Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorGreen, Miriam
dc.date.accessioned2014-02-03T10:46:53Z
dc.date.available2014-02-03T10:46:53Z
dc.date.issued2013-05
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/9658
dc.description.abstractThe main problem posed in this thesis is an epistemological one to do with what counts as knowledge in the organisation/management and management accounting areas of scholarship. This question arose regarding discrepancies between an original text, Burns and Stalker’s The Management of Innovation (1961, 1966, 1994), and longstanding representations in the mainstream literature. The discrepancies were between the largely objectivist representations focussing on the relationship between organisation structure and environmental contingency, while omitting subjectivist factors and organisational processes, also significant in Burns and Stalker’s analysis. The analysis in this thesis is concerned with two main questions: the similarities and differences between The Management of Innovation and mainstream representations; and explanations for these, particularly for the differences. The analytical framework is critical realist theory underpinned by an Hegelian dialectical methodology, looking at phenomena from different perspectives with inconsistencies addressed by a more holistic analysis. This thesis is based on a non-linear, multi-angled approach, which examines each of the two questions from different perspectives through two dialectical circles. A detailed analysis of Burns and Stalker’s work and mainstream representations enabled clarity regarding the different foci in the two sets of texts. The absenting of human factors and organisational processes in much mainstream scholarship was found to extend beyond representations of Burns and Stalker’s work to orthodox scholarship more widely, despite strong and persistent critiques from within the field. The dialectical opposition constructed between objectivist and subjectivist factors was investigated further and linked to attitudes regarding the commensurability of different approaches in the social sciences, particularly in the organisation/management and management accounting fields. It is suggested that this opposition is based on a particular view of science and scientific method. A broader interpretation however shows that science is also influenced by researchers’ subjectivities. This has led to an argument for the complementary, more holistic approaches already present in the field becoming more widespread in the interests of more sustainable and emancipatory knowledge.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherDe Montfort Universityen
dc.subjectrepresentationen
dc.subjectmeaningen
dc.subjectBurns and Stalkeren
dc.subjectcontingency theoriesen
dc.subjectobjectivismen
dc.subjectparadigmsen
dc.subjectinterpretivismen
dc.subjectdialectical methodologyen
dc.subjectacademeen
dc.subjectcommensurabilityen
dc.subjectdefinitions of scientific methoden
dc.subjectorganisationen
dc.subjectmanagementen
dc.subjectmanagement accounting literatureen
dc.titleWhat counts as knowledge? Parameters of validity for the meaning and representation of a contingency theory in the organisation and management accounting literature.en
dc.typeThesis or dissertationen
dc.publisher.departmentFaculty of Technologyen
dc.type.qualificationlevelDoctoralen
dc.type.qualificationnamePhDen


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record