1. The book talks about methodological critiques of both the integration and differentiation perspectives. I thought the discussion is mostly limited to sample size, sampling techniques and the position of the researcher (etic vs emic. Can we draw any parallels between the three social scientific perspectives and major research paradigms (like interpretive, critical or post-positivist)? Is the dialogic approach more appropriate for fragmentation studies? Does interpretive approach suit integration and differentiation researches better than others?
2. Martin (1992) claims the integration perspective is most congruent with managerial point of view and the differentiation perspective is congruent with the view of groups that lack the power and status of top management (p. 84). I wonder if these are simplistic generalizations. I kept asking myself if we can think of organizations where the management (apart from rhetoric) intentionally instigates conflicts among worker to sustain power and in fear of workers unity.
No comments:
Post a Comment