Honing and Framing Ourselves (Extreme Subjectivity and Organizing)
The present backlash of neo-neopositivism has been academically justified either with a biological or evolutionary ideologies. How did academic intellectuals respond? First, by developing a concept of professional self-identity and institutional peer-control and making it independent of empirical and third-party verification Both these concepts are purely formal and allow for an autonomous self-regulation of a professional community minimizing external influences. Honing ourselves is about the self-reflection of the academic intellectuals who are caught in the networks and hierarchies of the emergent industrial, academic and public organizations Second, by continuous critical re-engineering of the Enlightenment project in the post-communist, post-liberal, complex world on the edge of chaos, in which the retreat of the state and the emergence of complex networks has diminished the role of national culture as the basic frame and blueprint for socialization. Third, by an attempt to form a democratic community of academic citizens. Will a loose collection of researchers and teachers ever rise to the level of principled citizens of a scientific community?
|democratizing professions, evolutionism, framing, qualitative research paradigm, self-regulation of professional communities, subjectivity|
|Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior (jel L2), Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting (jel M), Business Administration: General (jel M10), Cultural Economics; Economic Sociology; Economic Anthropology (jel Z1)|
|ERIM Report Series Research in Management|
|Organisation||Erasmus Research Institute of Management|
Magala, S.J. (2004). Honing and Framing Ourselves (Extreme Subjectivity and Organizing) (No. ERS-2004-076-ORG). ERIM Report Series Research in Management. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/1583