Deetz indicated the two dimensions, Local/emergent vs. Elite/ A priori and Dissensus vs. Consensus and the characteristics of these two dimensions brings me some insights for understanding the theories for organizational communication research.In Burrell & Morgan's sociological paradigms (functionalist, interpretive, radical humanist, and radical structuralist), two dimensions emphasized, that is, the subjective/objective dimension and the sociology of radical change/regulation.
Comparing with Deetz and Burrell & Morgan’s model, both explained the production of social structure and distinctions of methodologies in studying organizational theory in different angles. However, in Deetz’s article, the critique of Burrel & Morgan’s grid by producing the four unitary paradigms and the paradigm commensurability and reification, the contrast of paradigms themselves would be more essential. My question is,
What are the limitations we could see in Burrell & Morgan’s grid comparing with Deetz’s model? What is correlation of the two models?
No comments:
Post a Comment