Objectivism in organization/management knowledge: an example of Bourdieu's “mutilation”?

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to examine what counts as knowledge in the organization/management field.Design/methodology/approachConventional, legitimated knowledge is analyzed through research into representations of an influential management text. Management and management accounting textbooks and research papers are investigated to establish the types of knowledge produced.FindingsMainstream representations of this book are partial, focusing on a “model” of what is likely to ensure successful organizational change – structural and systemic adaptations. What has been ignored is the problematization of structural change and the role of human agency. The foci and omissions of these representations cohere with divisions in the social sciences more generally – between “objectivist” and “subjectivist” ontologies and epistemologies.Research limitations/implicationsThere is a need for further research into representations of texts about organizational change, the way the objectivist/subjectivist divide is played out, and its significance for organization/management studies and more widely for the social sciences.Practical implicationsQuestions arise as to the validity and sustainability of such knowledge. Omissions about the difficulties in implementing structural change raise epistemological and practical difficulties for students, managers and consultants.Social implicationsOmissions of human subjectivities and agency from mainstream knowledge is problematic regarding successful organizational change and social issues more widely.Originality/valueThe paper's value lies in the in‐depth analysis of representations of a text in the organization/management area and the linking of the type of knowledge produced with broader epistemological and methodological issues in the social sciences.