Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 836

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

On the Idea of Emancipation in Management and Organization Studies

Alvesson, Mats, Willmott, Hugh·1992·The Academy of Management Review

Abstract

The article reconceptualizes the meaning of emancipation in management and organization studies and develops an approach that (a) takes into account recent criticism of its “totalizing” tendencies raised by post structuralists and (b) makes it more sensitive to the particularities of—and thereby more relevant for—management studies. The first part of the article reviews and discusses tendencies in critical theory toward negativism, essentialism, and intellectualism. The second part reformulates the grand enterprise of emancipation into a more modest project, scaled down in terms of scope and ambition. The third part discusses ways of advancing this protect in terms of listening, writing, and reading.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/258718

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Metadata

Authors
Alvesson, M., & Willmott, H.
Venue
The Academy of Management Review
Published
1992-07
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
432
ISSN
0363-7425 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1995669717
Cited by
836
References
0
FWCI
15.30
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.