行政与组织研究中的定性与定量方法论:科学史的教训

Samuel Carvalho De Benedicto, Gideon Carvalho de Benedicto, Carlos Maciel Stieg, Gustavo Henrique Nogueira de Andrade
{"title":"行政与组织研究中的定性与定量方法论:科学史的教训","authors":"Samuel Carvalho De Benedicto, Gideon Carvalho de Benedicto, Carlos Maciel Stieg, Gustavo Henrique Nogueira de Andrade","doi":"10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This work of theoretical nature investigates the contributions of the history of science to the production of scientific knowledge in the field of management and organizational studies. It was found in the study that the theories concerning the management and organizational studies are fallible and remain subject to a ongoing improvement or replacement. So, one should accept the idea of the need of constant transformation and improvement of knowledge. Became evident that the studies in administration and organizations witnessed a change of paradigm when classical school of management was questioned and added of new paradigms. In that way, that field of studies has become pluralistic, with conflicts among paradigms and average science, the questions concerning their research methodologies not being different at all. In this context, the history of science can present important lessons in showing that scientific revolution was not accepted peacefully, but by means of tough discussions and apparent contradictions. Several authors sought an approach between Social Ciences and Natural. Thus, the joint use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is more and more present in management and organizational research granting a greater legitimacy to the different manners of approaching the theme. The debates about which is the best approach remain, in spite of a greater dialogue between these two chains of methodological thought being happening in the latest decades.","PeriodicalId":30114,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Ciencias da Administracao RCA","volume":"13 1","pages":"39-60"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Qualitative and quantitative methodology in the studies in administration and organizations: lessons of the history of Science\",\"authors\":\"Samuel Carvalho De Benedicto, Gideon Carvalho de Benedicto, Carlos Maciel Stieg, Gustavo Henrique Nogueira de Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This work of theoretical nature investigates the contributions of the history of science to the production of scientific knowledge in the field of management and organizational studies. It was found in the study that the theories concerning the management and organizational studies are fallible and remain subject to a ongoing improvement or replacement. So, one should accept the idea of the need of constant transformation and improvement of knowledge. Became evident that the studies in administration and organizations witnessed a change of paradigm when classical school of management was questioned and added of new paradigms. In that way, that field of studies has become pluralistic, with conflicts among paradigms and average science, the questions concerning their research methodologies not being different at all. In this context, the history of science can present important lessons in showing that scientific revolution was not accepted peacefully, but by means of tough discussions and apparent contradictions. Several authors sought an approach between Social Ciences and Natural. Thus, the joint use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is more and more present in management and organizational research granting a greater legitimacy to the different manners of approaching the theme. The debates about which is the best approach remain, in spite of a greater dialogue between these two chains of methodological thought being happening in the latest decades.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30114,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista de Ciencias da Administracao RCA\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"39-60\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista de Ciencias da Administracao RCA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Ciencias da Administracao RCA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5007/2175-8077.2011V13N30P39","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Qualitative and quantitative methodology in the studies in administration and organizations: lessons of the history of Science
This work of theoretical nature investigates the contributions of the history of science to the production of scientific knowledge in the field of management and organizational studies. It was found in the study that the theories concerning the management and organizational studies are fallible and remain subject to a ongoing improvement or replacement. So, one should accept the idea of the need of constant transformation and improvement of knowledge. Became evident that the studies in administration and organizations witnessed a change of paradigm when classical school of management was questioned and added of new paradigms. In that way, that field of studies has become pluralistic, with conflicts among paradigms and average science, the questions concerning their research methodologies not being different at all. In this context, the history of science can present important lessons in showing that scientific revolution was not accepted peacefully, but by means of tough discussions and apparent contradictions. Several authors sought an approach between Social Ciences and Natural. Thus, the joint use of qualitative and quantitative methodologies is more and more present in management and organizational research granting a greater legitimacy to the different manners of approaching the theme. The debates about which is the best approach remain, in spite of a greater dialogue between these two chains of methodological thought being happening in the latest decades.
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
26
审稿时长
32 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信