The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science
Abstract
The so-called rigor—relevance gap appears unbridgeable in the classical view of organization science, which is based on the physical sciences’ model. Constructivist scholars have also pointed out a certain inadequacy of this model of science for organization research, but they have not offered an explicit, alternative model of science. Responding to this lack, this paper brings together the two separate paradigmatic perspectives of constructivist epistemologies and of organizational design science, and shows how they could jointly constitute the ingredients of a constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research. Further, the paper highlights that, in this constructivist view of organizational design science, knowledge can be generated and used in ways that are mutually enriching for academia and practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
On the Veridicality of Claims in Design Science Research
Aljafari, R., & Khazanchi, D. (2013) · 2013 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2013.427 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Avenier, M.-J.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2010-09
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 9-10
- Pages
- 1229-1255
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W1981568573
- Cited by
- 167
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 27.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0170840610374395
- The paper
- Avenier, M.-J. (2010). Shaping a Constructivist View of Organizational Design Science. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840610374395
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
