Grand Challenges Viewed through the Pragmatist Lens of the Economies of Worth: A Multidisciplinary Review and Framework for the Conduct of Moral Work in Pluralistic Settings

IF 7 1区 管理学 Q1 BUSINESS
Charlotte Cloutier, Francis Desjardins, Linda Rouleau
{"title":"Grand Challenges Viewed through the Pragmatist Lens of the Economies of Worth: A Multidisciplinary Review and Framework for the Conduct of Moral Work in Pluralistic Settings","authors":"Charlotte Cloutier, Francis Desjardins, Linda Rouleau","doi":"10.1111/joms.13078","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A fast‐growing number of organization and management scholars are responding to calls to conduct research on grand challenges (GCs). Few among these, however, question the core assumptions that underpin their efforts. In this paper we argue that the intractability of GCs stems from a failure to recognize the fundamentally pragmatic, plural, and moral character of these problems, which generate conflicts between groups over what is the ‘right’ or most appropriate course of action to pursue. A theoretical lens frequently used across many disciplines to make sense of problems such as these is Boltanski and Thévenot's (1991, 2006) economies of worth (EoW). On this premise, we undertake a multidisciplinary review of articles that use the EoW for studying GCs. Based on our analysis, we develop a pragmatist framework that articulates the practices that underpin the conduct of ‘moral work’ that organizational actors engage in as they seek to agree on a common sense of justice in GC contexts. Our framework provides a useful roadmap for scholars interested in applying a pragmatist perspective to our understanding of GCs, and by so doing, explore different, more socially just, and potentially more impactful ways of tackling them.","PeriodicalId":48445,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Management Studies","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Management Studies","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13078","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A fast‐growing number of organization and management scholars are responding to calls to conduct research on grand challenges (GCs). Few among these, however, question the core assumptions that underpin their efforts. In this paper we argue that the intractability of GCs stems from a failure to recognize the fundamentally pragmatic, plural, and moral character of these problems, which generate conflicts between groups over what is the ‘right’ or most appropriate course of action to pursue. A theoretical lens frequently used across many disciplines to make sense of problems such as these is Boltanski and Thévenot's (1991, 2006) economies of worth (EoW). On this premise, we undertake a multidisciplinary review of articles that use the EoW for studying GCs. Based on our analysis, we develop a pragmatist framework that articulates the practices that underpin the conduct of ‘moral work’ that organizational actors engage in as they seek to agree on a common sense of justice in GC contexts. Our framework provides a useful roadmap for scholars interested in applying a pragmatist perspective to our understanding of GCs, and by so doing, explore different, more socially just, and potentially more impactful ways of tackling them.
从实用主义的 "价值经济 "视角看重大挑战:多元环境下开展道德工作的多学科回顾与框架
越来越多的组织与管理学者正在响应号召,开展对重大挑战(GCs)的研究。然而,这些学者中很少有人对支撑其研究工作的核心假设提出质疑。在本文中,我们认为,GCs 之所以难以解决,是因为我们没有认识到这些问题从根本上讲具有实用性、多元性和道德性,它们会在不同群体之间产生冲突,争论什么是 "正确的 "或最合适的行动方案。博尔坦斯基和泰维诺(1991 年,2006 年)提出的价值经济(EoW)是许多学科常用的理论视角,用于理解此类问题。在此前提下,我们对使用 EoW 研究 GC 的文章进行了多学科综述。在分析的基础上,我们建立了一个实用主义框架,阐明了组织行为者在全球契约背景下寻求共同的正义感时所从事的 "道德工作 "的基本实践。我们的框架为有兴趣将实用主义视角应用于我们对全球契约的理解的学者提供了一个有用的路线图,并通过这样做,探索不同的、更具社会公正性和潜在影响力的方法来解决全球契约问题。
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
CiteScore
16.40
自引率
5.70%
发文量
99
期刊介绍: The Journal of Management Studies is a prestigious publication that specializes in multidisciplinary research in the field of business and management. With a rich history of excellence, we are dedicated to publishing innovative articles that contribute to the advancement of management and organization studies. Our journal welcomes empirical and conceptual contributions that are relevant to various areas including organization theory, organizational behavior, human resource management, strategy, international business, entrepreneurship, innovation, and critical management studies. We embrace diversity and are open to a wide range of methodological approaches and philosophical perspectives.
×
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