SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1

Postmodernism and Complexity: A Paradig‐ matic Debate in the Context of Organization Theory

Postmodernizm ve Komplekslik: Örgüt Kuramı Bağlamında Paradigmatik Bir Tartışma

Erkan ERDEMİR
Umut KOÇ
Pages
25–48
Publication Date
2010-04-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As postmodernism is generally positioned at the radical‐humanist section, complexity theory is mostly positioned at the functionalist section.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In recent years, postmodernism and complexity have been discussed intensively in the social sciences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Postmodernism, as a concept, has been widely discussed from the organization theory perspective.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As postmodernism is generally positioned at the radical‐humanist section, complexity theory is mostly positioned at the functionalist section.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Örgüt kuramı · postmo‐ dernizm · komplekslik

Abstract

In recent years, postmodernism and complexity have been discussed intensively in the social sciences. Postmodernism, as a concept, has been widely discussed from the organization theory perspective. It’s expected that complexity theory will make important contributions to the organization research. In this study, post‐modernism and complexity theory, which is implied to have strong connections with each other in the literature, are examined as well as being positioned at the Burrell and Morgan framework. Results of the study show that postmodernism and complexity theories are relatively different from each other. As postmodernism is generally positioned at the radical‐humanist section, complexity theory is mostly positioned at the functionalist section.

Özet

Sosyal bilimler alanında son yıllarda postmodernizm ve komplekslik kavramları yoğun olarak tartışılmaktadır. Postmodernizm örgüt kuramı açısından geniş olarak tartışılmış bir kavramdır. Komplekslik kuramından da örgüt araştırmalarına önemli katkılar sağlaması bek‐ lenmektedir. Bu çalışmada literatürün bir bölü‐ münde birbirleri ile ilişkili gibi görünen postmodernizm ve komplekslik kuramı incelene‐ rek Burrell ve Morgan tarafından oluşturulan çerçevede konumlandırılmaya çalışılmıştır. Sonuç olarak postmodernizmin ve komplekslik kuramının görece birbirlerinden farklı yaklaşım‐ lar oldukları, postmodernizmin genel olarak radikal hümanist kısımda, komplekslik kuramının da ağırlıklı olarak işlevselci kısımda yer aldığı anlaşılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

ERDEMİR, E., KOÇ, U. (2010). Postmodernism and Complexity: A Paradig‐ matic Debate in the Context of Organization Theory. Eskişehir Osmangazi Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1, 25–48. https://ajindex.com/articles/106983

References (6)

  1. Adler, P. ve B. Borys (1993), “Materialism and Idealism in Organizational Re‐ search”, Organization Studies, 14:5, 657‐659. Alvesson, M. ve S.Deetz (2006), “Critical theory and postmodernism approaches to organizational studies”. S. Clegg, C. Hardy, T. B. Lawrence ve W. R. Nord (Der.), The sage handbook of organization studies: 255‐283. 2. Basım, London: Sage. Anderson, P. (1999), “Perspective: Complexity Theory and Organization Science”, Organization Science, 10:3, 216 – 232. Astley, W. G. ve A. H. Van de Ven (1983), “Central Perspectives and Debates in Organization Theory”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 28:2, 245 – 273. Audi, R. (1995), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Axelrod, R., W. Mitchell, R. Thomas, D.S Bennet ve E. Brudder (1995), “Coalition Formation in Standard – Setting Alliances”, Management Science, 41, 1493 – 1508. Bak, P. (1996), How Nature Works: The Science of Self‐Organized Criticality, New York: Copernicus Books. Bak, P., C. Tang ve K. Wiesenfeld (1988), “Self – Organized Criticality”, Physical Review A, 38:1, 364 – 374. Battram, A. (1999), Karmaşıklıkta Yol Almak, (Çev: Z. Dicleli), İstanbul:
  3. Türk Henkel Dergisi Yayınları.
  4. Baum, J. A. C. ve B. S. Silverman (1999), “Complexity in the Dynamics of Organiza‐ tional Founding and Failure”, (Der.) M. Lissack and H. Gunz (1999), Managing Complexity in Organizations: View from Many Directions, New York: Quorum Press: 292‐ 312. Baum, J. A. C. ve T. J. Rowley (2002), “Companion to Organizations: An Introduc‐ tion”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum (2002), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Ox‐ ford: Blackwell Publishers Inc.: 1‐ 34. Berger, P. L. ve T. Luckmann (1967),
  5. The Social Construction of Reality, New York: Doubleday. Burgelman, R. A. (1994), “Fading Memories: A Process Theory of Strategic Busi‐ ness Exist in Dynamic Environments”, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 24 – 56. Burrell, G. ve G. Morgan (1998), Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analy‐ sis, Onuncu basım, Hants: Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Calas, M. B. ve L. Smircich (1997), “Introduction”, (Der.) M. B. Calas ve L. Smircich (1997),
  6. Postmodern Management Theory, Aldershot: Ashgate & Dartmouth Pub‐ lishers Inc.: xi‐xxix. Capra, F. (1982), The Turning Point: Science, Society and The Rising Culture, New York: Simon & Schuster Inc. Carley, K. M. (2002), “Intraorganizational Organizational Complexity”, (Der.) J. A. C. Baum (2002), The Blackwell Companion to Organizations, Oxford: Bl