Chapter 12 ‘Through the Looking Glass’: on Phantasmal Tales, Distortions and Reflexivity in Organizational Scholarship

B. Gray
{"title":"Chapter 12 ‘Through the Looking Glass’: on Phantasmal Tales, Distortions and Reflexivity in Organizational Scholarship","authors":"B. Gray","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter asks: ‘How often do we as social scientists question the validity of our theories and our findings? How often do we reflexively examine the distortions in the lenses we use to analyse organizations? ‘It proceeds to answer these questions by defining reflexivity and presenting six perspectives on reflexive analysis that build on and extend previous analytical treatments of reflexivity, especially that by Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley (2008). Illustrations of the six are drawn from my own experiences as well as those of other scholars. The intention is to stimulate greater interest in reflexivity and provoke other scholars to look more reflexively at their own work.","PeriodicalId":198270,"journal":{"name":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Production of Managerial Knowledge and Organizational Theory: New Approaches to Writing, Producing and Consuming Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

This chapter asks: ‘How often do we as social scientists question the validity of our theories and our findings? How often do we reflexively examine the distortions in the lenses we use to analyse organizations? ‘It proceeds to answer these questions by defining reflexivity and presenting six perspectives on reflexive analysis that build on and extend previous analytical treatments of reflexivity, especially that by Alvesson, Hardy, and Harley (2008). Illustrations of the six are drawn from my own experiences as well as those of other scholars. The intention is to stimulate greater interest in reflexivity and provoke other scholars to look more reflexively at their own work.
第12章“镜中奇遇”:论组织学术中的虚幻故事、扭曲和反身性
这一章的问题是:“作为社会科学家,我们多久会质疑我们的理论和发现的有效性?”我们有多少次会反射性地检查我们用来分析组织的镜头中的扭曲?它通过定义反身性,并提出六个关于反身性分析的观点来回答这些问题,这些观点建立在和扩展了以前对反身性的分析处理之上,特别是由Alvesson, Hardy和Harley(2008)提出的。这六种方法的例证来自我自己的经历以及其他学者的经历。其目的是激发人们对反身性的更大兴趣,并促使其他学者以更多的反身性来看待自己的工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信