The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Modernism, Postmodernism and Organizational Analysis: An Introduction
Abstract
The paper introduces the current debate in the human sciences between the opposing conceptual positions of 'modernism' and 'postmodernism' and discusses its implications for organizational analysis. The debate focusses on the nature of 'discourse' (information, knowledge, communication) and its role in social systems. The discourse of modernism rests on transcendent yet anthropocentric criteria such as 'progress' and 'reason' which are varyingly exemplified in the work of Bell, Luhmann and Habermas. In contrast, postmodern discourse (represented here mainly by the work of Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, Deleuze and Guattari) analyzes social life in terms of paradox and indeterminacy, thus rejecting the human agent as the centre of rational control and understanding. The paper then considers two contrasting views of the organizing process which follow from these opposing approaches to discourse. In the modernist model, organization is viewed as a social tool and an extension of human rationality. In the postmodern view, organization is less the expression of planned thought and calculative action and a more defensive reaction to forces intrinsic to the social body which constantly threaten the stability of organized life. The implications of the latter view for orthodox organizational analysis are discussed in some detail.
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
Tightening the Iron Cage: Concertive Control in Self-Managing Teams
Barker, J. R. (1993) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393374 · Cited by 2,305
Complex Thinking, Complex Practice: The Case for a Narrative Approach to Organizational Complexity
Tsoukas, H., & Hatch, M. J. (2001) · Human Relations · doi:10.1177/0018726701548001 · Cited by 489
Gond, J., Cabantous, L., Harding, N., & Learmonth, M. (2016) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/ijmr.12074 · Cited by 405
The New ‘Hidden Abode’: Reflections on Value and Labour in the New Economy
Böhm, S., & Land, C. (2012) · The Sociological Review · doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2012.02071.x · Cited by 96
Metadata
- Authors
- Cooper, R., & Burrell, G.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1988-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 91-112
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2125489254
- Cited by
- 770
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.31
- 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
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.