Description
Pheromones is a Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence, which is a common topic of discussion in philosophy.
Research Reports On Phronetic Organizational
PHRONETIC ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
1. Where are we going with this specific management problematic? 2. Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? 3. Is this development desirable? 4. What, if anything, should we do about it? Phronetic organizational research concerns deliberation, judgement, and praxis in rela- tion to the four questions. Praxis is the process by which phronesis as a concept becomes lived reality [ practice theory]. Answers to the questions are used as input to ongoing dialogues (q.v.) about the possibili- ties and risks that management and organiza- tions face and how things may be done differently. The 'we' in the questions consists of those researchers asking the questions and those who share the concerns of the researchers, including people in the organization under study. Phronetic researchers see no general and unified 'we' in relation to which the questions can be given a final, objective answer. What is a 'gain' and a 'loss' often depends on the perspective taken, and one person's gain may be another's loss. Phronetic researchers are highly aware of the importance of perspective, and see no neutral ground, no 'view from nowhere', for their work. The focus of phronetic organizational research is on practical activity and practical knowledge in everyday situations in organizations [action research; mode 2; pragmatism]. It may mean, but is not limited to, a focus on known sociological, ethnographic (q.v.), and historical phenomena such as 'everyday life' and 'everyday people', with their focus on the socalled 'common'. What it always means, however, is a focus on the actual daily practices [practice-centred research] - common or highly specialized or rarefied - which con- stitute a given organizational field of interest, regardless of whether these practices consti- tute a stock exchange, a grassroots organiza- tion, a neighbourhood, a multinational corporation, a government office, an emer- gency ward, or a local school board. The result of phronetic organizational research are concrete examples and detailed
Definition
Phronetic organizational research is an approach to the study of management and organizations focusing on ethics and power. It is based on a contemporary interpretation of the Aristotelian concept phronesis, usually translated as 'practical wisdom', sometimes as 'prudence'. Phronesis is the ability to think and act in relation to values, to deliberate about 'things that are good or bad for humans' in the words of Aristotle (1976: 1140a24-b12). Phronetic organizational research effectively provides answers to the following four value-rational questions, for specific problematics in management and organization studies:
153
narratives (q.v.) of the ways in which power and values work in organizations and with what consequences, and to suggest how power and values could be changed to work with other consequences. Phronetic research holds that in so far as organizational situa- tions become clear, they are clarified by detailed study of who is doing what to whom. Such clarification is therefore a principal con- cern for phronetic organizational research and provides the main link to praxis. The methodological implications of following a phronetic approach may be brieflydescribed by the following methodological guidelines, which should be seen not as imperatives but as indicators of direction: 1. Focus on values (what's 'good or bad for humans in organizations'). 2. Place power at the core of analysis [ actornetwork theory; critical theory] (because, as Bertrand Russell observed, the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics; power is productive). 3. Get close to reality (to improve understanding and ensure practical relevance). 4. Emphasize 'little things' (God is in the detail - and so is the Devil) [ethnomethodology]. 5. Look at practices before discourse (what is done is more important than what is said, and understanding the difference between the two is an effective means for learning about management and organization). 6. Study cases (q.v.) and context (because the practical judgement central to phrone- sis, and to good management, is case- based and context-dependent). 7. Ask 'How?', do narrative (to understand the process and what to do). 8. Move beyond agency and structure (to internalize externality in organizations and externalize internality). 9. Do dialogue with a polyphony of voices (phronetic organizational research is dialogical (q.v.) with no one voice, including that of the researcher, claiming final authority).
Discussion
Because phronesis concerns values it goes beyond analytical, scientific knowledge (episteme) [realism] and technical knowledge or know how (techne) and it involves judge- ments and decisions made in the manner of a virtuoso social actor. Aristotle was explicit in his regard of phronesis as the most important of the three intellectual virtues: episteme, techne, and phronesis. Phronesis is most impor- tant because it is that activity by which scien- tific and instrumental rationality is balanced by valuerationality; and because, according to Aristotle, such balancing is crucial to the viability of any organization - from the fam- ily to a business to the state. To ignore value- rationality in human organizations is to ask for trouble, according to Aristotle. The many recent scandals of corporate governance may be seen as cases in point. They result from executives not understanding the importance of and not being proficient in phronesis. In terms of the history and theory of science, Aristotle and Machiavelli are the classic thinkers of phronesis. More contempo- rary scholars within this tradition are Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz Alasdair MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, and Richard Rorty, who emphasize phronetic before epistemic knowledge in the study of social organization, despite important differ- ences in other domains. A curious fact can be observed, however. Whereas episteme is found in the modern words 'epistemology' and 'epistemic', and techne in 'technology' and 'technical', it is indicative of the degree to which scientific and instrumental rationality dominate mod- ern thinking and language that we no longer have a word for the one intellectual virtue, phronesis, which Aristotle and other founders of the western tradition saw as the most important condition of successful social orga- nization [positivism and postpositivism]. Epistemic science, modelled after the nat- ural sciences, has gained dominance to a degree, where even intellectual activities like organizational research and social science, which are not and probably never can be
154 ientific in the epistemic, natural science sense, have found themselves compelled to strive for and legitimate themselves in terms of the epistemic model. According to Czarniawska
s c
and Sevón (2003: 9-13), epistemic organizational research is the mainstream of organizational research and it claims universality based on a search for generic truths about management and organizations.
Prospects
It is a problem that management scholars generally do not recognize the distinctions between episteme, techne, and phronesis, because they are very different intellectual activities with very different implications for practical research. It is often the case that these activities are rationalized as episteme, even though they are actually techne or phronesis. However, it is not in their role as episteme that one can argue for the value of organizational research and other social sciences. In the domain in which the natural sciences have been strongest - the production of theories that can explain and accurately predict - the social sciences, including orga- nizational research, have been weakest. Nevertheless, by emphasizing the three roles, and especially by reintroducing phronesis, we see there are other and more satisfying possi- bilities for organizational research than vainly emulating natural science. The theoretical and methodological implications of phronesis for organizational and management research were first explained in Flyvbjerg (2001, 2003). The following may serve as examples in an emerging body of organizational research that contains elements of phronesis. In the study of power and organizations, the work of Clegg (1997) and Clegg and Kornberger (2003) stands out. In the organization of the firm and of accounting, the work of Miller (2003) must be mentioned. In the organization of science and technology there is the work of Latour (1999b) and Rabinow (1999). And in the organization of government there is Schram and Caterino (2006), Flyvbjerg (1998), and Dean (1999). Examples exist as well from more specialized fields of research, such as the
organization of consumption (Miller and Rose, 1997), policing (Harcourt, 2001), and space (q.v.) and architecture (Crush, 1994) [ mod- ernism and scientific management]. More exam- ples of phronetic organizational research may be found in Flyvbjerg (2001: 162-165) and Dean (1999: 3-5). Bent Flyvbjerg
POSITIVISM AND POST-POSITIVISM
Definition
Within the social sciences, advocates of positivism argue that the only legitimate source of knowledge are sense data, through which real- ity is experienced. In order to guard against the personal and subjective basis of this sen- sory experience, findings are claimed to be reliable when they can be repeatedly verified. Positivism's roots lie within empiricist philos- ophy in which wider metaphysical and ethical questions of meaning and value were 'cut away' from the rational pursuit of factual truth based upon an unalloyed experience of nature using the method, or logic, of verification. By letting metaphysics go as a kind of archaic out- lier, positivism brings the material world into confined, codified and tidy structures. Its acknowledged founder in social science - Auguste Comte - used the approach as a counter-blast to clerical dominance; it had a democratising tone. The rise of post-positivism is, similarly, a counter-blast, but this time against the dominance that the empirical, sci- entistic worldview that Comte championed itself came to occupy. Verification became its own metaphysics, open to challenge from those who felt there was more than one empirical - way of understanding the world.
Discussion
As early modern management sought to transfer the traditions of applied engineering in the natural sciences to the social sciences
155
doc_656323786.docx
Pheromones is a Greek word for a type of wisdom or intelligence, which is a common topic of discussion in philosophy.
Research Reports On Phronetic Organizational
PHRONETIC ORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH
1. Where are we going with this specific management problematic? 2. Who gains and who loses, and by which mechanisms of power? 3. Is this development desirable? 4. What, if anything, should we do about it? Phronetic organizational research concerns deliberation, judgement, and praxis in rela- tion to the four questions. Praxis is the process by which phronesis as a concept becomes lived reality [ practice theory]. Answers to the questions are used as input to ongoing dialogues (q.v.) about the possibili- ties and risks that management and organiza- tions face and how things may be done differently. The 'we' in the questions consists of those researchers asking the questions and those who share the concerns of the researchers, including people in the organization under study. Phronetic researchers see no general and unified 'we' in relation to which the questions can be given a final, objective answer. What is a 'gain' and a 'loss' often depends on the perspective taken, and one person's gain may be another's loss. Phronetic researchers are highly aware of the importance of perspective, and see no neutral ground, no 'view from nowhere', for their work. The focus of phronetic organizational research is on practical activity and practical knowledge in everyday situations in organizations [action research; mode 2; pragmatism]. It may mean, but is not limited to, a focus on known sociological, ethnographic (q.v.), and historical phenomena such as 'everyday life' and 'everyday people', with their focus on the socalled 'common'. What it always means, however, is a focus on the actual daily practices [practice-centred research] - common or highly specialized or rarefied - which con- stitute a given organizational field of interest, regardless of whether these practices consti- tute a stock exchange, a grassroots organiza- tion, a neighbourhood, a multinational corporation, a government office, an emer- gency ward, or a local school board. The result of phronetic organizational research are concrete examples and detailed
Definition
Phronetic organizational research is an approach to the study of management and organizations focusing on ethics and power. It is based on a contemporary interpretation of the Aristotelian concept phronesis, usually translated as 'practical wisdom', sometimes as 'prudence'. Phronesis is the ability to think and act in relation to values, to deliberate about 'things that are good or bad for humans' in the words of Aristotle (1976: 1140a24-b12). Phronetic organizational research effectively provides answers to the following four value-rational questions, for specific problematics in management and organization studies:
153
narratives (q.v.) of the ways in which power and values work in organizations and with what consequences, and to suggest how power and values could be changed to work with other consequences. Phronetic research holds that in so far as organizational situa- tions become clear, they are clarified by detailed study of who is doing what to whom. Such clarification is therefore a principal con- cern for phronetic organizational research and provides the main link to praxis. The methodological implications of following a phronetic approach may be brieflydescribed by the following methodological guidelines, which should be seen not as imperatives but as indicators of direction: 1. Focus on values (what's 'good or bad for humans in organizations'). 2. Place power at the core of analysis [ actornetwork theory; critical theory] (because, as Bertrand Russell observed, the fundamental concept in social science is power, in the same sense in which energy is the fundamental concept in physics; power is productive). 3. Get close to reality (to improve understanding and ensure practical relevance). 4. Emphasize 'little things' (God is in the detail - and so is the Devil) [ethnomethodology]. 5. Look at practices before discourse (what is done is more important than what is said, and understanding the difference between the two is an effective means for learning about management and organization). 6. Study cases (q.v.) and context (because the practical judgement central to phrone- sis, and to good management, is case- based and context-dependent). 7. Ask 'How?', do narrative (to understand the process and what to do). 8. Move beyond agency and structure (to internalize externality in organizations and externalize internality). 9. Do dialogue with a polyphony of voices (phronetic organizational research is dialogical (q.v.) with no one voice, including that of the researcher, claiming final authority).
Discussion
Because phronesis concerns values it goes beyond analytical, scientific knowledge (episteme) [realism] and technical knowledge or know how (techne) and it involves judge- ments and decisions made in the manner of a virtuoso social actor. Aristotle was explicit in his regard of phronesis as the most important of the three intellectual virtues: episteme, techne, and phronesis. Phronesis is most impor- tant because it is that activity by which scien- tific and instrumental rationality is balanced by valuerationality; and because, according to Aristotle, such balancing is crucial to the viability of any organization - from the fam- ily to a business to the state. To ignore value- rationality in human organizations is to ask for trouble, according to Aristotle. The many recent scandals of corporate governance may be seen as cases in point. They result from executives not understanding the importance of and not being proficient in phronesis. In terms of the history and theory of science, Aristotle and Machiavelli are the classic thinkers of phronesis. More contempo- rary scholars within this tradition are Pierre Bourdieu, Michel Foucault, Clifford Geertz Alasdair MacIntyre, Martha Nussbaum, and Richard Rorty, who emphasize phronetic before epistemic knowledge in the study of social organization, despite important differ- ences in other domains. A curious fact can be observed, however. Whereas episteme is found in the modern words 'epistemology' and 'epistemic', and techne in 'technology' and 'technical', it is indicative of the degree to which scientific and instrumental rationality dominate mod- ern thinking and language that we no longer have a word for the one intellectual virtue, phronesis, which Aristotle and other founders of the western tradition saw as the most important condition of successful social orga- nization [positivism and postpositivism]. Epistemic science, modelled after the nat- ural sciences, has gained dominance to a degree, where even intellectual activities like organizational research and social science, which are not and probably never can be
154 ientific in the epistemic, natural science sense, have found themselves compelled to strive for and legitimate themselves in terms of the epistemic model. According to Czarniawska
s c
and Sevón (2003: 9-13), epistemic organizational research is the mainstream of organizational research and it claims universality based on a search for generic truths about management and organizations.
Prospects
It is a problem that management scholars generally do not recognize the distinctions between episteme, techne, and phronesis, because they are very different intellectual activities with very different implications for practical research. It is often the case that these activities are rationalized as episteme, even though they are actually techne or phronesis. However, it is not in their role as episteme that one can argue for the value of organizational research and other social sciences. In the domain in which the natural sciences have been strongest - the production of theories that can explain and accurately predict - the social sciences, including orga- nizational research, have been weakest. Nevertheless, by emphasizing the three roles, and especially by reintroducing phronesis, we see there are other and more satisfying possi- bilities for organizational research than vainly emulating natural science. The theoretical and methodological implications of phronesis for organizational and management research were first explained in Flyvbjerg (2001, 2003). The following may serve as examples in an emerging body of organizational research that contains elements of phronesis. In the study of power and organizations, the work of Clegg (1997) and Clegg and Kornberger (2003) stands out. In the organization of the firm and of accounting, the work of Miller (2003) must be mentioned. In the organization of science and technology there is the work of Latour (1999b) and Rabinow (1999). And in the organization of government there is Schram and Caterino (2006), Flyvbjerg (1998), and Dean (1999). Examples exist as well from more specialized fields of research, such as the
organization of consumption (Miller and Rose, 1997), policing (Harcourt, 2001), and space (q.v.) and architecture (Crush, 1994) [ mod- ernism and scientific management]. More exam- ples of phronetic organizational research may be found in Flyvbjerg (2001: 162-165) and Dean (1999: 3-5). Bent Flyvbjerg
POSITIVISM AND POST-POSITIVISM
Definition
Within the social sciences, advocates of positivism argue that the only legitimate source of knowledge are sense data, through which real- ity is experienced. In order to guard against the personal and subjective basis of this sen- sory experience, findings are claimed to be reliable when they can be repeatedly verified. Positivism's roots lie within empiricist philos- ophy in which wider metaphysical and ethical questions of meaning and value were 'cut away' from the rational pursuit of factual truth based upon an unalloyed experience of nature using the method, or logic, of verification. By letting metaphysics go as a kind of archaic out- lier, positivism brings the material world into confined, codified and tidy structures. Its acknowledged founder in social science - Auguste Comte - used the approach as a counter-blast to clerical dominance; it had a democratising tone. The rise of post-positivism is, similarly, a counter-blast, but this time against the dominance that the empirical, sci- entistic worldview that Comte championed itself came to occupy. Verification became its own metaphysics, open to challenge from those who felt there was more than one empirical - way of understanding the world.
Discussion
As early modern management sought to transfer the traditions of applied engineering in the natural sciences to the social sciences
155
doc_656323786.docx