重新思考组织发展的要素

Wouter ten Have, E. Graamans, S. ten Have
{"title":"重新思考组织发展的要素","authors":"Wouter ten Have, E. Graamans, S. ten Have","doi":"10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.CH003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter presents the findings of two closely related studies about a selection of premises on which some organization development (OD) practices are based. In the first study, 18 taken-for-granted assumptions have been held against the scientific literature using rapid evidence assessment (REA) as a method. In light of the available evidence, some of these assumptions proved to be untenable. In a second study, practitioners were confronted with these assumptions and fed back the assessments. These studies, combined together, show that practitioners are often not aware of scientific findings relevant to their field. On the other hand, despite all the reseach that has been done and published, the scientific literature often does not provide satisfactory and conclusive answers to the questions practitioners grapple with.","PeriodicalId":314746,"journal":{"name":"Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage","volume":"264 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development\",\"authors\":\"Wouter ten Have, E. Graamans, S. ten Have\",\"doi\":\"10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.CH003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter presents the findings of two closely related studies about a selection of premises on which some organization development (OD) practices are based. In the first study, 18 taken-for-granted assumptions have been held against the scientific literature using rapid evidence assessment (REA) as a method. In light of the available evidence, some of these assumptions proved to be untenable. In a second study, practitioners were confronted with these assumptions and fed back the assessments. These studies, combined together, show that practitioners are often not aware of scientific findings relevant to their field. On the other hand, despite all the reseach that has been done and published, the scientific literature often does not provide satisfactory and conclusive answers to the questions practitioners grapple with.\",\"PeriodicalId\":314746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage\",\"volume\":\"264 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.CH003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Advances in Business Strategy and Competitive Advantage","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-6155-2.CH003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章介绍了两个密切相关的研究结果,这些研究是关于一些组织发展(OD)实践所基于的前提选择的。在第一项研究中,使用快速证据评估(REA)作为一种方法,对科学文献提出了18个想当然的假设。根据现有的证据,其中一些假设被证明是站不住脚的。在第二项研究中,从业者面对这些假设并反馈评估。这些研究综合起来表明,从业人员往往不了解与其领域相关的科学发现。另一方面,尽管所有的研究已经完成和发表,科学文献往往不能提供令人满意的和结论性的答案,从业者努力解决的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reconsidering Essentials of Organization Development
This chapter presents the findings of two closely related studies about a selection of premises on which some organization development (OD) practices are based. In the first study, 18 taken-for-granted assumptions have been held against the scientific literature using rapid evidence assessment (REA) as a method. In light of the available evidence, some of these assumptions proved to be untenable. In a second study, practitioners were confronted with these assumptions and fed back the assessments. These studies, combined together, show that practitioners are often not aware of scientific findings relevant to their field. On the other hand, despite all the reseach that has been done and published, the scientific literature often does not provide satisfactory and conclusive answers to the questions practitioners grapple with.
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