Yıl: 2002 Cilt: 2 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 155 - 185 Metin Dili: Türkçe İndeks Tarihi: 29-07-2022

"Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz

Öz:
Bu çalışma, modernist-pozitivist örgüt analizinden eleştirel ve postmodern örgüt analizine doğru olan gelişmeleri bilgikuram ve yöntem konularını da dikkate alarak incelemektedir.Yönetim ve örgüt araştırmalarını doğa bilimlerinin yöntemlerini benimseme anlamında "bilimleş(tir)me" yönündeki çabaların, örgütsel olguların eleştirel analizine zarar verebileceği belirtilmektedir. Örgütsel analizin farklı paradigmalardan beslendiğini dikkate alırsak, "bilimleş(tir)me" yönündeki çabalar tek bir paradigmanın meşru sayılması, diğerlerinin bilgi iddialarının bastırılması riskini doğurmaktadır.
Anahtar Kelime: bilimleşme eleştirel yaklaşım pozitivizm modernizm postmodernizm

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Derleme Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • Abadan, N. 1996. Kum saatini izlerken, İstanbul: İletişim.
  • Ackroyd, S. 1994. Re-creating common ground: Elements for post-paradigmatic organization studies, Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der.), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, içinde London: Routledge, ss:269-297.
  • Ackroyd, S. ve Thompson, P. 1999. Organizational misbehaviour, London: Sage. Adler, P ve Borys, B. 1993. Materialism and idealism in organizational research, Organization Studies, 14(5), ss: 657-674.
  • Altuğ, T. 2001. Dile gelen felsefe, İstanbul: YKY Yayınları.
  • Alvesson, M. ve Willmott, H. 1992. On the idea of emancipation in management and organization studies, Academy of Management Review, 17(3), ss: 432- 464.
  • Alveson, M. ve Willmott, H. 1996. Making sense of management: A critical introduction, London: Sage.
  • Alvesson, M. ve Deetz, S. 1999. Critical theory and postmodernism: approaches to organizational studies, Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. (der.) Studying Organization içinde London: Sage, ss. 185-211.
  • Alvesson, M. ve Deetz, S. 2000. Doing critical management research, London: Sage.
  • Alvesson, M. ve Karreman, D. 2000. Varieties of discourse: On the study of organizations through discourse analysis, Human Relations, 53(9), ss: 1125-1149.
  • Baruch, Y. 2001. Global or North American: A geographical based comparative analysis of publications in top management journals, International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), ss: 109-126.
  • Bauman, Z. 1988. Is there a postmodern sociology, Theory, Culture and Society, 5(2), ss: 217-237.
  • Berger, P. ve Luckmann,T. 1971. The social construction of reality, London: Penguin.
  • Bjorkergen, D. 1993. What can organization and management theory learn from art? Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der), Postmodernism and Organizations içinde, London: Sage, ss: 101-113.
  • Boje, D.M., Fitzgibbons D.E ve SteinGard D.S. 1996. Storytelling at administrative science quarterly, Boje, D.M., Gephard, R. F. ve Thatchenkery T.J. (der.) Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, içinde, Thousand Oaks: Sage, ss: 60-92.
  • Bryman, A. 1989. Research methods and organization studies, London: Unwin and Hyman.
  • Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis 2: The contribution of michel foucault, Organization Studies, 9(2), ss: 221-235.
  • Burrell, G. 1999. Normal science, paradigms, metaphors, discourses and genealogies of analysis, Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. (der.) Studying Organization içinde London: Sage, ss. 388-404.
  • Burrell, G. 2001. Ephemera: Critical dialogues on organization”, Ephemera, 1(1), ss: 11-29. (http://www.ephemeraweb.com, 11 Kasım 2002’de girildi).
  • Burrell, G. ve Morgan, G. 1979. Sociological paradigms and organization analysis, London: Heinemann.
  • Calas, M.B. ve Smircich, L. 1999. Past postmodernism? Reflections and tentative directions, Academy of Management Review, 24(4), ss: 649-671.
  • Chia, R. 1995. From modern to postmodern organizational analysis, Organization Studies 16(4), ss: 580-.602.
  • Child, J. 1997. Strategic choice in the analysis of action, structure, organizations and environment: retrospect and prospect, Organization Studies, 18(1), s.43-76.
  • Clegg, S. 1990. Modern organizations: Organization studies in the postmodern world, London: Sage.
  • Clegg, S. 1994. Power and institutions in the theory of organization, Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der.), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, içinde London: Routledge, ss: 23-49.
  • Clegg, S. ve Dunkerley, D. 1980. Organization, class and control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. 1999. Introduction, Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. (der.) Studying Organization içinde London: Sage, ss. 1- 22.
  • Cooper, R. 2001. Un-timely mediations: questing thought, Ephemera, 1(4), 321- 347.(http://www.ephemeraweb.com, 14 Kasım 2002’de girildi).
  • Cooper, R. ve Burrell, G. 1988. Modernism, postmodernism and organizational analysis: An introduction, Organization Studies, 9(1), ss: 91-112.
  • Delanty, G. 1997. Social science: beyond constructivism and realism, Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Donaldson, L. 1996. For positivist organization theory: proving the hard core, London: Sage.
  • Donaldson, L. 1999. The normal science of structural contingency theory, Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. (der.) Studying Organization içinde London: Sage, ss.51-70.
  • Fineman, S. 1994. Organizing and emotion: towards a social construction, Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der.), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, içinde London: Routledge, ss: 75-87.
  • Foucault, M. 1988. Power/Knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, Brighton: Harvester.
  • Fournier, V. ve Grey, C. 2000. At the critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management studies, Human Relations, 53(1), ss: 7-32.
  • Fulop, L. 2002. Practising what you preach: Critical management studies and its teaching, Organization, 9(3), ss: 428-436.
  • Gabriel, Y. 1995. The unmanaged organization: stories, fantasies and subjectivity, Organization Studies, 16(3), ss: 477-494.
  • Gawoll, H.J. 1998. Friedrich Nietzche ve Avrupa felsefesi, İstanbul: Afa.
  • Gephard, R. F., Boje, D.M. ve Thatchenkery T.J. 1996. Postmodern management and the coming crisis of organizational analysis , Boje, D.M., Gephard, R. F. ve Thatchenkery T.J. (der.) Postmodern Management and Organization Theory, içinde, Thousand Oaks: Sage, ss: 1-18.
  • Giddens, A. 1974. Positivism and sociology, London: Heinemann
  • Gioia, D. A. ve Pitre, E. 1990. Multiparadigm perspectives on theory building, Academy of Management Review, 15(4), ss.584-602.
  • Güllülü, S., Gündüz, M., ve Kemerlioğlu, E. 1994. Alman, Amerikan ve İngiliz sosyolojisinin son 10 yılı, Dünyada ve Türkiye’de Güncel Sosyolojik Gelişmeler içinde, Ankara: Sosyoloji Derneği.
  • Hanckok, P. ve Tyler, M. 2001. Work, postmodernism and organization: a critical introduction, London: Sage.
  • Hall, S. 1992. The west and the rest: Discourse and power, Hall, S. ve Gieben, B. (der.) Formations of Modernity Cambridge: Polity., ss: 287-305.
  • Harley, B. 1999. Critical organization studies: Is there room for quantitative analysis?, Critical Management Studies Konferansına (Manchester) sunulan yayınlanmamış bildiri.
  • Hassard, J. 1991. Multiple paradigms and organizational analysis: A case study, Organization Studies, 12(1), ss: 279-299.
  • Hassard, J. 1993a. Postmodernism and organizational analysis: An overview, Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der.) Postmodernism And Organizations içinde, London: Sage, ss: 1-23.
  • Hassard, J. 1993b. Sociology and organization theory: Positivism, paradigms and postmodernity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Hassard, J. ve Kelemen, M. 2002. Production and consumption in organizational knowledge: The case of the “paradigms debate”, Organization, 9(2), ss: 331-355
  • Hatch, M.J. 1997. Organization theory: Modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Hayek, F.A.1979. The counter revolution of science: Studies on the abuse of reason, Indianapolis: Liberty Press.
  • Hollinger, R. 1994. Postmodernism and the social sciences: a thematic approach, London: Sage.
  • Jackson, N. ve Carter, P. 1991. In defence of paradigm incommensurability, Organization Studies, 12(1), ss: 109-128.
  • Kassem, S. 1994. Örgüt Teorisi: Amerikan ve Avrupa Stilleri, Yönetim, yıl 5, sayı 19, ss: 41-46 (orijinal yayın tarihi 1976).
  • Kilduff, M. ve Mehra, A. 1997. Postmodernism and organizational research, Academy of Management Review, 22(2), ss: 453-481.
  • Knights, D. 1997. Organization theory in the age of deconstruction: Dualism, gender and postmodernism revisited, Organization Studies, 18(1), ss: 1-19.
  • Kongar, E. 1982. Türk toplumbilimcileri, cilt 1, İstanbul: Remzi Kitabevi.
  • Kuhn, T. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Lee,T.W. 1999. Using qualitative research methods in organizational research, London: Sage.
  • Marsden, R. ve Townley, B. 1999. The owl of minerva: reflection on theory in practice, Clegg, S. ve Hardy, C. (der.) Studying Organization içinde London: Sage, ss. 405-421.
  • May, T. 1993. Social research: issues, methods and processes, Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • McKinlay, A. ve Starkey, K. 1998. Managing foucault: foucault, management and organization theory, McKinlay, A. ve Starkey, K. (der.) Foucault, Management and Organization Theory içinde, London: Sage, ss: 1-13
  • Mills, W. 1970. The sociological imaginaton, Middlesex: Pelican.
  • Morgan G. 1990. Paradigm diversity in organizational research, Hassard, J. ve Pym, D. (der.) The Theory and Philosophy of Organizations, içinde, London: Routledge, ss. 13-29.
  • Mouzelis, N. 1967. Organization and bureaucracy, Chicago: Aldine
  • Nodoushani, O. 2000. Epistemological foundations of management theory and research methodology, Human Systems Management, 19, ss: 71-80.
  • Öncü, A. 1986. Sosyoloji araştırmaları oturumu üzerine yorum, Türkiye’de Sosyal Bilim Araştırmalarının Gelişimi içinde, Ankara: Türk Sosyal Bilimler Derneği, ss: 233-238.
  • Özen, Ş. 2000. Türk yönetim/organizasyon yazınında yöntem sorunu: Kongre bildirileri üzerine bir inceleme, Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Turizm Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(1), ss: 89-119
  • Parker, M. 1993. Life after Jean-François, Hassard J. ve Parker, M. (der.) Postmodernism and Organizations içinde, London: Sage,ss. 204-212.
  • Parker, M. 1995. Critique in the name of what? Postmodernism and critical approaches to organization, Organization Studies, 16(4), ss: 553-564.
  • Parker, M. 2000. The sociology of organizations and the organization of sociology: Some reflections on the making of a division of labour, The Sociological Review, ss: 124-146.
  • Parker,M, 2002. Against management, Cambridge: Polity.
  • Pfeffer, J. 1997. New directions for organization theory: Problems and prospects, New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Pugh, D.S. 1983. Studying organizational structure and process in Morgan, G. (ed.) Beyond Method: Strategies for Social Research, London: Sage, pp: 45-55.
  • Reed, M. 1997. In praise of duality and dualism: Rethinking agency and structure in organizational analysis, Organization Studies, 18(1), ss: 21-42.
  • Schultz, M. ve. Hatch, J.M. 1996. Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies, Academy of Management Review, 21(2), ss: 529-557.
  • Silverman, D. 1970. The theory of organizations, London: Heinemann.
  • Stern, R.N. ve Barley, S. R. 1996. Organizations and social systems: Organization theory’s neglected mandate, Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(1), ss: 146-163.
  • Thompson, P. 1993. Postmodernism: Fatal distraction, Hassard J. ve Parker, M. (der.) Postmodernism and organizations, London: Sage,ss. 183-203.
  • Townley, B. 1994. Reframing human resource management: Power and the subject at work, London: Sage.
  • Tsoukas, H. ve Cummings, S. 1997. Marginalization and recovery: The emergence of aristotelian themes in organization studies, Organization Studies, 18(4), ss: 655-683.
  • Üsdiken, B. ve Pasadeous, Y. 1992. Türkiye’de yayınlanan yönetimle ilgili veri temelli makalelerde yöntem, ODTÜ Gelişme Dergisi, 19(2), ss. 249-266.
  • Üsdiken, B. ve Pasadeos, Y. 1995. Organizational analysis in North America and Europe: A comparison of co-citation networks, Organization Studies, 16(3).
  • Üsdiken, B. ve Leblebici, H. 2001. Organization theory, Anderum, N., Önes, D.S. ve Sinangil, H.K (der.), Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology, cilt 2, London: Sage, ss: 377-397.
  • Üsdiken, B. ve Erden Z. 2001. Gelenek mi, düzenleyici baskılar mı? 1990’lı yıllarda Türkiye’de yönetim yazını, 9. Ulusal Yönetim ve Organizasyon Kongresi, 24-26 Mayıs 2001, Silivri, İstanbul.
  • Üsdiken, B. ve Wasti, A. 2002. Türkiye’de akademik bir inceleme alanı olarak personel veya ‘insan kaynakları’ yönetimi, 1972-1999, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 35(3), ss: 1-37.
  • Watson, T. 1994a. In search of management, London: Routledge.
  • Watson, T. 1994b. Towards a managerially relevant but non-managerialist organization theory, Hassard, J. ve Parker, M. (der.), Towards a New Theory of Organizations, içinde London: Routledge, ss: 209-224.
  • Weawer, G.R ve Gioia, D.A. 1994. Paradigms lost: incommensurability vs. structurationist inquiry, Organization Studies, 15(4), ss: 565-590.
  • Willmott, H. 1993. Breaking the paradigm mentality, Organization Studies 14(5), ss. 681-719.
  • Zald, M.N. 1996. More fragmentation? Unfinished business in linking the social sciences and the humanities, Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(2), ss: 251-261.
APA YILDIRIM E (2002). "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. , 155 - 185.
Chicago YILDIRIM Engin "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. (2002): 155 - 185.
MLA YILDIRIM Engin "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. , 2002, ss.155 - 185.
AMA YILDIRIM E "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. . 2002; 155 - 185.
Vancouver YILDIRIM E "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. . 2002; 155 - 185.
IEEE YILDIRIM E ""Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz." , ss.155 - 185, 2002.
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Engin. ""Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz". (2002), 155-185.
APA YILDIRIM E (2002). "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(2), 155 - 185.
Chicago YILDIRIM Engin "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2, no.2 (2002): 155 - 185.
MLA YILDIRIM Engin "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, vol.2, no.2, 2002, ss.155 - 185.
AMA YILDIRIM E "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2002; 2(2): 155 - 185.
Vancouver YILDIRIM E "Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz. Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2002; 2(2): 155 - 185.
IEEE YILDIRIM E ""Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz." Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2, ss.155 - 185, 2002.
ISNAD YILDIRIM, Engin. ""Cogito Ergo Sum'dan "Vivo Ergo Sum"a Örgütsel Analiz". Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi 2/2 (2002), 155-185.