The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 27 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis
Abstract
The terms 'modem' and 'postmodern' have become common currency in intel lectual debates within organization studies. The postmodern is variously inter preted as an 'epoch', a 'perspective', or a new 'paradigm' of thought. In this paper the author argues that what distinguishes the postmodern from the modem is a 'style of thinking' which eschews the uncritical use of common organizational terms such as 'organizations', 'individuals', 'environment', 'structure', and 'culture', etc. These terms refer to the existence of social entit ies and attributes within a modernist problematic. This is because a modernist thought style relies on a 'strong' ontology (the study of the nature and essence of things) of being which privileges thinking in terms of discrete phenomenal 'states', static 'attributes' and sequential 'events'. Postmodern thinking, on the other hand, privileges a 'weak' ontology of becoming which emphasizes a transient, ephemeral and emergent reality. From this thought style, reality is deemed to be continuously in flux and transformation and hence unrepresent able in any static sense. Debates about modernism and postmodernism which do not address this ontological distinction miss critical insights which postmod ernism brings to the study of organization. Adopting a postmodern mode of thinking implies radical consequences for rethinking organization studies. Instead of the traditional emphasis on organizations, organizational forms and organizational attributes, what is accentuated is the importance of examining local assemblages of 'organizings' which collectively make up social reality. A postmodern style of thought, therefore, brings with it a different set of onto logical commitments, intellectual priorities and theoretical preoccupations to bear on the study of organization.
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
Cites
The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge
Lyotard, J.-F., Bennington, G., & Massumi, B. (1984) · Poetics Today · doi:10.2307/1772278 · Cited by 14,728
(1969) · Virtual Defense Library (Ministerio de Defensa) · Cited by 10,735
The Condition of Postmodernity
Harris, C., & Harvey, D. (1991) · Economic Geography · doi:10.2307/143544 · Cited by 8,605
Morgan, G. (1986) · Cited by 5,650
Putnam, H. (1981) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511625398 · Cited by 5,521
Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature: Thirtieth-Anniversary Edition
RORTY, R. (2008) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.2307/j.ctvc77b6z · Cited by 4,927
Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science
Hacking, I. (1983) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511814563 · Cited by 4,814
Notes on the theory of the actor-network: Ordering, strategy, and heterogeneity
Law, J. (1992) · Systems Practice · doi:10.1007/bf01059830 · Cited by 3,244
Fleming, N. B. (2000) · Addresses of the Mississippi Philosophical Association · doi:10.1163/9789004495692_008 · Cited by 2,166
(1989) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-111-1-98_1 · Cited by 1,805
Cited by
Peripheral Vision: Discourse Analysis in Organization Studies: The Case for Critical Realism
Fairclough, N. (2005) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840605054610 · Cited by 816
Rethinking Project Management: Researching the actuality of projects
Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2006) · International Journal of Project Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.08.006 · Cited by 678
Action Research: Rethinking Lewin
Dickens, L., & Watkins, K. (1999) · Management Learning · doi:10.1177/1350507699302002 · Cited by 481
Chia, R. (1999) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/1467-8551.00128 · Cited by 462
Self-citationReflexivity in Management Research*
Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00380 · Cited by 386
Metadata
- Authors
- Chia, R.
- Venue
- Organization Studies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1995-07
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 579-604
- ISSN
- 0170-8406 (ISSN-L)
- 1741-3044
- OpenAlex
- W2169763207
- Cited by
- 494
- References
- 27
- FWCI
- 12.51
- 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: From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/017084069501600406
- The paper
- Chia, R. (1995). From Modern to Postmodern Organizational Analysis. Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069501600406
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.