Pragmatic View of Research of Organisations
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37886/ip.2024.007Keywords:
paradigm, pragmatism, concept, model, complexity, reality, social mechanism, organisationAbstract
Research question (RQ): Is pragmatic research the answer to researching complex, uncertain, and irrational organisational landscapes?
Purpose and originality: This article explains a mechanism-based pragmatic approach to organizational science. A comprehensive examination of core approaches to organizational research reveals that traditional organizational theories and classical models prove inadequate in providing a holistic understanding of the escalating complexity and multimodality of organizational phenomena. This underscores the novelty and potential of the pragmatic approach in tackling these complexities.
Method: The research used organizational source criticism as a historical methodology to analyse the shift in organizational science beyond classical objectivist conceptualizations. Mechanism-based research explored and understood the contingency of knowledge and action using a pragmatic approach to organisation research.
Results: This study's findings underscore the practical implications of pragmatic research in organizational science. It is not a static method but a dynamic and evolving one that effectively addresses organizations' changing needs, societal trends, and technological advancements. This emphasis on adaptability and relevance keeps pragmatic research at the forefront of organizational science, making our findings all the more significant and interesting.
Limitations/Further research: It's important to note that this research is based on conceptual views of organizational pragmatic research. While it involved a systematic analysis of the application of pragmatic research methods in the empirical field, it's crucial to acknowledge that further analysis is not just a suggestion but a necessity to fully understand the method's role in explaining complex organizational phenomena. This acknowledgement of the need for more research encourages the reader to delve deeper into the topic, fostering a sense of curiosity and engagement.
References
Ambrož, M. (2004). Total quality system as a product of the empowered corporate culture. The TQM Magazine,16(2), 93- 104. https://doi.org/10.1108/09544780410522982
Ambrož, M. (2021). Time management and performance in organizations. Izzivi prihodnosti. 6(1)1, 1–16. ISSN 2463-9281. https://ojs.fos- unm.si/index.php/ip/article/view/12/9, DOI: 10.37886/ip.2021.016.
Anderson, P. J., Blatt, R., Christianson, M. K., Grant, A., Marquis, C., Neuman, E. J., Sonenshein, S., Sutcliffe, K. M. (2006). Understanding Mechanisms in Organizational Research: Reflections From a Collective Journey. Journal of Management Inquiry, 15(2), 102-113 DOI: 10.1177/1056492605280231
Aparna, J., Newton-Lewis T, Srinivasan S. (2019). Means, Motives and Opportunity: determinants of community health worker performance. BMJ Global Health, 4:e001790. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2019-001790
Assante, C. R. (2013). The Impact of Technology in Organizations: An Empirical Review. International Journal of ICT and Management,1(3),192-203.
Balková, M., Lejsková, P., Ližbetinová, L. (2022). The Values Supporting the Creativity of employees. Front. Psychol., 12. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.805153. PMID: 35185701; PMCID: PMC8852801.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: four essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Barbosa, C. E., Oliveira de Lima, Y., Coimbra Costa, L. F, C., Salazar dos Santos, H.,
Lyra, A., Argolo, M., Jonathan Augusto da Silva, J., Jano Moreira de Souza, J. (2013). Future of work in 2050: thinking beyond the COVID‑19 pandemic European Journal of Future Research,10(25), 2-19 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-022-00210-w
Barnett, J., Coulson, M. (2010). Virtually Real: A Psychological Perspective on Massively Multiplayer. Online Games Review of General Psychology, American Psychological Association,14(2), 167–179.
Baum, J. A. C., and Amburgey, T. L. (2017). Organizational Ecology. Wiley Online Library.
Burgelman, R. A. (2011). Bridging History and Reductionism: A Key Role for Longitudinal Qualitative Research. Journal of International Business Studies, 42 (5), 591–601.
Becker, H. S. (2014). What about Mozart? What about murder? Reasoning from cases.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Biesta, G. (2010). Pragmatism and the philosophical foundations of mixed methods research in eds Tashakorri, A., Teddlie, C. SAGE Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social & Behavioral Research, SAGE Publications Ltd. London.
Bosco, F. A. (2022). Accumulating Knowledge in the Organizational Sciences Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav, 9,441–64.
Borowiecki, M., Pareliussen, J., Glocker, D. Eun Jung Kim, E. J. K., Michael Polder, M., Rud, I. (2021). The impact of digitalisation on productivity: firm-level evidence from the Netherlands. OECD Economics Department Working Papers,1680, OECD Publishing.
Brecht, F., Günther, O., Güth, W., Koroleva, K. (2011). An experimental analysis of bounded Rationality: applying insights from Behavioral economics to information systems. Jena Economic Research Papers 2011-065, 1- 6.
Breslin, D. (2011a). Interpreting Futures through the Multi-Level Co-Evolution of Organizational Practices. Futures 43(9), 1020 –1028.Breslin, D. (2014). Calm in the Storm: Simulating the Management of Organizational Co-Evolution. Futures 57, 1-28 DOI: 10.1016/j.futures.2014.02.003
Breslin, D. (2015). What Evolves in Organizational Co-Evolution? J of Man & Gov. 20(1) DOI: 10.1007/s10997-014-9302-0
Bromiley, P., Russeau, D. M., Koumakhov, R. (2019). The Challenges of March and Simon’s Organizations: Introduction to the Special Issue , Journal of Management Studies, 56, 1517-1527.
Bueno, D. Salapa, A. (2021). The transformation of organizational theories from classical to contemporary: Analysis in the context of public administration. Technical Report. Institutional Multidisciplinary Research and Development Journal IMRaD Journal, 4, 1-14.
Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis. London: Heinemann.
Casey, C. (2002). Critical Analysis of Organizations: Theory, Practice, Revitalization, SAGE Publications London, Thousand Oaks. New Delhi
Capra, F., Luisi, P. L. (2014). The System View of Life. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.
Cascio, W. F., Montealegre, R. (2016). How Technology is Changing Work and Organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 3, 349–75.
Charmaz, K. (2009). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London, SAGE.
Church, A. H., Burke, W. (2017). Four Trends Shaping the Future of Organizations and Organization Development, OD PRACTITIONER, 49(3), 14-22.
Czarniawska, B. (2011). Narrating organization studies. Narrative Inquiry 21(2), 337–344. doi 10.1075/ni.21.2.12cza
Clegg, S. R., Hardy, C., & Nord, W. R. (Eds.). (1996). Handbook of organization studies. Sage Publications, Inc.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Coners, André and Matthies, Benjamin, (2014). A content analysis of content analyses in research: purposes, data sources, and methodological characteristics. PACIS 2014 Proceedings, 111. https://aisel.aisnet.org/pacis2014/111
Cooper, R., & Burrell, G. (1988). Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction. Organization Studies, 9(1), 91-112.
D, M., Foster, W.M., Mena, S., Foroughi, H., Rintamäki, J. (2023). Ecologies of Memories: Memory Work Within and Between Organizations and Communities, Academy of Management Annals,17(1) published online 24 Jan 2023 https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2021.0088
Davis. G. F. (2010). Do Theories of Organization Progress. Organisational Research Methods,13(2), 690 -709 DOI: 10.1177/1094428110376995
Davis, G. F., Ross, S. M., Marquis, C. (2005). Prospects for Organization Theory in the Early Twenty-First Century: Institutional Fields and Mechanisms. Organization Science,16(4),332-343 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0137
Davis, G. F. (2017). How Institutions Matter! Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 48B, 311-322, ISSN: 0733-558X/doi:10.1108/S0733-558X201600048 B011
Dewey, J. (1986). Logic: The theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works, 1925–1953, 12. Southern Illinois University Press (Original work published 1938) Article in Organization Science · October 2006 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0215
Edelmann, A., Wolff, T., Montagne. D., Bail, C. (2020). Computational Social Science and Sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 46(1),61–81.
Elster, J. (1998). Emotions and Economic Theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 36, 47–74.
Ernst van Aken, J., Romme, G. (2009). Reinventing the Future: Adding Design Science to the repertoire of organization and management studies, Organization Management Journal, 6(1), 5-12.
Extröm, M. (1992). Casual Explanation of Social Action: The Contribution of Max Weber and Critical Realism to a Generative View of Casual Explanation in Social Science. Acta Sociologica, 35,107-122.
Farjoun, M., Anselt, C., Boin, A. (2015). PERSPECTIVE—Pragmatism in Organization Studies: Meeting the Challenges of a Dynamic and Complex World, Organization Science, 26(6),1787–1804 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2015.1016
Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. (c. Storrs, Trans.). London: Sir Isaac Pitman & Sons.
Feys, R. (1965). Modal Logics, Joseph Dopp, Ed. Louvain. Published with support of the Fondation Universitaire de Belgique. Fiedler, F. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Flockhart, T. (2016). The coming multi-order world. Contemporary Security Policy, 37(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/13523260.2016.1150053
Foster, C. (2023). Methodological pragmatism in educational research: from qualitative-quantitative to exploratory-confirmatory distinctions, International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 47(3):1-16 DOI: 10.1080/1743727X.2023.2210063
Gagné, M., Parent-Rocheleau, X., Bujold, A., Gaudet, M.-C., & Lirio, P. (2022). How algorithmic management influences worker motivation: A self-determination theory perspective. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne, 63(2), 247–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000324
Ganster, D. C., Rosen, C. C. (2013). Work stress and employee health: a multidisciplinary review. J. Manag. vol. 39,1085–122.
Ganster, D. C., Tori, L. C., Brossoit, R. M. (2018). Physiological Measurement in the Organizational Sciences: A Review and Recommendations for Future Use Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav., 5, 267–93.
Gergen, K. J., Thatchenkery (1996). Organizational Science as Social Construction: Postmodern potentials. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 32(4), 356-377
DOI: 10.1177/0021886396324002
Gergen, K. J., Thatchenkery (1996). Organizational Science in Postmodern Context, in The Realm Of Organisation: Essays For Robert Cooper, 15-43. DOI: 10.4324/9780203209035 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-psychology/937
Giddens, A. (1990). The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford University Press.
Glynos, J. and Howarth, D. (2018) ‘The Retroductive Cycle: The research process in poststructuralist discourse analysis’, in Marttila, T. (ed.) (2018) Discourse, Culture and Organization: Inquiries into Relational Structures of Power, London: Palgrave.
Gomes, A. O., Alves, S. T., Silva, J. T. (2018). Effects of investment in information and communication technologies on courts’ productivity in Brazil Government, Information Quarterly, 35(3),480-490.
Gutterman, A. S. (2023). Organizational Culture – An Overview of Research, Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4403558
Hardy, C., Clegg, S. (1997). Relativity Without Relativism: Reflexivity in Post-Paradigm Organization Studies British Journal of Management, Special Issue 8 (S5–S17).
Heracleous, L. (2004). Interpretivist approaches to organizational discourse.In Grant, D., Phillips, N., Hardy, C., Putnam, L. and Oswick, C. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Discourse. Beverly Hills: Sage, 175–192.
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social Mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39(3), 281-308. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169939603900302
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (Eds.). (1998). Social Mechanisms: An Analytical Approach to Social Theory (Studies in Rationality and Social Change). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511663901
Hedström, P., Wennberg, K. (2017). Causal mechanisms in organization and innovation studies, Innovation, 19(1), 91- 2, DOI: 10.1080/14479338.2016.1256779
Heller, M. (2023). Rethinking Historical Methods in Organization Studies: Organizational Source Criticism, Organization Studies, 44(6), 987-1002. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231156978Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1982). Management of Organizational Behavior 4th Edition– Utilizing Human Resources. New Jersey/Prentice Hall.
Hjørland, B. (2005). Empiricism, rationalism and positivism in library and information science, Journal of Documentation, 61(1),130 – 155.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 16 (3), 321–339. doi:10.2307/2391905. JSTOR 2391905.
Huberman, M., and Miles, M. B. (1991). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Collection of New Methods. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Obediat, B. (2016). The Effect of Strategic Orientation on Organizational Performance: The Mediating Role of Innovation International, Journal of Communications Network and System Sciences, (9)119, 478-506.
Johnson, R.B. and Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004). Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come. Educational Researcher, 33, 14–26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033007014
Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabasi, A. L., Brewer, D., Christakis, N., Contractor, N., Fowler, J., Gutmann, M., Jebara, T., King, G., Macy, M., Roy, D., Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Social science. Computational social science. Science,6, 323(5915),721–3. doi: 10.1126/science.1167742. PMID: 19197046; PMCID: PMC2745217.ports
Lyra, Alan de Oliveira, Carlos Eduardo Barbosa, C. E., Lima, Y.O., Salazar dos Santos, H. Matheus Argôlo, M., 1 and Jano Moreira de Souza, J. (2023). Toward computer‑supported semi‑automated timelines of future events. European Journal of Futures Research,11(4), 2-9.
Jaakola, E. (2020). Designing conceptual articles: four approaches. AMS Review 10, 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13162-020-00161-0
Jaja, I. R., Idoniboye, O., Amadi, Chukwudi, C. (2022). A Critique of the Positivist Paradigm in Human Sciences. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), VI(III).
Karatas-Özkan, M. , and William D. Murphy, W. D. (2010).Critical Theorist, Postmodernist and Social Constructionist Paradigms in Organizational Analysis: A Paradigmatic Review of Organizational Learning Literature, International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 453–465 DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00273.x
Kelly, L., Cordeiro, M. (2020). Three principles of pragmatism for research on organizational processes. Methodological Innovations, 13(2), 2-10 https://doi.org/10.1177/2059799120937242
King, G., Keohane, R. O., Verba, S. (2003). Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press, pages: 3-28.
Lakhwani, M., Dastane, O., Satar, N. S. M., Johari, Z. (2020). The Impact of Technology Adoption on Organizational Productivity, Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business, 11(4),7-18.
Lawrence, P., and Lorsch, J., (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations Administrative Science Quarterly, 12, 1-30.
Kuhn, T. (1962/1970a). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1970, 2nd edition, with postscript).
Lorino, P. (2018). Pragmatism and Organization Studies. Oxford University Press.
Maclean, M, Harvey, C & Clegg, S. (2016). Conceptualizing historical organization studies. Academy of Management Review, 41(4), 609–632. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2014.0133
Malayeri, A. D., El Bayeh, Z. C., Mastorakis, N. E. (2011). Information technology, human interaction, and the influence of Web 2.0. Proceedings of the 11th WSEAS international conference on Applied informatics and communications, the 4th WSEAS International conference on Biomedical electronics and biomedical informatics, and the international conference on Computational engineering in systems applications.
Manning, L. (2018), Triangulation: Effective verification of food safety and quality management systems and associated organisational culture, Worldwide Hospitality and Tourism Themes 10(3), 297-312. https://doi.org/10.1108/WHATT-02-2018-0009
McKenna, S., Julia Richardson, J., Manroop, L. (2011). Alternative paradigms and the study and practice of performance management and evaluation. Human Resource Management Review, 21(2), 148–157.
March, J. G., Simon, H. A, (1993). Organizations. Everything you ever wanted to know about growing grapes. John Wiley & Sons.Mukumbang, F. C. (2023). Retroductive Theorizing: A Contribution of Critical Realism to Mixed Methods. Research Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 17(1), 93–114.
Orlikowski, W. J., Barley, S. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other? MIS Quarterly, 25(2), 145–165 https://doi.org/10.2307/3250927
Osei-Nimo, S., Imani Silver Kyaruzi (2015). Power and Control in Knowledge-Intensive Firms: Post-Bureaucratic Firms and Enterprise Culture, Open Access Library Journal, 2 (10), 1-11 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1101952
Nyimbili F. and Nyimbili L. (2024). Types of Purposive Sampling Techniques with Their Examples and Application in Qualitative Research Studies, British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies: English Lang., Teaching, Literature, Linguistics & Communication, 5(1),90-99.
Pereira, D. D. A. (2005). The challenges of the small insular developing states: Are Mauritius and Seychelles examples of Cape Verde? https://core.ac.uk/download/61448731.pdf
Pérez-Ortega, R., Vargas-Hernández, J. G. (2021). Bounded rationality in decision-making. Journal of Business Management and Economic Research, 1(2),34-46 DOI: 10.29226/TR1001.2018.91
Perrin, A. & Rolland, N. (2007). Mechanisms of Intra-Organisational Knowledge Transfer : The Case of a Global Technology Firm. M@n@gement, 10, 25-47. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.102.0025
Peschl, M. F. (2023). Learning from the Future as a Novel Paradigm for Integrating Organizational Learning and Innovation. The Learning Organization, 30(1),6-22 Emerald Publishing Limited 0969-6474 DOI 10.1108/TLO-01-2021-0018
Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to advancing Organizational Science: Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable Author(s): Source: The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599-620, Published by: Academy of Management Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/258592 Accessed: 21/09/2008 20:44
Pierce, C. (1877). The Fixation of Belief. The Popular Science Monthly,12, 1–15.
Polzer, J. T. (2022). The rise of people analytics and the future of organizational research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 42, 1-13.
Razzouk, R., Shute, V. (2012). What Is Design Thinking and Why Is It Important? Review of Educational Research,82(3)3, 330–348 DOI: 10.3102/0034654312457429 © 2012 AERA. http://rer.aera.net
Ryan, A., Mitchell, I. K., Daskou, S. (2012). An interaction and networks approach to developing sustainable organisations. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 25(4), 578-594, Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0953-4814 DOI 10.1108/09534811211239236
Sarwar, A., Fraser, P. (2018). Scientficity and The Law of Theory Demarcation. Scientonomy, 2, 55-66 https://www.scientowiki.com/ https://doi.org/10.33137/js.v2i0.31275
Tcherning, H. (2011). A Multi-level Social Network Perspective on ICT Adoption. University of Melbourne. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4419-6108-2_20
Senge, P. (1990). Fifth Discipline: The Art&Practice of The Learning Organization. Currency Doubleday, New York.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Background of Decision Making, Naval War College Review, 10(9), Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol10/iss9/2
Schultz, M., Hatch, M. J. )1996). Living with Multiple Paradigms: The Case of Paradigm Interplay in Organizational Culture Studies. The Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529–557. http://www.jstor.org/stable/258671
Taylor, F. W. (1947). Scientific Management, Harper & Row, New York.
Tracy, S. J. (2007). Taking the Plunge: A Contextual Approach to Problem-Based Research, Communication Monographs, 74 (1),106–111.
Tywoniak, S. , Lavagnon, I., Bredillet, C. (2021). Pragmatist Approach to Complexity Theorizing in Project Studies: Orders and Levels, Project Management Journal, 52(3), 298–313.
Uduma, I. A., Sylvia, W. (2015). A critique of the adequacy of positivist and interpretivist views of organisational studies for understanding the 21st century organisation(s). International Journal of Business and Management Review, 3(8), 44-52.
Wadhwani, R. D. & Anders R. Sørensen, A. R. (2023). Methods of Musement: Cultivating serious play in research on business and organization, Management & Organizational History,18(1),1-15, DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032
Walsh, J. P., Meyer, D. A., Schoonhoven, C. B. (2006). A Future for Organization Theory: Living in and Living with Changing Organizations, Organization Science,17(5), 657-671 DOI: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0215
Waldmann, D. A., Ward, M. K., Becker, W.J. (2017). Neuroscience in Organizational Behavior. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 9,9-20.
Van Aken, J.E. & Romme, A.G.L. (2012). A design science approach to evidence-based management. In: D.Rousseau (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Evidence-Based Management, pp. 43-57. Oxford: Oxford University Press (17) (PDF) A Design Science Approach to Evidence-Based Management. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235945854_A_Design_Science_Approach_to_Evidence-Based_Management [accessed Apr 24 2024].
Weik, E. (2022). A new lease on life? The return of vitalism in management and organization studies, European Management Journal, 40, 2–9.
Wenzel, M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., & Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and Organization Studies: On rediscovering a problematic temporal category in organizations. Organization Studies, 41(10), 1441-1455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840620912977
Wicks, A. C., Edward Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science 9(2):123–140. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123
Wurm, B., Becker, M., Pentland, B. T., Lyytinen, K., Weber, B., Grisold, T., Mendling, J., & Kremser, W. (2023). Digital Twins of Organizations: A Socio-Technical View on Challenges and Opportunities for Future Research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 52, 552-565. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.05223
Weber, M. (1936). Social actions.
Wenzel. M., Krämer, H., Koch, J., Reckwitz, A. (2020). Future and organization Studies: On the rediscovery of a problematic temporal category in organizations, Organization Science, 41(10), 1441-1455 DOI: 10.1177/0170840620912977 www.egosnet.org/os
Weick, K. E. (2019). Evolving reactions: 60 years with March and Simon’s “Organizations”’. Journal of Management Studies, 56, 1527–36.
Wicks, A. C., Freeman, R. E. (1998). Organization Studies and the New Pragmatism: Positivism, Anti-Positivism, and the Search for Ethics. Organization Science, 9(2), 123–140 https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.9.2.123
Wadhwani, R. D., & Sørensen, A. R. (2023). Methods of musement: Cultivating serious play in research on business and organization, Management & Organizational History, 18(1), 1–15, DOI: 10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17449359.2023.2187032
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.Hedström, P., Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences, 36, 49-67 Annual Review of Sociology, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102632
Ylikoski, P. (2019). Mechanism-based theorizing and generalization from case studies, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 78, 14–22.
Weber, M. (1947). Bureaucracy, in Gerth, HH. Mills, C.W. (eds) from May Weber: Essays in Sociology, NY: University Press, 196-244.
Yin, R. K. (2003) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd Edition, Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Colucci, W., Wang, Z. (2011). The Paradigm Shift in Organizational Research International Journal of Knowledge-Based Organizations,1, 57-70.
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Milan Ambrož
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
