第三章将严谨性重构为推理:挑战管理研究中的技术官僚严谨性概念

Bill Harley, J. Cornelissen
{"title":"第三章将严谨性重构为推理:挑战管理研究中的技术官僚严谨性概念","authors":"Bill Harley, J. Cornelissen","doi":"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, the authors critique dominant technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research and elaborate an alternative account of rigor that is rooted in methodology and involves a concern with the quality of scientific reasoning rather than a narrower focus on methods or measurement issues per se. Based on the proposed redefinition, the authors conceptualize how rigor, as an essential quality of reasoning, may be defined and the authors in turn qualify alternative methodological criteria for how they might assess the rigor of any particular piece of research. In short, with this chapter the authors’ overall aim is to shift the basis of rigor to an altogether more legitimate and commensurable notion that squarely puts the focus on reasoning and scientific inference for quantitative and qualitative research alike. The authors highlight some of the benefits that such an alternative and unified view of rigor may potentially provide toward fostering the quality and progress of management research.","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":"2019-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chapter 3 Reframing Rigor as Reasoning: Challenging Technocratic Conceptions of Rigor in Management Research\",\"authors\":\"Bill Harley, J. Cornelissen\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/S0733-558X20190000059004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this chapter, the authors critique dominant technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research and elaborate an alternative account of rigor that is rooted in methodology and involves a concern with the quality of scientific reasoning rather than a narrower focus on methods or measurement issues per se. Based on the proposed redefinition, the authors conceptualize how rigor, as an essential quality of reasoning, may be defined and the authors in turn qualify alternative methodological criteria for how they might assess the rigor of any particular piece of research. In short, with this chapter the authors’ overall aim is to shift the basis of rigor to an altogether more legitimate and commensurable notion that squarely puts the focus on reasoning and scientific inference for quantitative and qualitative research alike. The authors highlight some of the benefits that such an alternative and unified view of rigor may potentially provide toward fostering the quality and progress of management research.\",\"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\":\"2019-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"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/S0733-558X20190000059004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","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/S0733-558X20190000059004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

在本章中,作者批评了管理研究中占主导地位的技术官僚的严谨性概念,并详细阐述了另一种严谨的描述,这种描述植根于方法论,涉及对科学推理质量的关注,而不是狭隘地关注方法或测量问题本身。基于提出的重新定义,作者概念化了如何定义严谨性,作为推理的基本质量,作者反过来又对如何评估任何特定研究的严谨性的替代方法标准进行了鉴定。简而言之,在本章中,作者的总体目标是将严谨性的基础转变为一种更加合理和可通约的概念,这种概念直接将重点放在定量和定性研究的推理和科学推断上。作者强调了这样一种另类的、统一的严谨性观点可能潜在地为促进管理研究的质量和进步提供的一些好处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chapter 3 Reframing Rigor as Reasoning: Challenging Technocratic Conceptions of Rigor in Management Research
In this chapter, the authors critique dominant technocratic conceptions of rigor in management research and elaborate an alternative account of rigor that is rooted in methodology and involves a concern with the quality of scientific reasoning rather than a narrower focus on methods or measurement issues per se. Based on the proposed redefinition, the authors conceptualize how rigor, as an essential quality of reasoning, may be defined and the authors in turn qualify alternative methodological criteria for how they might assess the rigor of any particular piece of research. In short, with this chapter the authors’ overall aim is to shift the basis of rigor to an altogether more legitimate and commensurable notion that squarely puts the focus on reasoning and scientific inference for quantitative and qualitative research alike. The authors highlight some of the benefits that such an alternative and unified view of rigor may potentially provide toward fostering the quality and progress of management research.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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