The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Making a Difference: Organization as Design
Abstract
Mainstream organizational research is based on science and the humanities. Science helps us to understand organized systems, from an outsider position, as empirical objects. The humanities contribute to understanding, and critically reflecting on, the human experience of actors inside organized practices. This paper argues that, in view of the persistent relevance gap between theory and practice, organization studies should be broadened to include design as one of its primary modes of engaging in research. Design is characterized by its emphasis on solution finding, guided by broader purposes and ideal target systems. Moreover, design develops, and draws on, design propositions that are tested in pragmatic experiments and grounded in organization science. This study first explores the main differences and synergies between science and design, and explores how and why the design discipline has largely moved away from academia to other sites in the economy. The argument then turns to the genealogy of design methodologies in organization and management studies. Subsequently, this paper explores the circular design methodology that serves to illustrate the nature of design research, that is, the pragmatic focus on actionable knowledge as well as the key role of ideal target systems in design processes. Finally, the author proposes a framework for communication and collaboration between the science and design modes, and argues that scholars in organization studies can guide human beings in the process of designing and developing their organizations toward more humane, participative, and productive futures. In this respect, the organization discipline can make a difference.
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
Building Theories from Case Study Research
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258557 · Cited by 17,455
Eisenhardt, K. M., & Schoonhoven, C. B. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.2.136 · Cited by 2,672
Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research
Markus, M. L., & Robey, D. (1988) · Management Science · doi:10.1287/mnsc.34.5.583 · Cited by 2,108
Real Science: What it Is and What it Means
Ziman, J. (2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511541391 · Cited by 760
Cited by
Building Better Causal Theories: A Fuzzy Set Approach to Typologies in Organization Research
Fiss, P. C. (2011) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.5465/amj.2011.60263120 · Cited by 5,930
Business model design and the performance of entrepreneurial firms
Zott, C., & Amit, R. (2007) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1060.0232 · Cited by 1,707
Design Thinking: Past, Present and Possible Futures
Johansson‐Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013) · Creativity and Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/caim.12023 · Cited by 1,163
Developing design propositions through research synthesis
Denyer, D., Tranfield, D., & van Aken, J. E. (2008) · Organization Studies · doi:10.1177/0170840607088020 · Cited by 1,057
The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide
Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258719899415 · Cited by 459
Beyond Good Intentions: Designing CSR Initiatives for Greater Social Impact
Barnett, M. L., Henriques, I., & Husted, B. W. (2020) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206319900539 · Cited by 358
Metadata
- Authors
- Romme, A. G. L.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 558-573
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2150094452
- Cited by
- 647
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 25.08
- 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
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.