When scholars accept what "the open system of an organization" is, why would the "paradigm Skirmishes" in a sense? Fairhurst's argument about seeking metatheoretical bridges, or adopting both/and orientations to the management of tension are just suggestions offered in the spirit that paradigms are crossable even if on has a first love. I would agree part of it. But if without the blur genres, the paradigms are just likes concrete boxes. For new organizational communication researchers, who wants to put herself/herself in one box?
What is very ambiguous when Fairhurst indicated that too cross paradigms might be crossing discipline? This makes me feel complicated. My question is-- if welcome theories and knowledge from other field within Communication Studies and knowledge from outside-field knowledge (like sociology, anthropology and psychology), what will the field of organizational communication be? Will multiperspective studies become a "melted pot" like the country of the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment