Hostname: page-component-669899f699-ggqkh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T21:38:29.687Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Parochialism in the Evolution of a Research Community: The Case of Organization Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

James G. March
James G. March*
Affiliation:
Stanford University, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The organizations research community is a multidisciplinary, multinational and multilingual association of scholars with all the paraphernalia of international exchange. Nevertheless, it is a community that is organized in a geographically fragmented way, with linguistic, national, cultural and regional boundaries separating relatively autonomous scholarly communities. Although this fragmentation limits the integration of organization studies, it serves an adaptive role in making the resistance of deviant ideas to the homogenizing tendencies of dominant scholarly groups easier. The effective use of such differentiation, however, requires linkages among the fragmented parts of the field. We consider some ways of thinking about how research boundaries can be both sustained and violated, with particular attention to the emergence of Chinese scholarship in the study of organizations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Management and Organization Review , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 5 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © International Association for Chinese Management Research 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ancona, D. G. and Caldwell, D. F. (1992). ‘Bridging the boundary: External process and performance in organizational teams’. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Augier, M. (2003). ‘The evolution of behavioral economies’. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Augier, M., March, J. G. and Sullivan, B. N. (2004). ‘The evolution of a research community: Organization studies in Anglophone North American, 1945–2000’. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Baudelaire, C. (1961). Les Fleurs du Mal. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Baum, J. A. C., Shipilov, A. V. and Rowley, T.J. (2003). ‘Where do small worlds come from?’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 697–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J. P. (1998). ‘Organization theory: Thirty years of dismantling and then …?’ In Brunsson, N. and Olsen, J. P. (Eds), Organizing Organizations. Bergen, Norway: Fagbokforlaget.Google Scholar
Clegg, S., Hardy, C. and Nord, W. R. (Eds) (1996). Handbook of Organizational Studies. London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (1983). ‘The hierarchy of the sciences’. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 111-39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chiacgo, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Czarniawska, B. and Joerges, B. (1996). ‘Travels of ideas’. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (Eds), Translating Organizational Change (pp. 13–48). Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (Eds) (2003). The Northern Lights: Organization Theory in Scandinavia. Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Denrell, J. and March, J. G. (2001). ‘Adaptation as information restriction: The hot stove effect’. Organization Science, 12, 523-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, L. (1995). American Anti-management Theories of Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eliot, T. S. (1961). On Poetry and Poets. New York, NY: Noonday.Google Scholar
Engwall, L. (2002). Managing Mercury. Uppsala, Sweden: Uppsala Universitet.Google Scholar
Engwall, L. (2003). ‘On the origin of the Northern Lights’. In Czarniawska, B. and Sevón, G. (Eds), The Northern Lights: Organization Theory in Scandinavia (pp. 395–411). Copenhagen, Denmark: Copenhagen Business School Press.Google Scholar
Flora, P., Kuhnle, S. and Urwin, D. (Eds) (1999). State Formation, Nation-Building and Mass Politics in Europe: The Theory of Stein Rokkan. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, R. (2003). ‘Team theory, garbage cans and real organizations: Some history and prospects of economic research on decision-making in organizations’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 753–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godelier, E. (2003). James March: Penser les Organisations. Paris: Hermes Science/Lavoisier.Google Scholar
Hirschman, A. O. (1991). The Rhetoric of Reaction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, J. H. (1975). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. D. (1998). ‘Communication, learning, and retrieval in transactive memory systems’. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 423-42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knudsen, C. (2003a). ‘The essential tension in the social sciences: Between the ‘unification’ and ‘fragmentation’ trap’. In Jensen, H. S., Richter, L. M. and Vendelø, M. T. (Eds), The Evolution of Scientific Knowledge. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Knudsen, C. (2003b). ‘Pluralism, scientific progress and the structure of organization studies’. In Tsoukas, H. and Knudsen, C. (Eds), Oxford Handbook of Organisation Studies: Meta-theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kundera, M. (1996). Testaments Betrayed (trans. Asher, Linda). New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). ‘Falsification and the methodology of research programmes’. In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (Eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: 91-6. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinthal, D. A. and March, J. G. (1993). ‘The myopia of learning’. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. T. and Tsui, A. S. (2000). ‘Management and organizations in the Chinese context: An overview’. In Li, J. T., Tsui, A. S. and Weldon, E. (Eds), Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context (pp. 9–32). London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, J. T. and Tsui, A. S. (2002). ‘A citation analysis of management and organization research in the Chinese context: 1984–1999’. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 19(1), 87–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malinowski, B. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London: Roudedge & Sons.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1991). ‘Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning’. Organization Science, 2, 71–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J. G. (1994). A Primer on Decision Making: How Decisions Happen. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
March, J. G. (1999). ‘Research on organizations: Hopes for the past and lessons from the future’. Nordiske Organisasjonsstudier, 1, 69–83.Google Scholar
March, J. G. and Olsen, J. P. (1995). Democratic Governance. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1976). Evolution and the Diversity of Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, P. (1992). More Heat than Light: Economics as Social Physics, Physics as Nature's Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mone, M. A. and McKinley, W. (1993). ‘The uniqueness value and its consequences for organization studies’. Journal of Management Inquiry, 2, 284–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nord, W. R. and Connell, A. F. (1993). ‘From quicksand to crossroads: An agnostic perspective on conversation’. Organization Science, 4, 108–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfeffer, J. (1993). ‘Barriers to the advance of organizational science: Paradigm development as a dependent variable’. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pike, K. L. (1967). Language in Relation to a Unified Theory of the Structure of Human Behavior. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Postrel, S. (2002). ‘Islands of shared knowledge: Specialization and mutual understanding in problem-solving teams’. Organization Science, 13, 303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, T C. (1978). Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.Google Scholar
Scott, W. R. (2003). ‘Institutional carriers: reviewing modes of transporting ideas over time and space and considering their consequences’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 879–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, P., Wittrock, B. and Whitley, R. (Eds) (1991). Discourses on Society: The Shaping of the Social Science Disciplines. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wegner, D. M., Erber, R. and Raymond, P. (1991). ‘Transactive memory in close relationships’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 923–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westney, D. E. (1987). Imitation and Innovation: The Transfer of Western Organizational Patterns to Meiji Japan. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (2003). The discourse of organization studies: Dissensus, politics, and paradigms. In Westwood, R. and Clegg, S. (Eds), Debating Organization: Point-Counterpoint in Organization Studies (pp. 1–42). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Whitley, R. (1984). ‘The development of management studies as a fragmented adhocracy’. Social Science Information, 23, 125–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, O. E. (2003). ‘Examining economic organization through the lens of contract’. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 917–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zammuto, R. F. and Connolly, T. (1984). ‘Coping with disciplinary fragmentation’. Organizational Behavior Teaching Review, 9, 30–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar