Search results

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology, to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life, from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science, in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory also would be exacting, in its own right.¹

Any endeavor to circumscribe, with a certain degree of precision, the nature of the relationship between social science and critical theory would appear to be daunting. Over the course of the past century, and especially since the end of World War II, countless efforts have been made in economics, psychology, political science, and sociology to illuminate the myriad manifestations of modern social life from a multiplicity of angles. It is doubtful that it would be possible to do justice to all the different variants of social science in an assessment of their relationship to critical theory. Moreover, given the proliferation of critical theories since the 1980s, the effort to devise a “map” that would reflect the particular orientations and intricacies of each approach to critical theory would also be exacting in its own right.¹

To examine whether indigenous critiques of globalization and critical theories of modernity are compatible, and how they can complement each other so as to engender more realistic theories of modern society as inherently constructive and destructive, along with practical strategies to strengthen modernity as a culturally transformative project, as opposed to the formal modernization processes that rely on and reinforce modern societies as structures of social inequality.

Comparison and assessment of the foundations, orientations, and implications of indigenous critiques of globalization and the Frankfurt School’s critical theory of modern society, for furthering our understanding of challenges facing human civilization in the twenty-first century, and for opportunities to promote social justice.

Modern societies maintain order by compelling individuals to subscribe to propositions about their own and their society’s purportedly “superior” nature, especially when compared to indigenous cultures, to override observations about the de facto logic of modern societies that are in conflict with their purported logic.

Social theorists need to make consistent efforts to critically reflect on how their own society, in terms of socio-historical circumstances as well as various types of implied biases, translates into research agendas and propositions that are highly problematic when applied to those who belong to or come from different socio-historical contexts.

An effort to engender a process of reciprocal engagement between one of the early traditions of critiquing modern societies and a more recent development originating in populations and parts of the world that historically have been the subject of both constructive and destructive modernization processes.

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the methodological logic of coproductive research approaches like action research, collaborative research, interactive research and participatory research in a way that can clarify its effectiveness and scientific qualities in high quality knowledge production, and show the way that it can be integrated with institutionalized textbook science.

The paper clarifies the character of coproduction as research methodology concept, the logic of coproductive research approaches, and its characteristics compared to quantitative and qualitative methodology. A model for characterizing research approaches from leading textbook social science is developed to specify the character of coproductive research approaches and support integration in mainstream research methodology discussions.

The paper develops a research methodology framework for coproductive logic and approaches to research, to support the integration of this type of approaches in mainstream research methodology.

The developed model of coproductive research approaches is not empirically described. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test and further develop the model in relation to cases and designs of research projects.

The paper is helpful for guiding the design of coproductive research in practice, i.e., in research project development or in research methodology education.

The development of coproductive research approaches supports making science relevant and useful for solving pressing problems and improving social conditions. It also is enabling stakeholders to participate in research and development processes, thus the democratization of research and knowledge production.

The paper contributes to integration of the family of coproductive approaches in mainstream research methodology discussion through the development and elaboration of a framework for organizing the description and development of coproductive research approaches. The aim is that the framework is valuable for both academics, practitioners and students in designing coproductive research projects.

Criticizes the view that ethical judgements are completely separate from facts and theories in the social sciences. On the contrary, it argues that no project can be initiated nor any facts collected without some goal in mind and no important statement can be made in the social sciences without involving an ethical view. An ethical framework is one part of every social scientist′s paradigm (using the word in the sense of Thomas Kuhn) and we always work within that paradigm using those ethical values ‐even when social scientists claim to be purely “objective” with no ethical values in their work. Argues that Marx had an ethical view based not on any supernatural entity or imperative, but on the needs and desires of all of humanity. Marxist social science, like Institutionalist social science, is based on the view that every social science project must involve both factual research and an ethical framework.

David Gordon’s early work included a focus on cities and their role in capitalist development, but he didn’t complete or publish an ambitious project called CAPITALopolis. Gordon instead developed a framework linking Marxian insights with historical analysis of institutional impact and change through his social structures of accumulation framework. Subsequent mainstream and radical urban analyses didn’t use Gordon’s work, but his early writings are consistent with his passion for fighting racial and economic inequality, and understanding those forces systematically as part of the history and logic of capitalism.

To contribute to improved research practices by addressing three key realities in management research, all being largely disregarded by research: complexity, context and persona (the human and social aspects of researcher behaviour).

Based on observations from real world cases and inductive analysis the article proceeds as a scientific discourse and advocacy for qualitative methodology combined with network theory, particularly current developments in the natural sciences.

A qualitative approach to research is required, allowing researchers to deal with complexity, context and persona and their multitude of factors, relationships and fuzzy phenomena; conventional statistical methods fail in all these aspects. Holistic, systemic thinking as manifested in case study research and modern network theory offers a superior mindset and techniques for merging modern physics and mathematics with qualitative approaches. Social and human properties, including tacit knowledge, common sense, subjectivity and what drives a researcher need to be made part of research.

Research in management disciplines, neither basic research nor applied research can rely on mainstream quantitative techniques. These are two shallow as they can harbour too few variables, do not put studied phenomena in their proper context, and sweep persona under the carpet.

The article is on qualitative methodology and the opportunities it offers to address issues not handled well by mainstream research in business. Modern natural sciences are introduced; especially network theory, suggesting a merger between the quantitative and the qualitative and between modern natural sciences and business research. In this way the reality of complexity, context and persona can be added to the research agenda.

Describes how there are unsolved problems within the philosophy of the social sciences, which cannot provide a coherent account of a style of science which is based on either explanation or understanding. No easy combination of elements from the empiricist and hermeneutic approaches is possible because of radically different epistemologies. Shows how, against this background of philosophical insecurity, action science seems to offer new possibilities by incorporating a form of practice of research which is aimed at understanding meaning, while at the same time retaining enough of the characteristics of the ideal of scientific reliability (hard data, explicit inference, public testing) to free it from the danger of uncritically adopting the internal viewpoint of participants. It is free from commitment to empiricist epistemological principles, so that it can combine elements of the explanatory and interpretative poles in a coherent way. Argues that it is a valuable contribution which can advance the discussion within the philosophy of the social sciences.

The purpose of this paper is to advocate that case study research needs to renew itself and employ its full potential as an innovative theory‐generating methodology in management disciplines; and to propose that a viable strategy for such renewal is to exploit the power of case study research and network theory as supplementary methodologies.

The paper is a reflective and synthesising comparative study.

If one steps down from the tip of the iceberg and inspects the underwater properties of case study research and network theory a common core is found: the recognition of complexity. The methodologies supplement each other, case study research primarily using verbal language and qualitative data, while network theory uses a nodes‐and‐links language that opens up for verbal, graphic and mathematical treatment. Case study research is primarily associated with qualitative research in social sciences and network theory with quantitative research in both social and natural sciences. By abolishing the unfortunate categories of qualitative/quantitative and natural sciences/social sciences that have been set against each other, and letting them join forces for a common goal – to learn about life – people open up for methodological creativity.

By comparing case study research with network theory on a fundamental level, the paper offers a novel perspective on research. It is a contribution to an overriding desire to improve the understanding of management and society.

For perspectives on globalization to do justice to its many facets, they must be informed by an understanding of modern societies as simultaneously complex, contingent, and contradictory – as modern capitalist societies. As is becoming ever more apparent, such an understanding of modern societies is the necessary precondition for identifying the defining features of globalization. Yet, for the most part, the history of the social sciences did not produce research agendas, theories, and methods designed to grasp complexity, contingency, and contradiction as core dimensions of modern social life that continually reinforce each other. The social sciences did not evolve as ongoing efforts to grasp the gravity each dimension exerts on concrete forms of political, economic, and cultural life, and how the force of each depends on the constant exchange of energy with the other two. To the extent that scrutinizing the impact of globalization on the future – find possible futures – of human civilization is the primary challenge for social scientists to confront today, the current condition presents a unique, and perhaps most unusual opportunity to conceive anew the promise of each and all the social sciences, as elucidating how the complex, contingent, and contradictory nature of modern societies, in the name of advancing social justice, has engendered a regime of managing “social problems.”