{"title":"为什么忠诚的认识论代表对管理实践很重要?管理理论中的自然环境案例。","authors":"Rose Hiquet, Claire Wordley, Shahzad Ansari","doi":"10.1007/s40926-022-00220-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Management theory is a diverse field where multiple theoretical perspectives coexist and coevolve, leading to conceptual pluralism. While conceptual pluralism is useful for grasping different aspects of the complex reality we live in, it may limit the further development of knowledge on elemental concepts. In this article, we focus on knowledge on the natural environment (NE) in management theory. We argue that management scholars and practitioners often rely on theoretical lenses that tend to reify the NE, thereby limiting the conceptualization of some of the essential properties of the NE. Drawing on the example of the conceptual development of the ecosystem services (ES) at the intersection of economics and biology, we identify the advantages and the limits of interdisciplinary theory-building and testing. Finally, we discuss how tools from the philosophy of science can be useful for proposing a way forward for integrating reliable knowledge on the natural environment in management theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":54136,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Management","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10560159/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why does Faithful Epistemic Representation Matter for Management Practices? The Case of the Natural Environment in Management Theory.\",\"authors\":\"Rose Hiquet, Claire Wordley, Shahzad Ansari\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40926-022-00220-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Management theory is a diverse field where multiple theoretical perspectives coexist and coevolve, leading to conceptual pluralism. While conceptual pluralism is useful for grasping different aspects of the complex reality we live in, it may limit the further development of knowledge on elemental concepts. In this article, we focus on knowledge on the natural environment (NE) in management theory. We argue that management scholars and practitioners often rely on theoretical lenses that tend to reify the NE, thereby limiting the conceptualization of some of the essential properties of the NE. Drawing on the example of the conceptual development of the ecosystem services (ES) at the intersection of economics and biology, we identify the advantages and the limits of interdisciplinary theory-building and testing. Finally, we discuss how tools from the philosophy of science can be useful for proposing a way forward for integrating reliable knowledge on the natural environment in management theory.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Management\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10560159/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00220-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/2/6 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-022-00220-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Why does Faithful Epistemic Representation Matter for Management Practices? The Case of the Natural Environment in Management Theory.
Management theory is a diverse field where multiple theoretical perspectives coexist and coevolve, leading to conceptual pluralism. While conceptual pluralism is useful for grasping different aspects of the complex reality we live in, it may limit the further development of knowledge on elemental concepts. In this article, we focus on knowledge on the natural environment (NE) in management theory. We argue that management scholars and practitioners often rely on theoretical lenses that tend to reify the NE, thereby limiting the conceptualization of some of the essential properties of the NE. Drawing on the example of the conceptual development of the ecosystem services (ES) at the intersection of economics and biology, we identify the advantages and the limits of interdisciplinary theory-building and testing. Finally, we discuss how tools from the philosophy of science can be useful for proposing a way forward for integrating reliable knowledge on the natural environment in management theory.
期刊介绍:
Philosophy of Management addresses all aspects of the philosophical foundations of management in theory and practice, including business ethics, ontology, epistemology, aesthetics and politics. The application of philosophical disciplines to issues facing managers are increasingly recognized to include organizational purpose, performance measurement, the status of ethics, employee privacy, and limitations on the right to manage. Philosophy of Management is an independent, refereed forum that focuses on these central philosophical issues of management in theory and practice. The journal is open to contributions from all philosophical schools and traditions. Since 2001 the journal has published three issues per year, each focused on a particular topic. Published contributors include René ten Bos, Ghislain Deslandes, Juan Fontrodona, Michelle Greenwood, Jeremy Moon, Geoff Moore, Duncan Pritchard, and Duane Windsor. This journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure.