (4) traditional publishing conventions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the importance and influence of the epistemologies: “empiricism”, “rationalism” and “positivism” in library and information science (LIS).

First, outlines the historical development of these epistemologies, by discussing and identifying basic characteristics in them and by introducing the criticism that has been raised against these views. Second, their importance for and influence in LIS have been examined.

The findings of this paper are that it is not a trivial matter to define those epistemologies and to characterise their influence. Many different interpretations exist and there is no consensus regarding current influence of positivism in LIS. Arguments are put forward that empiricism and positivism are still dominant within LIS and specific examples of the influence on positivism in LIS are provided. A specific analysis is made of the empiricist view of information seeking and it is shown that empiricism may be regarded as a normative theory of information seeking and knowledge organisation.

The paper discusses basic theoretical issues that are important for the further development of LIS as a scholarly field.

Introduces the theory of signs and sees it as being rooted in behaviourism. Outlines classical conditioning as developed by Pavlov. Considers the theory of signs in a Peircean manner where it has great generality, and provides illustrations of this approach. Then discusses the Quine approach and his thinking in relation to behaviourism. Introduces the mind‐body problem as one of the traditional problems of philosophy. Reviews the question as to the nature of the mind as a system with consciousness. Presents a series of questions set by Levinson, based on Feigl’s definition, and considers their relevance and contribution to the theory.

In this chapter, we present a critical assessment of contemporary organization theory variously described as either multiperspectival or fragmented. We argue that analytic philosophy as one of the major tools used for theorizing about organizations has had a major influence on the development of organization theory and largely explains the current state of affairs. At its core, we argue, is a fundamental methodological fissure in analytic philosophy itself: the distinction between descriptive and revisionary methods. The principal focus of descriptive analysis in organization theory is how agents use everyday language in organizational contexts, often by invoking language games. In contrast, revisionary approaches, concerned about the privileging of theories embedded in everyday language, as well as the complexity and ambiguity of ordinary-language use, aim for explicit theory evaluation and greater clarity by recasting ordinary language in formal systems, such as scientific, especially empiricist, theories, characteristic of the mainstream of theorizing about organizations from the 1940s onward. For a number of theoretical and epistemological reasons logical empiricism or positivism is no longer a widely held view either in the philosophy of science or in the organization theory. We examine some critical issues regarding logical empiricist epistemological foundations and propose a methodological naturalistic framework that supports the ongoing growth of knowledge in organization theory, naturalistic coherentism. In developing this new conception of science we thus opt for a revisionary methodology, but one that is beholden to neither the traditional logical empiricist/positivist conception of (organization) science nor the relativism and conservatism of postmodernist theory, widely considered to be the successor of positivist organization theory.

This chapter undertakes one re-evaluation of Louis Althusser’s philosophical legacy for modern Marxism. While Althusser self-consciously undertook to defend the scientific character of Marxism and so permanently establish it on a firm footing, many of his closest followers eventually exited the Marxian paradigm for a post-structuralism post-Marxism. We will argue that this development was rooted in Althusser’s initial procedure as he attempted to ground Marxism’s scientificity in an epistemological argument whose main referent was Marxism itself. This initiated a circularity which was ultimately to prove fatal to Althusser’s project. Less remarked upon, however, is a further legacy of the Althusserian oeuvre, the critical realist conception of Marxism initiated by Roy Bhaskar. Bhaskar found part of his inspiration in Althusser’s successful posing of the question of Marx’s science. On the one hand, Althusser’s work can legitimately be seen as a bridge into the post-modern challenge to Marxism. On the other hand, it can be seen as clearing the ground and establishing some of the foundation for critical realism’s successful recuperation of the scientific character of Marxism.

International business (IB) studies revolve around two key perspectives defined as a firm-specific perspective and a generic perspective that combined to provide a company with crucial insights into how to enter and navigate in foreign markets. Such a combined approach provides a company with a holistic perception of what kind of resources and capabilities it needs before entering and operating in specific markets. The key issue here is how to design a research approach that provides the data that make a researcher capable of developing an explanatory framework for how to engage such markets. Before looking for appropriate research methodologies and tools for data collection, there is a need for a pertinent philosophy of science. This chapter discusses three different philosophies of science each one capable of providing the analyst with a specific take on how to “think” data. Arguably, whatever approach one selects, the choice has an impact on the outcome of the research process. After selecting a specific philosophy of science, the chapter applies it on an analysis of the Danish shipping company Maersk. The focus is on how employees at headquarters and selected overseas subsidiaries “read” the global corporate culture and navigate within the company for own and organizational benefit. This chapter discusses the ramifications of selecting one philosophy of science over another when engaging in qualitative or quantitative research in an IB context.

Acts of evaluation—the assessment against implicit or explicit criteria of the value of individuals, objects, situations and outcomes—form the core of any high discretion job, where choices have to be made and decisions taken in a world of scarce resources. On a day‐by‐day basis informal evaluations pervade the job of any manager or administrator, but often this is supplemented by formal evaluation research studies—whether technology assessment, investment appraisal, the evaluation of markets and competitors, or in the case of personnel managers—the evaluation of training and development and of organisational change programmes generally. These formal studies include the evaluation studies conducted by “professional” evaluation researchers, such as those engaged in the evaluation of federally funded US social change programmes, those drawn from commercial consultancy agencies or occupying an internal consultant's role within a large company, and those applied social scientists, working in university departments and research institutions interested in issues concerning work system and organisational design . Many articles published in Personnel Review attest to this concern with evaluation research and, indeed, expertise in the conduct of formal evaluation studies has been identified as a major weapon in the armoury of personnel managers who adopt a “conformist innovator” approach to developing their power and influence.