PL EN


2015 | 16 | 1 | 173-180
Article title

Management – Forecasting the Future Cognitive Challenges in Management Science 3

Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
This paper is the third publication from the series of three articles about cognitive challenges in management science. It is the result of the further discussions and reflections concerning the cognitive problems of management after publication of the books about epistemology of management. The paper is a trial to forecast the main cognitive trends and tendencies on the basis of the diagnosis made in two papers in series “Cognitive challenges in management science”. The chosen trends in development of management sciences are: expansion of natural sciences, growing inter-disciplinarity of research, growing specialization, net-marketing in management discourse, challenge of cultural relativism, growing criticism and reflexivity. Response of management sciences to the challenges connected to: interdisciplinary nature, growing specialization, and expansion of natural history can lead to further development of our discipline, but the possibility of disintegration also should not be ruled out. Deepening specialization, lack of long-range theory, and growing significance of natural history could lead to disintegration of our discipline, whose fields would be incorporated by other domains. I think that in order to avoid this possibility it would be desirable to uphold the cohesion of management sciences through deepening the cognitive reflection and openness to inspirations originating in other areas of science. But future is difficult to predict and maybe other trends that are not too visible now will change management sciences in future.
Publisher
Year
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
173-180
Physical description
Dates
published
2015-03-01
online
2015-03-13
Contributors
  • University of Social Sciences
References
  • Banerjee S.B. (2008), Corporate social responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly, “Critical Sociology”, 34.1, pp. 51-79.
  • Behling O. (1980), The case for the natural science model for research in organizational behavior and organization theory, “Academy of Management Review”, 5.4, pp. 483-490.
  • Blunt P. (1995), Cultural relativism,‘good’governance and sustainable human development, “Public Administration and Development”, 15.1, pp. 1-9.[Crossref]
  • Brewer G.D., The challenges of interdisciplinarity, “Policy Sciences”, 32.4, pp. 327-337.
  • Burrell G., Morgan G. (1979), Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis, Heinemann, London.
  • Chouliaraki L., Fairclough N., Critical discourse analysis in organizational studies: Towards an integrationist methodology, “Journal of Management Studies”, 47.6, pp. 1213-1218.[WoS]
  • Chrisman J.J., Chua J.H., Sharma P. (2003), Current trends and future directions in family business management studies: Toward a theory of the family firm, “Coleman white paper series”, 4, pp. 1-63.
  • Dyer G., Sánchez M. (1998), Current State of Family Business Theory and Practice as Reflected in Family Business Review 1988-1997, “Family Business Review”, 11.4, pp. 287-295.
  • Fenwick T. (2005), Ethical dilemmas of critical management education within classrooms and beyond, “Management Learning”, 36.1, pp. 31-48.[Crossref]
  • Fleming P., Spicer A., Working at a cynical distance: Implications for power, subjectivity and resistance, “Organization”, 10.1, pp. 157-179.
  • Ghoshal S. (2005), Bad management theories are destroying good management practices, “Academy of Management Learning & Education”, 4.1, 2005, pp. 75-91.[Crossref]
  • Grey C. (2004), Reinventing business schools: The contribution of critical management education, “Academy of Management Learning & Education”, 3.2, pp. 178-186.[Crossref]
  • Guba E.C., Lincoln Y.S. (1994), Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research, in: N.K. Denzin, Y.S. Lincoln (ed.) Handbook of Qualitative Research, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 105-117.
  • Massey C., Alpass F., Flett R., Lewis K., Morriss S., Sligo F. (2006), Crossing fields: the case of a multi-disciplinary research team, “Qualitative Research”, vol. 6(2).
  • Micklethwait J., Wooldridge A. (1996), The Witch Doctors. Making Sense of the Management Gurus, Times Books - Random House, New York.
  • Pettigrew A.M., Woodman R.W., Cameron K.S. (2001), Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research, “Academy of Management Journal”, 44.4, pp. 697-713.[Crossref]
  • Saravanamuthu K., Filling S. (2004), A critical response to managerialism in the Academy, “Critical Perspectives on Accounting”, 15.4, pp. 437-452.
  • Sułkowski Ł. (2013, Epistemology of Management, Peter Lang International, Frankfurt-Berlin-Bern-Vien-Oxford-New York-London-Warsaw.
  • Sułkowski Ł. (2012a), Epistemologia i metodologia zarządzania, PWE, Warszawa, pp. 345-346.
  • Sułkowski Ł. (2012b), Neodarwinism in Organization and Management, Peter Lang International, Frankfurt-Berlin-Bern-Vien-Oxford-New York-London-Warsaw.
  • Sułkowski Ł. (2004), Neopozytywistyczna mitologia w nauce o zarządzaniu, „Organizacja i kierowanie”, nr 1 (115).
  • Usunier J.C. (2000), Marketing Across Cultures, Pearson Education Limited, Third edition, Edinburgh Gate.
  • Watson T.J. (2001), In Search of Management: Culture, Chaos and Control in Managerial Work, Cengage Learning EMEA.
  • Whitley R. (2000), The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, Oxford University Press.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.doi-10_1515_eam-2015-0011
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.