This article discusses the potential of postmodernism for revolutionizing organizational research. It argues that postmodernism combines a skepticism toward grand narratives with a commitment to rigorous standards of inquiry. The authors draw selectively from both skeptical and affirmative postmodern approaches to outline an epistemology for organizational research that provokes ongoing conversation about challenging accepted knowledge through radical interpretations within strict methodological boundaries.

1. O Acodcny ol t'lanogenent Scvicw
l9{I7.Vol. ?2.No.2. {sf,-rgt.
POSTMODERNiSMAND
ORGANIZATIONALRESEARCH
MAXTINKILDUFF
AIAY MEHRA
The PennsylvqniqSloteUniversity
Drowing selectivelylrom the often countervoiling currentsol poslmod.
. ernisrn- we crrgue lor on epistemolog:y thot combines o skepticism
towqrd melonorrolive with o commilmenl lo rigorous stondords ol
enguiry in pursuit ol rodicol chollenges lo occepted knowledge. We
discuss live problemolics coocemed wilh normgl science.lruth, repre-
._ sentotion, style. ond generolizobility, ond we piovide exdmples ol
'-postmodernopprooches to clossicdolo sets, locol knowledge, eclectic
-source3.
ond the counlerintuitive.In this qrticle we seeL Io provoke
on ongoing conversqtionconceming the potenliol ol postmodemism
_lor
revolu!ionizing orgoai:otionol re_seorch.
M u l t i c u l t u r o l i s m o n d d e c o n s t r u c t i o n o r e l h e n e w r o g e o n c o l -
l e g e c o m p u s e s - o n d t h e y o r e d e s t r o y i n g q s t u d e n t ' s o b i l i t y
to think ond to volue. (Excerpt lrom s leollet distribuled to
I o c u l l y o d v e r t i s i n g o p u b l i c l e c t u r e o n p o s t m o d e r n i s m , A p r i l
4, 1996,ot o mojor Eqstern university.)
Orgonizotionol reseqrchershove tended to neglect or reieci the cri-
tiques o{ qcsdemic enquiry oilered by those who wri le irom one oi the
mony postmodernist perspectives. This moy be becquse the import ol
postmodernist opprooches lor orgqnizotionol studies is uncleqr. Indeed,
the term poslmodern is itseli vogueiy understood: it is olten equoted with
deconstruction(e.9.,Linsteod,I993)ondis generolly viewed qs q nihilistic
enterprise (qs the lecture exqmple qbove indicqtes) thqt oliers nothing
beyond q cynicql skepticism (cl. Codrescu, l986: 203).Nor ore the works
ol quthors, such ss Derridq, Foucqult, ond Bqudrillqrd, who ore ollen
qssocioted with the postmodern lurn, occessible to the mojority ol those
procticing orgqnizqtion reseorch. Postmodern writings qre derided Jor
their unintelligibility (Thompson, 1993:lgB) ond dismissed for reducing
reseqrch to textuql qnqlysis (Giddens, l9B7).
We thonk three ononymous.reviewersond jomes Wolsh lor pushing us to clorify ond
shorpen our orgrumenls:Dennis Gioio, Henry Giroux. Douglos Holt, ond Ben Kleindorler lor
helplul commenls on on eorlierdrolt:ond JocquesDerrido, whose speechond writing inspired
us lo wrile lhis orticle. The usuol disclsimer ooolies.

2. Acodemy ol Monogemenl Beview April
Within the sociql sciences in generol. the specter ol postmodernism
hqs qroused widespreod onxiety. Postmodernism hos been viewed ss qn
enterprise thot cqlls lor the deoth ol sll scientilic inquiry; the end ol oll
new knowledge;the dissolution of ony stqndords thot moy be used tojudge
one theory ogoinst snother; s bonishment into utter relolivism wherein q
clqmor o{ Irogmented ond conlentious voices reigns (see Pquline Rosen-
ou's 1992bolonced review o{ these concerns ond Stonley Fish's [1996]
recent discussion ol misunderstondings of postmodernisrn).
Our intent in this orticle is lo rescue the termposlmodernism irom this
chorus oi negotivity.ond lo use the insights of postmodernepislemology to
qlorm reseorchers in orgonizotionol studies into pursuing provocotive
reseqrch. We chqllenge the conventionql wisdom thot postmodernism is
incompotible with reseqrchqbout the world, ond orgue ogoinst the premo-
ture dismissol ol postmodern contributions. In presenting the cose lor the
-relevqnce of postmodernism ior orgonizotionql reseqrch,we discuss lwo
opprooches tcipostmodernism (the skepticol ond the qilirmqtive),outline o
'postmodern
epistemology thqt drows lrom both theseopproqchesidiscuss
some oi [he moior problemotics thst derive lrom this postmodern episte-
mology, qnd comment on q rcrngeol reseorch thot responds to these post-
modern problemotics.'
UNDERSTANDINGPOSTMODERNISM
Although relotivelynew lo orgonizotionqlstudies,postmodernismhqs
exercisedo growing inlluence in the sociql sciences,irom sociologyond
psychology to women's studies ond history (Rosenqu, 1992:B5),qnd is
consideredby some to be one of the 20th century'sgreqtestchollenges to
estoblished knowledge (Wisdom, I987: 5).Even within the so-colled hord
sciencessuch qs physics.postmodernist dilemmqs qre increosi4gly de-
boted (Forney,1994).One reqson lor postmodernism'sgrowing polulority
ocross such s wide ronge ol disciplines is o disillusionment with whqt
some criticsview os the oversimplilied,norrow, ond disoppointinglyirrel-
svont work qssociqted wilh modern sociql science (Rosenqu, 1992:137).
Gergen (1992).Ior exomple, critiqued cr wide rqnge ol orgonizotionql re-
seqrch becquse ol its underlying odherence to q crude mechqnicol model
ol humqn behovior.Simiiorly, Kilduli (1993)ollered q detoiled critique oi
the Toyloristossumptionsunderlying Morch ond Simon's(i958)modernist
mqnilesto, qnd Corter qnd Jockson (1993)criticized reseorch bqsed on
rA coulionory lootnote is in order lo worn reoders lo expecl o rodicol deporture lrom
whot posses os conventionol thinking smong self-declored orgonizotionol postmodernisls.
As one reviewer hos poinled oul, we moke no ottempt to conlorm to existing postmodern
critiques wilhin orgonizdtionolstudies (see Alvesson & Deetz,1996.for o review.ol previous
work).Rother,we oifer our orvn interpretqtion ol lhe relevonce ol postmodernism,on interpre-
t o t i o n l h o t m o k e s n o c l o i m s t o b e i n g m o r e o u l h e n t i c t h o n o n y o l h e r ,b u l o n e t h o t d o e s l r y
t o m o t c h t h e e x c i t e m e n to f i d e q s w i t h t h e o o s s i b i l i t i e so l r e s e o r c h .

3. 1997 Kildull ond Mehrc 455
expectoncy theory lor neglecting the importonce ol subjeclive understqnd-
ing in iovor ol o nqrrow iocus on meosurement issues.
In whqt woys do these critiques derive lrom o shored understonding
ol postmodernism? inevitobiy, ony precise deiinition of postmodernism is
likely to be disputed becousethe postmodernistlobel includes mony di-
verse intellectuql lrends.As Bestqnd Kellner (1991:2)pointed out, "There
is no uniiied postmodern theory, or even q coherent set ol positions."
Feqtherstone(1988:207)suggestedthqt there moy be os mony postmodern-
isms qs there qre postmodernists.Indeed, this very diversity is one of
postmodernism's distinguishing chqrqcteristics. A typicol commenl from
o postmodern perspectiveis "Diversity encourogescreotivity, while repeti-
tion qneslhelizes it" (Kroll, 1987:29).
Going Beyond the Skepticol Versus A{lirmcrtiveDichotomy
In discussions ol the mony vorieties ol postmodernism ovqilqble, two
distinct styles or ideql types ore oiten contrqsted:the skepticql qnd the
oiiirmqtive (Rosenqu,1992).Skepticolpostmodernism oliers "o pessimistic,
negotive, gloomy ossessment" ol the possibilities ol socisl science (Ro-
senqu, 1992:l5).From the skepticol perspeclive, oll interpretotions of phe-
nomeno ore equolly vqlid, qnd the world is so complicqted ihot concepts
such qs predictionqnd cqusqlity ore irrelevqnt.Everylhing is reloted to
everything else so the seqrchior cqusesor origins must be discontinued.
Skepticol postmodernistsdeny th€ possibility oi on empiricol sociql sci-
ence qnd engqge lorgely in critiquing existing work rqther thqn undertqk-
ing n,ew empiricol opprooches.AcEording to Rosenqu (1991:l5). skepticol
postmodernists "emphosize the negotive ond lock conlidence or hope in
onything" (Rosenqu,1992:183).
Aliirmotive postmodernismretqins the possibilityoi moking discrimi-
nqtions qmong competinginterpretotions.For exomple,Fish (1980)orgued
thot interpretivecommunitiesof fcholors guide reoders' interpretotions
of texts. Thus, not oll texts qre considered equolly vqlid or vqluqble.2
Indeed, irom this perspective.within the interpretive context, "it should
be possible to invoke rules ol competence, criterio ol discussion snd ol
consensus,good Ioith, lucidity,'rigor, criticism, ond pedogog'y" (Denido.
l9BB:146).The deconstruclivescholqr who wishes, ior exomple, to exqmine
the work ol the lSth century French philosopher Roussequ, "must under-
t Note thot Fish'svision ol on interpretivecommunity does not entoil the necessifyol re-
seorch teoms ottocking common problems.only the exislenceol loosely ollilioted individuol
scholors. From our postmodern perspective, Irogmentotion is o virtue. not q weqkness. V/e ore
in qccord with Weick (1983),who questionedthe benelits to scholorship of cohesive resecrch
leoms,invoking insteodo vision o[ individuol reseotchersIor whom heterogeneilyis strength.
originolity o virlue, teomres.orch o n enemy,ond creotivily volued over syn thesisond replico-
tion. Given the increqsein the number ol speciolty lorums (i.e..iournols, conlerences,e.moil
listservers)serving the needsoI dispersedscholors,it moy well be possible lor the Acodemy
to sustqin mony more frogmenledscholorlycommunities thon it hos in lhe post.

4. Acodemy ol Monogement Eeview April
stond ond wri te, even lronslote French os well qs possible, know the
corpus ol Rousseou qs well os possible, including qll the contexts thqt
determine it (the literory, philosophicsl, rhetoricql troditions, the history
ol the French longuoge, society, history, which is to.soy, so mony other-
things qs well). Otherwise, one could indeed soy just onything qt qll . . ."
(Derridq, 1988:144).For Derrido, deconstruction is on explorotion within
strict boundqries of the indeterminqcies to be lound in lexts. indeterminq-
- cies thot open up rodicol reinterpretotions ol such texts.
An qilirmqtive postmodernism, then, qs qrticuloted in the writings ol
Derrido, continues to bind reseqrchers to rigorous stsndqrds oi enquiry
os they pursue rodicql interpretotions. According to Rosenqu (1992:169),
qn qliirmqtive poslmodernism "would underscore novelty ond rellexivity
os it looks to the richless ol dillerence qnd concentrsteson the unusuol, ihe
singulor,ond the originol." Rosenouorgued tho["ony ottempt to out]ine q
postmodern sociol science will, on bolonce. depend more on the q{firmq-
tives thon on the skeptics"(Rosenqu,1992:169).
. Irr identiiying the implicotions oi postmodernism lor orgonizotionol
reseorch,we drqw upon contributions irom both the skepticol snd sfiirmo-
tive stylesond try to qvoid demonizing either.We lind much ol the writing
irom q skepticolposition useful-in counlering the new oge nqivetö o{ qn
qllirmqtive postmodernismthqt celebrqtes"wonder ond omozement"ond
pursuesvoyqgesinto the "unforseen"(Rosenqu,1992:169).Also, Iollowing
Derrido (1988:145),we reject the nihilist position in Iovor of qn ollirmotive
ond octivistsociqlsciencethqt "embrocesqnd doesnot exclude the world.
reolity, history" (Derrido, I988: 137).Thus, in this qrticle, we selectively
borrow lrom the o{ten countervoiling currents of postmodernism,rqther
thon gronting obsolute outhority to one porticulor opprooch.
Incredulity Toword Metqnqrrotive: Leqrning. Irom Architecture
a
Lyotord(1984),in o widely influentiol text.suggeited thqt postmodern-
ism cqn be understoodqs incredulity towqrd metqnqrrqtivesl(such os
Mqrxism ond structurolism)in contrqst to modernism. rvhich mokes on
oppeol to iustsuchnqrrqtives.Postmodernism,then,tendsto "delegitimote
qll mqslercodes"(Rosenqu, 1992:6). Dqvid Horvey (1989:l0) suggested
thot postmodernism involved o rejection ol overqrching propositions, qn
occeptonceol plurolism ond irogmentqtion, on emphosis on dillerence
ond heterogeneity,ond qn ironic qdmission ol the ephemerolityo{ things.
The emphosis ol postmodernism. then, qs Horvey (1989)qnd others
mqke cleor,is nol oll negotive.In qbqndonirig metqnqrrqtive,postmodern-
ists qllow lor renewed qttenlion to the troditionql qnd to the porticulor
(Rosenqu,1992:6).Postmodernistqrchitects,ior exqmple,hove obondoned
the myth oi endless progress in iqvor ol qn eclecticismthqt, qt its besl,
I A m e l o n q r r o l i v ei s o g l o b o l w o r l d v i e w t h o t q s s u m e st h e v o l i d i t y o f i t s o w n t r u t hc l o i m
( R o s e n o u . 1 9 9 2 :x i ) .
456

5. 1997 Kildull ond Mehro 457
creqtes designs exhibiting o srriking synthesis of dilfeient trqditions.Thus,
lhe orchitect ChqrlesJencks(1989:7)delined the postmodernstyle ss "sn
eclectic mixture ol ony trqditionwith thot of its immediote post,"or more-
generolly, "the combinätionol modern techniques with something-else
(usuolly troditionolbuilding)in order ior orchitectureto communicqtewith
-
the public qnd q concernedminority (usuolly other srchitects)"(1989:l4).'
There sre severql ospects ol this qrchitecturol poslmodernism thot
-we think ore helpiul in redeiining orgonizotionql postmodernism. First,
occording 1o this perspective,postmodernism, compored to modernism,
qims to communicote both lo the concerned minority of technicol experts
in the Iield qnd to the wider populotion ol lhose qllected by the proctice
ol science.We orgue Ior o postmodern orgonizotionol sciencethot exhibits
both q msstery ol troditionol sociol science techniques qnd q relevqnce
to the contemporqry situqtionol orgonizotionol members. As Derridq (1976:
158),Jor exomple. mqkes obundontly cleor, ony interpretotionoi o text
"requires oll the instrumentsol troditionol criticism," Ior "without this
-
recognition ond this respect,criticol production would risk developingin
ony direction ot oll qnd quthorize itsell to soy olmost onylhing." Thot
cqrelul ond rigorous inlerpretotion is compotible with rqdicql postmodern
re-teodings is evidencedby reseorch such qs ]oqn Cqssell's (1996)investi-
gotion ol how the embodimenl oi dilierence oilects the coreers ol
women surgeons.
PostmodernismVersusAntimodernism
We emphosizeo postmodernismthot is, qbove oll, eclecticrqtherthqn
exclusive.Thus, our postmodernistperspective seeks to include qnd use
techniques, insights,methods,ond opprooches irom o voriety ol troditions,
reoching backwqrds, forwqrds, ond sidewoys with little regord lor qco-
demic boundqries or the myth oi progress thqt condemns some lexts qs
old loshioned while procloiming others stote ol the qrt. From this postmod-
ernist perspective,oll stylesqre simultqneously ovoiloble. This postmod-
ernism does not iimit itseli, then, lo semiotic qnd deconstruclivetech-
niques, even though theseopproqches hqve been singled out qs especiolly
uselul "postmodern resesrch methods" (Dickens & Fontqnq, 1994).We
qgree with the Ieminist resesrcher Chqrlene Depner, who orgued ogoinst
the exclusion ol methodstypicolly qssociqted with positivism: "[F]eminist
psychology must implemenl every tool qt its disposol-qnd creole new
ones-rqther thqn reject ony out ol hqnd" (quoted in Reinhqrz, 1992:93).
Shulomit Reinhqrz(1992),in her book on leminist reseqrchmethods,dis-
rAlthough we drsw ideos lrom orchitecture in moking sense ol postmodernism,we
intend neither to downploy the importonce o[ postmodernist ideos in other oreos, such os
ort ond lilerqture, nor to impose o lolse consensus on the iield ol orchitectureconcerning
postmodernism.Poslmodernqrchitectsolten disogree concerning ospectsoipostmodernism.
Thus. Fromplon (1983:l9).Ior exomple,criticizes some o{ Jencks'views on postmodernorchi'
tecture äs promoting "grotuilous imoges" lor o mediq society.

6. Acodemy of Monogement Review April
cusses experimenlol snd survey methods os well os ethnogrqphic, inter-
view. qnd orol history methods.From her perspective,it is how the method
is used thqt delines whether the reseor-chexempliiies leminism.
In postmodern reseorch the gools qre to chollenge the content qnd
{orm oi dominqnt models ol knowledge ond olso.to produce new lorms ol
knowledge lhrough breoking down disciplinory boundqries ond giving
voice to lhose not represented in the dominqnt discourses (Giroux, 1992:
56). We qrgue thot postmodern reseqrchers, in pursuit of revolutionory
chollenges to conventionql wisdom, cqn mix ond mqtch vqrious perspec-
tives or reseorch styles lor qesthetic eflect or in order to contrqsl with
trodition. This ireedom to combine styles ol discourse iollows lrom the
beliel thqt no method gronts privileged qccessto truth qnd thot qll reseqrch
opprooches qre embodied in cuiturol proctice thot postmodernisls seek
to mqke explicit (Smircich & Cqlqs, l9B7)..Themixing qnd mqtching ol
diverse styles helps surloce the culturql proclice w_ithinwhich eoch style
is embedded.
Those postmodernistswho declqre qn qbsolule opposition to modern-
ity, including qn opposition to the ochievements o{ modern science qnd
its methods,risk justilying thedismissol ol postmodörnismos "justqnother
onti-modernintellectuolcurrent"(Hosenqu,1992:159).Rqtherthqn conceiv-
ing ol postmodernismqs qnlimodernism,Jencks(1989:10),qmong others,
hos chompionedq poötmodernismthot involves"the continuotionoi mod-
ernism snd its trqnscendence."This sentimentis embodiedin thepostmod-
ern rebuilding oi the Pqlmer Museum ol Art. When commissioned to re-
ploce on existing modernist qrt museum on the Penn Stqte csmpus,
postmodern qrchitect Chqrles Moore decided to retqin qnd revise, rqther
thqn hide or destroy,the old structure.He extended the modernist cube
horizontollywith q sweeping Romonesqueporticothot rellectedqnd com-
mented on the visible ornqmentqtion oi surroundingbuildings.
Postmodernbuildings employ double coding in thqt they moke use
oi trqdition cnd the lqtest scientilic knowledge ond techniques without
committing to ony dogmotic revivql. Kenneth Frompton (1983:23) dis-
cussed, Ior exomple, the Bogsvqerd church thot employs reinlorced con-
crete (q typicolly modern technique) to creote on ombiguous voult thot
precludes "on exclusively Occidentol or Oiientql reoding ol the code by
which the public qnd socred spoce is constituted."We crrguelor o postmod-
ernism thqt is similorly inlormed by, ond yet ombivolent toword, clossic
stqtements ond techniquesol the Iield in queslion. The intent is not to
venerqle the work ol predecessorsor privilege the techniquesol science;
rqther it is to situqte reseqrch issues in creqtive tension with historicql
qnd scientiliccontexts.We join leminists such qs Corolyn Sheril in toking
issue with Kurt Lewin's cqll ior concerningonself with history only os its
iorcesore "reveqledin the immediqte situqtionst the time oi study"(Sheril,
1979:100).In order both to evoke o trqdition ond lronscenciit requires o
d e t o i l e d I o m i l i o r i t yw i t h t h e c l o s s i cs t q t e m e n t so l t h o t t r q d i t i o n .I t i s t h i s
detoiled Iomiliority thqt ollows the postmodernistto evoke the trqdition
{58

7. I997 Kildull ond Mehro
in qn olten ironic or qmbivqient wqy thqt contrqsts with other eleme-nts
ol the design or project. Postmodernism, then, is, omong other things, o
cqll jor renewed qtlention to the history ol the iield, qnd qn ollirmqtion oi
the relevqnce ol importqnt work regordless ol its plocement in some mythi-
cql modernist progression. Thus, postmodernists both celebrqte,trqdition
ond deny the myth of progress.
POSTMODERNEPISTEMOLOGY
This orticle iocuses on postmodernism os qn intellectuol movement
rqther thon on the possibility oi postmodernity os o stoge in the historicol
development oi copitolist societies (seeHossord, 1994.ond Jomeson,1g84,
ior useiul discussions).Among writers on postmodernism there is consider-
oble skepticism (e.9.,Pqrker, 1993)concerning lhe clqims by some (e.g.,
Clegg, 1990;Vqttimo, 1992)thqt o postmodernitylobel is helplul in under-
stonding societql and orgonizqtionol devel-opments.such os ilexibility,
multiskilling, decentroliz:otion,qnd mqss mediq. Thot orgänizqtions qnd
societies ore moking roäicql chonges in response to competition both
locql ond globol con hordly be denied. but such chonges ore chqrqcteristic
ol copitolist society (Mqr}, I857/1976;Schumpeter, 1947).
More persuosive, perhops, is the possibility thot the signiliconce ol
certoin ospects ol the contemporory world con be reevqluqted lrom q
postmodern perspective.Whether or not the world we live in cqn be repre-
senledos dillering dromoticolly irom the recentpost,postmodernismhigh-
lights neglected ospects oi contemporqry everydoy lile (qs well qs ne-
glected qspects ol historicol life; see Reqdings & Schober, 1993).For
exomple, Boudrillord (1983)drew qttention to the extent to which people
inhqbit simulqted worlds where the distinclion belween reql qnd unreol
is blurred. Models reploce the reql qnd "the boundory between hyperreol-
ity ond everydoy lile is erqsed" (Besl& Kellner, l99l: 120).From this skepti-
col perspective,writing qnd reseorch consists oi systems ol self-signilico-
tion wilh no relevqnce to onylhing outside the text. Whether we ogree
with Boudrillord'snihilistic vision or not, his work is voluqble in olerting
us lo how much ol our experience is structured by representqtions thot in
mqny csses hove no originols. This suggests q reseqrch ogendo iocused
on the processby which signs ond imoges ore produced ond their eiiects on
producers qnd consumers.Thus, semiolics goins importonce qs q reseqrch
method (Gottdiener. 1994).
Postmodernism os sn intellectuql movement qlso colls qttention lo
the morgins ond owoy irom q preoccupolion with some mythicql center.
This ottention to the morgins cqn be qs literql qs on qttention to opporently
unimporlont but reveqling textuol morginolio such qs ocknowledgments
(e.g.,Ben-Ari, lgg5;Derridq; l9B8).But postmodernism qlso opens spoce lor
voices, texts.qnd viewpoints previously neglected or ignored. As Rosenqu
(1992:l68) wrote, postmodernism "locuses on whqt is nonobvioüs, lelt out,
ond generolly iorgotten in q text qnd exqmines whot is unsqid, overlooked,
459

8. . 460 Acodemy ol lvlanogement Review April
understoled, ond never overtly recognized."The stqndord modernist ges-
ture is to locus only on the center ond to ignore the morgins. Thus, Seqrle
(1970:55-56; quoted in Derrido, lg88:68), in describing his speech-qct
theory. wrote, "In the present cose, our onolysis will be directed qt the
center ol the concept oI promising.'l om igmoring morginol, fringe, ond
portiolly de{ective promises." This is qkin to the common stotisticol proc-
tice ol dropping outliers lrom the dotq in order to concentrqte on tlpicol
cqses.But this proctice oI eliminating the perceivedmcrgins {rom discus-
sion moy hove helped promote qnd msinlqin on overly homogenous sociql
science. The postmodern turn coincides with-renewed ottention to third
world, leminist, qnd minority voices in the Acodemy (e.9.,Nkomo, lg92).
Poslmodernism,by bringing hitherto morginolized voices within the scope
oi enquiry, omplifies viewpoints thot hove struggled to be heqrd.
in qttending to the morgins qnd to suppressedvoices,postmodernists
inevitobly struggle ogoinst power{ul enlrenched interests. For exomple,
Derrido's critiques oi philosophy so proloundly chollenged the privileged
posilion ol philosophers thqt lhe President oi the Associqtion for Symbolic
Logic (ond ex-Chqir oi the Americqn Philosophicol Associqtion),Ruth Mqr-
cus, wrote to the French government to try to prevent Derrido's election
to the position ol Director of the Internqtionol College ol Philosophy. In
her lettershe wrote, "To estobish qn 'lnternqtionql
College ol Philosophy'
under Derridq'schorge is somethingoi o jokeor,moreseriously,rqisesthe
questionos to whether the Ministäre d'Etotis the victim of qn intellectuql
Irqud." The letter repeois q newspqper qccusqtionthqt Derrido wss on
"intellectuql terrorist" (lor Iurther detqils see Derridq, 1988.Iootnote 12,
158-159).At Boston University,PresidentSilber declored hjs "resislonce"
to q curiouslist ol opproqches thot includescriticqllegol studies,slructur-
olism, rqdicql leminism, deconstruction.The Fronklurt Schoolof Criticol
Theory,ond dqnce theropy (Flint, 1993).Theseottemptsto stille qcqdemic
enquiries rellecl the perceived threqt postmodernistqnd other criticql
opproochespose to the stotus quo.
in orgonizotionqlreseqrch,work thqtchollengesthe token-lor-gronted
distribution ol power in orgonizotionshos begun to oppeor. For exomple,
Robin Ely (1995)showedhow sex rolessre morestereotypicolond problem-
qtic in lirms with relotively low proportions ol senior women. Her work
exhibits postmodern chqrocteristicsnot just in its focus, but slso in its
methods.Shä odds q set oi vivid stories told in the voices ol the women
themselves to the positivist edilice oi hypothesesond stqtistics.These
women jump irom the poge with brutqlly condid qssessmentsconcerning
power gcrmesin orgonizotions.Ely's quolitotive dqtq ore not just sum-
mqrized qnd seqled within clqssilicqtion borders. They spill iorword
within the context ol the stclndordjournol qrticle to tronsgresspropriety,
to chollenge convention, ond to qrticulote the voices of previously si'
lenced women.
We emphosize, thereiore, lhe importonce ol postmodernism qs qn
epistemology thot redirects ottention to phenomenq in the world. Our

9. I997 Kildull ond t"lehta
locus is on how postmodernepistemologycqn inlorm, enrich, snd direct
reseqrch enquiries concerning orgonizotionol phenomepo. We follow in
the trqdition ol Americon progmotism (e.g., Peirce, lg3l) in osserting
thot there is q reol world thqt cqn be systemoticolly investigoted.We
recognize thot this opporently innocuous ossumption is rejected by
skepticol postmodernistssuch qs Bqudrillord (1983),but, qs Gotldiener
(1994:I70) pointed out, "[M]qny ol us . . . qre convinced ol the moteriolity
ol existence here qnd of the loct thqt sociol spoces ore stoging qreos
ol sociol interqclion." Following Derrido (1988:150-l5l) we orgue thot,
lrom q progmotic perspective,contexls con be considered relotively
stqble snd this relqtive stobility qllows lor coherent interpretotion. At
the sqme time, there is olwoys "o morgin oi ploy, ol diflerence" thot
opens the possibility oi new interpretqtions within the limits oi thä
context (Derrido, 1988:152).We resist. therelore, the skeptics' reduciion
ol oll sociol enquiry to q concern with the shilting ploy o{ signiiiers.
The-moteriol world imposesconstrqintson the multiplicity ol meonings
thqt cqn be ottributed to signiiiers,qnd postmodernjnquiries thot we
believe con oddress sociql contexts,sign systems,ond the interrelstion-
ships between them (Gottdiener,lgg4i.
Postmodernism,os Jencks(1989:50) ond others hove pointed out,
is chorqcterizedby "qn increosingplurolity of beliels."Some modernists
hqve decried whot they see qs-lhedecline of the Acodemy into o bobble
ol cocophony, ond lhere hqve been cqlls lor orgonizstionql studies to
embrqce o consensus lypicol ol more porodigmoticolly well-developed
Iields so thqt we moy gqrner greoter prestige qnd inlluence (see Pfeiier,
1993,Ior on eloquent summory ol these concerns. ond Merton. 1975,ior
on emphotic reiectionol eqrlier colls Ior porodigm consensusin sociol-
ogy). From o postmodern perspective, "consensus hos become qn out-
moded ond suspect vqlue" (Lyotord, lg84:66; see olso McKeon, 1985,
Ior o progmotic perspeclive on the impossibility ol €ven o temporory
porodigm consensus in philosophy). From o postmodern perspective,
cqlls lor devotion to porodigmotic unity ore perilous, becouse they tend
to remove sociql science lrom the concerns oi proctitioners, including
workers ond mqnogers, ond becquse lhe devotion to porodigmolic
unity reduces lhe obility to criticolly combine diverse opprooches. The
modernist devotion to o grond nqrrqtive ol progress is understqndqble
os nostolgiq lor s hypothesis-testinglogico-deductive post in which the
direction ol scientiiic reseqrch wqs conlrolled by qn elite. But such o
post hos never, in loct, existed in the sociql sciences.The postmodernist
emphosis on porodox, irony, eclecticism,ond plurolism is iully evident
in the work oi such (post)-modernmssters qs Leon Festinger in psychol-
ogy ond Erving Golimqn in sociology. Festinger brought the principle
ol counterintuitive experimenlqlismto its brillisnt qpogee,qnd Golfmqn
deconstructed even the most mundqne sociql situqtions into- clilqirs ol
drqms ond desperqtion. From q postmodernist perspective, there is no
reqson to limit enguiry to o Iew poths mqrked out by ony one porticulor
461

10. Academy o[ Monogemen! Review April
elite, qnd it is undesirsble ior reseqrchers to pursue the obvious qt the
expense ol the unusuql.
FTE POSTMODE^RNPROBLEMATICS
A quick glonce qt the leoding journols in the orgonizotionol sciences
conlirms thot explicitly postmodern reseqrch hos begun to oppeor (e.g.,
Boje, 1995;Kildulf, 1993;Mqrtin, 1990),but there is relotivöly little overt
discussion oi why qnd how such reseqrch is dilierent from other qrticles
oppeoring in the sqme journols. Those pursuing postmodernenquiry strug-
gle with o number ol problemotics thqt qre either ignored or suppressed
in much oi the empiricol work in our lield. We see evidence ol empiricists
in orgonizotionql studies turning their bocks on these problemotics in
pursuit ol coniormity to "normol science" (".g.,Donoldson, 1996),even os
reseorchersin other Iields, including occounting (e.g.,Anington & Froncis,
l9B9)qnd economics(e.9.,Covoleski, Dirsmith. & Sqmuel.in press).borrow
irom postmodernism lo tronslorm enquiry. In the Iollowing section, the
intent is to delineqte'thoseepistemologicol crises thqt seem to us to be
porticulorly relevont to the reseqrch engqgement with events ond proc-
ticesin theworld.We iollow this rother obstrqctdiscussionol problemotics
with speciiic exomples ol reseqrch thqt illustrqte qnd expond on our post-
modern perspective.
Problemqlizi.,gNormot Science:The Revolutionory.stonce
We hqveolrody m-entionedthot postmodernistsrejectmetonqrrqtives,
qnd this trqnslotesinto q distrust ol grond theoriesol oll kinds. The move
owoy irom grond theorizing wos signoled in sociology by Merton (1957:
9),who pointed to the relqtive poverty oi work derived lrom ony "mqster
concepluol scheme" erndcolled ior the development oi theories ol the
middle ronge-thot isitheories "opplicoble to limited rongesoi dqtq." But
this commitmenl lo progroms ol reseqrch derived lrom either grond or
middle-rqngetheoriesis questioned by postmodernistswho dispute the
imporlonce thqt Kuhn (1962)gronted to whqt he cqlled "normql science."
Kuhn cloimed thqt the vqst molority ol scientistsmostly worked on
puzzlesolving within occepted snd unchollenged theoreticql {rqmes.This
wqs not just o descriptiveqccount:qs Kuhn (1970)himsell mode cleqr, the
scientist'scommitment lo puzzle solving rqther thon innovqtive thinking
is o normotive stonce.This is whot Kuhn believed scientistsshould be
doing (ci. Feyerobend, 1970).
But Kuhn'sview is disputed by mony philosophersol science,includ-
ing Popper(1970:53),for whom puzzle-solvingscienceis dongerous both
to science cnd to civilizotion becquse it involves the qbqndonment ol
criticql thinking.According to Popper(1970:55),scientistsqre revolutionqr-
ies notpuzzlesolvers.Problernscontinuolly provokescientis[sto criticolly
reopproiseexistingtheoreticqlopprooches.Thework o{ scientistsinvolves
not routine puzzle solving but "bold conjectures,controlledby criticism"

11. I997 Kildull ond Mehro 453
(Popper, 1970:55).Further, Popper dismisses os "dongerou_sdogms" the
view thqt scientistsore unqble to shiit between competing porodigms (ci.
Stoblein, 1996;Weover & Gioiq, l994),5
Although P-opper'sviews con hordly_be described os postmodern, his
emphosis on the revolutionqry slonce ol the scientist toword existing
porodigms qnd his orgument thot scientists con move (olbeit with dilii-
culty) between porodigms. depending on the demqnds ol the problem
under investigotion, ore consislent with our postmodern epistemology.
Controry to Kuhn's insistence thqt science should subject itseli to long
periods o{ routine puzzle solving within lhe lrqmework ol o dominqnt
theory, postmodernisls chompion the simultqneous ovqilobility ol msny
diilerenl theoreticql positions,ond the importonce of on ever-presenlcriti-
cql discussion oi underlying ossumptions. As Drews (1987:36)mqde cleor,
this postmodern vigilonce with respect to philosophicql lrqmes ol re{er-
ence is provoked qnd oided by investigotions o{ phenomeno by scientists.
Thus, postmodernists reluse to privilege middle-ronge norrctives over
grond nqrrqlives becsuse they reject the hegemony ol ony porticulor nor-
rqtive irrespective ol its ronge.
Problemotizing Truth: The Importqnce of Fiction
Nietzscheobserved thol "truths qre illusions ol which one hos iorgot-
ten thqt theyore illusions''(1973/1995:92).From thisperspective,the pursuit
oi truth becomes deeply problemotic qs o gool oi sociql science beCouse
whqt countsqs lruth is not iixed.but derives in port lrom sociolconventions
thqt cqn dilier qmong contexts ond longuoge gqmes. Certointy is only
possible within the boundqries ol o porticulor longuoge gqme (Witt-
genstein, 1958:224l.,ond postmodernists hobituolly breok down such
boundqries.Truth is not something thot inheres in nqture; it is rooted in
conventions iqbricqted by humons (Nietzsche,1873/1995).Eoch linguistic
community, qnd even eqch individuql, con potentiolly perceive the truth
qbout the world dillerently.
Whot moy be most importont. therelore. in understqnding humqn be-
hqvior moy be the perceptionsond judgments thot shope the world through
sell-iuliilling prophecies ond enqctment processes(cl. Weick. 1995:55-61).
To understond the creqted world-thot is, the world thot humqns hove
tNote thot much ol the existing work in orgonizotionol postmodernism ossumes thot
postmodernism is incommensuroble vzith modernism. ln pcrticulcr, the series oIexplonotory
orlicles by Cooper ond Burrell (Burrell, 1988,l99a; Cooper, l9B8;Cooper & Burrell. 1988)toke
the view thot modernism ond postmodernism ore "two rodicolly dillerent syslems ol thought
ond logic" thot "moy be lundqmentolly irreconciloble" (Cooper & Burrell. 1988:ll0). This
incommensurobility perspectivewould oppeqr to rule out the possibility ol o creolive post-
modern engogement with reseorch thot we outline in this poper, leoving room only lor
whol Cooper ond Burrell refer lo os "orgonizotionol onolysis," on ongoing critigue ol the
ossumptions, implicolions, ond dongers ol bureoucrocy (see Burrell, 1996,tor lurther elobo-
rq tion).

12. Acodemy of Managemen! Review April
creoted qnd to which they respond-scientists moy hqve to strive to under-
stsnd the Jictionsthot people perceive ond enqct. To occept thot there is
q world lo which people respond is not the some os soying thot we oli
qgree on how this world should be represented,or thqt there is, in lqct,
ony universolly ogreed on representotion.
Indeed. the postmodern emphosis on the importonce ol individuol
perceptions in the creqtion ol shqred sociol worlds suggests increqsed
resesrch ottention to how individuols mqke senseol experience ond con-
struct qnd mqintqin sociol worlds, ond how sociql constructions lqke on
the oppeoronce ol certointy. Within the orgonizqtionql studies communi(y,
mqny reseqrchersqre now pursuing topics in the qreq ol sense moking
(see Weick, 1995,Ior q review). Some oi this work qppeqrs strikingly post-
modern in its qttention to the detsil ol o specilic cqse, in its creotive use
ol unusuql evidence,in its emphosis on the importonce oi norrqtive qnd
text,qnd in its contribution of new conceptsbqsed on iniormed speculotion
(seeWeick, 1993,ior one exqmple, snd Vqn Moonen, 1995,ior qn insightiul
commenlory).
ProblemqtizingRepresentqtion:The ObjeclIs Subjective
The question ol occurote representotion ol the world hqs become o
mojor issue within postmodern discourse,porticulorly within onthropol-
ogy (see, e.g., Clillord & Mqrcus, 1986).The postmodern position goes
beyond the cloim thot ethnogrophy is s iorm ol writing qnd is, therelore,
subject to literory interpreto(ion.Rother, postmodernistsseek to under-
mine qll clqims to methodologicolpurity: Ior postmodernists,lhere is no
methodologycopoble ol ochieving on unmedioted,objectiverepresenlo-
tion ol the Jqcts.Insteqd oi trying lo erqse oll personol trqces ol the re-
seqrcher lrom the work so os lo provide the reqder with qn illusion of
unmediqted qccessto the subject,postmodernistsseek to demystily the
lechnology oi mediotion by explicitly detoiling the involvement o{ the
reseqrcher.Wheno writer invokes o methodologywith its ponoply o{ os-
sumptions,volue judgmenls, qnd exceptions,this invocqtion is in port o
rhetoricqlottempt lo persuode the reoder oi the scientiiicouthenticity oi
the document (Golden-Biddle & Locke, 1993).The donger is thot q concern
Ior method cqn overwhelm q concern lor relevqnce, surprise, chollenge,
ond discovery. The oppeqrqnce oi objectivity in scientilic texts is then
misleoding, becquse science does not hold o mirror up to noture (ci.Rorty,
1979).Rolher,scientilicwork tokes ploce in contextsol interpretotionin-
volving rhetoricqiconventionsond token-ior-grqntedossumptions.
.ProblemqtizingWriting: Style Motters
II scienceis portly q rhetoricol productionoverwhelmingly expressed
in writing in which textuql elements such qs the title,qcknowledgements.
tqbles, Iigures,heodings, qnd relerenceswork together to structureond
enliven the body oi lhe text,then style becomesimportont.Posimodernists
reluse to exempt ony text irom rhetoricql exqminqlion, no mqtter how

13. I oa? Kildull ond Mehro
objectivesounding,no mqtter how.mqtter-of-loctthe text moy oppeor to
be. All texts representq series ol choices concerning how orguments
should be presented,qnd these choices ore embodied in the text.
From o postmodern perspective, scienti{ic texts ore not immune lrom
oesthetic considerotions.Persuosive lexts qlso ore ortistic constructions
(Von Moonen, i995).This hqs long been occepted in the hqrd sciences
where equqtions qnd results ore judged on criteriq thot include elegonce
ond porsimony. In the sociql sciences,similorly, reseqrcherswho produce
oestheticqlly pleosing texts goin inlluence becouse their insights compel
qttention. A surprising exomple irom the modernist literqture is the origi-
nol work introducing orgoniZotionol ecology to the sociql science commu-
nity, ochieving high levels oi ortiul crofting in lerms ol nqrrqtive construc-
lion, themqticunity, ond compelling intuitions (Hqnnqn & Freemqn, 1977,
1984).The style ol expression (where by style we re{er to the rhetoiicol
commqnd ol syntox,Iogic,exomple.ond slructure)helped ensure the sud-
den disseminqtion lo orgonizotionql sgholors oi ideqs lrom populotion
biology (e.g.,Levins, 1968)qnd community ecologV (Howley, 1950).Their
expression in this porticulor style mode qvoiloble "qn entire bottery oi
new conceptsqnd longuoge ior describ_ingorgonizotions qnd their e-nvi-
ronmenls" (Dqvis & Powell, 1992:343).Cronbqch (1986:97)mqde q similqr
point concerning Murroy's list ol psychologicol needs ond presses:"Mur-
roy olfered,not o set oi propositionsintended to disploce oll competitors,
but on qlternqtive vocobulory ior tolking qbout persons,incentives,qnd
grotilicotions."Whqt is importont to nole is the impoct such oestheticolly
compelling work qchievesirrespectiveoi the vqlue ol the empiricol work
it inspires.Thus, the work ol Ksrl Weick compels ottention not becquse it
ollers testqblehypothesesIor teoms ol groduote students,but becquse ol
its distinctiveqnd persuosivestyle (Von Moonen, 1995).
Problemqtizing Generolizobility: The Advonce ol lgnoronce
From q postmodernperspective,the oim ol sociol science is not gener-
olizobility. Postmodernistsogree with Giddens (1984:xix) thot "the uncov-
ering ol generolizotionsis not the be-oll ond the end-oil ol sociql theory,"
qnd with Cronbqch (1982:?0-71)thot "generol, losting delinite
'lqws'qre
in principle beyond the reoch oi sociql science . . . . sheer empiricol gener-
olizstion is doomed qs q reseorch strotegy." There sre mqny reosons
Ior the crisis ol generolizobility in the sociol sciences, such qs (o) the
impossibility oi isoloting oll the possible contingencies thot cqn oliect
outcomes, (b) the historicolly situqted nqture ol sociql science reseqrch,
qnd (c) the eqse with which reseqrch results qre tronsloted into policy
recommendqtions or disseminqted to lhe potentiol subjects ol reseqrch
(thus rqdicqlly oltering the possibilities oI replicotion). il sociol science is
not in the busiiess ol producing lows oi behqvior, then whot is its purpose?
Some postmodernists might be tempted to onswer in terms ol the
pleosure ol lhe text:sociol science is vqluqble to the extent thoi it provokes
interestsnd excitementomong proctitionersqnd reqders.But qn qctivist

14. 466 Acodemy ol Moncgemen! Review April
postmodernism requires more thqn this. Giroux (1992:l!) wrote ol teqchers
qs trqnsiormotive intellectuols skilled in strotegies lor putting ideqs into
proctice. This is very dilierent lrom the modernist ideol ol the ivory tower
. intellectuol uninterested in the procticol implicotions oi resesrch. Post-
modernists occept the double hermeneutic by which the humqn sciences
ollect the very phenomeno (humqns ond their worlds) thot qre the Joci ol
study. The quest, then, is not to impose q series ol lqws on these iniinitely
chongeoble phenomeno, but to strive to shope public policies (qs Derrido
hqs done,Ior exomple, in compcigning to preservethe teoching ol philoso-
phy in French high schools) ond, qbove oll, to pose new- questions. As
Cronbqch (1986:9l) stoted,"Sociol science is cumulqtive, not in possessing
ever-more relined qnswers obout lixed questions, but in possessing qn
ever-richerrepertoireol questions." From this perspective,one ol the most
interesting porodoxes ol science is thqt progress is deeply problemotic,
becquse.qs Kuhn pointed out, the exponsion ol knowledge is qccomponied
,
Ot *" exponsion oi ignoronee:
Thoughthebulk ol scientilicknowledgecleorlyincreoseswith
time,whotorewe tosoyoboutignoronce?Theproblemssolved
duringthe lost thirly yeorsdid n-otexistqs openquestionso
cenluryogo.In ony oge,the scientiiicknowledgeolreodyot
hondvirtuollyexhoustswhot thereis to know,leovingvisible
puzzlesonly ot the horizonoi existing knowledge.Is it not
possible,or perhopsevenlikely,thot contempororyscientists
knowlessoi whot thereis to knorvsbout theirworldthqn the
scientistsol the lSthcenturyknewol lheirs?(1970:20)
The ideq ol progress in science is o myth, therefore,in the sense thqt the
more we know, lhe more we reolize we don't know. We progress towqrd
ever greoler knowledge ol our own ignoronce.
SUGGESTIONSFOR AND EXAMPLES OF POSTMODERNISTRESEARCH
Awqreness ol postmodein problemotics moy result in reseorch thot
tokes qccountol some or qll ol the issues we hqve rqised.Those who tqke
o postmodernstqnce moy strive lor the revolutionqry overthrow ol existing
token-Ior-grqntedossumptionsrqther thqn working to methodicollyIill in
the blonks in existing reseorch progrqms. An qctivist postmodern stqnce
chollenges conventionql -wisdom ond tronsgresses estqblished bound-
ories with bold conjecturesqnd innovstive methods.Fleseqrchersworking
irom q postmodernperspectivemoy limit themselvesto the detoiled exqm-
inotion oi oneor o iew cosesrqther thon trying to gengrolizeover hundreds
ol cqses.The postmodernprelerence is lor detqiled understondingoi the
porticulor, Ior locql knowledge ond locql times,os opposed to stqtisticql
trends.in presentingevidence to support conclusions,thoseworking irom
o postmodernposition tend to provide qs much vivid immediote detoil
to the reqder os possible. Stqndqrd stqtisticsqre not enough to provide
quthenticity to the reseqrch report. The resesrcher moy shqre not just

15. 1997 Kildul! and Mehto 46?
summcrriesol evidence-}ut the sctuql evidence itseli, such qs lelters,
photos, detoiled conversqtions,qnd q discussion oi the reseqrcher'sown
inluitions. Reseorchersodopting postmodernism tend to poy greol otten-
tion to the writing processitsell. This meqns striving to involve the reqder
in the lexl, eschewing possive objectivity Ior sn qctive outhoriol voice,
ond cqrelully crolting qn qestheticolly pleosing norrotive.
We olso qssert thot postmodernist reseqrch does not hqve to reject
the modernist legocy; rother, this legocy is qvqiloble lo_rselective use.
Postmodernists in the sociql sciences hqve tended to pick on positivism
qs somehow represenlotive oi modernism qnd, therelore,qs the .tro* -on
ogoinst which their own work cqn be judged (e.g.,Agger, lggl). But ottocks
on positivism qre qt leqst o century old. john Stuqrt Mill (1865/1955)com-
ploined in 1865thot "though the mode oi thought expressed by the terms
posilive ond posilivism is widely spreod, the words lhemselves qre, qs
-usuol, better known through the enemies ol thot mode ol thinking thon
through its lriends" (guoted in Roscoe. 19'95:492).From our postmodern
perspective, the hypothetico-deductive method ond the preierence ior
quontitotive onolysis chorqcteristicol positivist reseqrch ore elements
ovqilqble lo the reseqrcher,to be combined, possibly,with otherelements
such qs ethnogrophy, biogrophy, textuol deconstruction,qnd semiotic in-
lerpretolion.The plocementol hypothesesin q text,Ior exomple,does not
necessorily signol the reseqrchers'commitment to o priori predictions.
Hypothesesqre.rhetoricqldevices thst cqn be used os helplul summqries
ol theory qnd os guide posts ior the reqder.
We reiuse, therelore, to rule out ony method or qpprooch irom the
postmodernist'srepertoire.We intend to go beyond duqlities such ss mod-
ernist/ontimodernist,or positivist/ontipositivist.We chompion thesimulto-
neous ovoilobility ol opporently incongruous reseqrchmethods including
loborotory experiments, deconstruction, ethnogrophy, ond sophisticoted
stotisticol onolyses. As on indicotion of the ronge oi reseorch lhot we
think exhibits elements ol postmodernism, we decided lo comment on
some exqmples ol reseqrch. Our intent is not to privilege some work os
cqnonicql, but to give the reoder confidence to pursue reseorch lrom q
voriety ol styles.We included work thot responds creqtively to postmodern
problemotics irrespectiveol whether the oulhors identilied themselvesqs
postmodernists (ci. Monning. 1995).The intent is to widen rqther thon
norrow the possibilities qvqilqble lrom o postmodern perspective. Dis-
cussing octuol exomples ol reseorch qlso qlJows us to comment on mony
ieqlures ol postmodern writing thst develop lrom engqgement with episte-
mologicol questions. II postmodernism is impossible to summqrize, be-
cquse its mqniiestqtions qre so multilqrious, one woy to convey the excite-
ment ol this opprooch is to point to speciiic exomples.
In moking senseoi postmodernism'sreievonce,we continue to drqw '
inspirotion irom postmodernqrchitects who combine postmodelrnisttheory
ond proctice.Architectshove not only engoged in criticql debqtesconcern-
ing postmodernism (Frompton, I983;Jencks, 1987;Kroll, 1987;Porioghesi,

16. Acodemy ol Monogement Beview April
l9B2),they hove qlso construcled buildings where people live, work. qnd
ploy. Indeed,mony university cqmpusesin the United Stotes now incorpo-
rote exomples ol postmodernist qrchitecture (exomples include Kresge
College, qt the University ol Coliiorniq ot Sqntq Cruz, qnd the Pqlmer
Museum ot Penn Slote).We look to the lield ol qrchitecture,then, Ior clues
qs to whqt on oppiied postmodernism ol orgonizotions might look like.
Architects not only lheorize obout poslmodernism, they olso practice it.
We orgue thol orgonizqlionql_reseqrcherscqn qlso put postmodernism
into reseqrchproctice.
Decorote the Spoce:Reviving the Clossics
From our postmodern perspective,the tosks ol problemotizing normql
science qnd undermining metonorrqlives ore oided by detoiled knowl-
edge ol the clossics ol the iield. In mqny cqses, postmodernists mqde
their most cudocious stqtements in lhe conlexl ol the reigning clqssic
stqtementsthqt qre customorily token Jorgronled by the scholorly commu-
nity. Thus, in the Iield oi qrchitecture, the qddilion ol gloss pyromids to
the Louvrein Pqris drqws qttention toqrchitecturqldetoil thqt otherwise
might poss unnoliced,ond sets up q clqshol stylesthqt qwqkens qttention
lo controstingtroditions.Similorly, IocguesDerridoestqblishedhis repu-
tqtion through q series ol cqrelul deconstructions ol clqssic works. For
exomple,he critiquedSqussure's(1966)ossumptionsconcerningthe corre-
spondencebet-weensigniiiers ond signilieds,thus rodicolly undermining
the whole structurqlistenterprise,which,ot the time,wqs dominqnt qcross
the sociol sciences(Derrido, 1976).
In the.orgonizqtionqlstudiesliterolure,suchdeconstructionsoi estqb-
lished cqnonicql works qre rqre but in demond (Von Moonen, 1988).Never-
theless,work thot exhibits the postmodernistquolities ol communicqtive
relevqnce,evocqtionqnd trqnsmutqtionol trodition.stote-ol-the-qrtmeth-
odologicol finesse,qnd on explicit invi tqtion to the reqder to porticipote
in the reseorch odventure ore to be !ör.rnd.One exomple is token lrom
sociology, where interest in postmodernist enquiry is growing (e.g.,
Fuchs & Wqrd. 1994).
Burt's(1987)reonolysisol the clqssicColemon.Kqtz.qnd Menzel (1966)
qccounl oi the dillusion ol the qntibiotic tetrocyclineqmong Midwestern
physicions is one exomple oi reseqrch thqt exhibits some postmodern
chqrqcteristicswithout ony explicit clqim to o postmodernistlobel. Burt's
work is, in mony wqys, q recussitqtion ol the originol. He literqlly rescued
the dotq lrom destructionby recoveringthe qncient wqter-dqmoged doto
cords lrom o moldy worehouse, qnd he mode these doto ovqilqble to
everyoneinterestedin investigoting the storiespresentedby the originol
outhors qnd himseli. Thus, the project is leit un/jnished in o typicolly
postmodernislgestureol inclusion oi the oudience.Burt,in reconstructing
the originol dqto, qnd in ol{ering (in q footnoteto his orticle) to provide
the dqtq on disk to the reqder oi his rqdicql reonolysis,brought ihe reqder
into the projecto1 science rother thon insisting on q rigid demqrcqtion
belween scientistond qudience.
468

17. Kildull ond Mehro
Burt both invoked the originol work, proising it lor the high quority
oi the dots, qnd undermined the work by showing thot the originol explo-
nqtion lor diliusion could not be sustqined. The originol work suggested
thot physicions relied o., conuersqtions with colleogues in deciding
whether or not to odopt s new drug. According to Burt's onolysis, physi-
ciqns relied, not on collegiol conversqtions, but on their perceptions o{
the sctions Proper to occuponts oi their positions in the socisl structure
ol coileogues.
Physicions, occording to this view, odopted the innovotive drug in
order to goin odvontoge over rivqls. Competition qmong structurol equivo-
lents-thqt is, omong rivqls who could substitute ior eqch other in the
sociql system-helps exploin the diliusion ol innovqtions. In presenting
his own explonotion lor dii{usion. premised on structurol equivolence
rother thon on cohesion qmong discussion portners, Burt used the tools
ol the typicolly moderniststructurqlopprooch. Fqr lrom hoving to rituolly
reject modernist qdvqnces in technology, postmodernists cqn use such
qdvqnces Jor their own ends.
In lhe cqse ol Burt's qrticle, the structurql onolysis progrctmswere
used lo qdvonce on ogendo thot wqs cleorly importont to Burt. There is
no pretense in the qrticle thqt the ariolysis hos been periormed simply in
the serviceol science.As o possionqlestqtementoi odvococyior o porticu-
lor perspective,Burl'swork succeedsin communicoting the excitementoi
personol discoveiy rqther thon the dullness ol objective onolysis.
At the some time, reqders ore invited to onolyze the work lrom their
own perspEctives;thus, the piece serves to ignite discourse rqther thqn
to complete the seqrchior truth.Note thot Burt did more thqn tqkeo clqssic
dqto set qnd reqnqlyze it os o methodologicol or conceptuql exercise
(qs he does elsewhere;see, Ior exomple, Burt, 1976).Rqther,he rodicolly
chollenged not only the occepted interpretotion ol one ol the clqssics in
the lield, hä qlso overturned our lqith in whst hqd come to be the occepted
explonolion lor sociol inlluence. Thus, the dqto reonolysis is powerlully
tied to q revoiutionory undermining ol ossumplions thqt go ior beyond
the porliculqr dqtq set in.question.By choosing o cononicql dotq set to
deconstruct, ond by oliering everyone the opportunity to conlirm his cri-
tique, Burl.succeeded,like Derrido, in choilenging the occepted proctice
n { a - a r r i r u
Celebrote th" Lo"ol
One ol the mojor reqsons lor postmodernist qrchitects'disen-
chqntment with the modernist style of Le Corbusier, Mies Von der Rohe,
qnd their ossociqtes wos lhe perceived iqilure o{ the "mqchine-for-living"
ethos. The giont housing projects.Ior exompie, thot disligure the cities of
the world qppeqr, from q postmodernist perspective, to lock ony connection
to clqssicql ideqls oi hormony with surroundings. Brutslist orchitecture
oJtenviolotes the colloquiol grommsr o{ surrounding buildings ond lond-
I AA?
469

18. Acodemy o( Monagement Eeview April
Kenneth Frompton (1983:l7)wrote ol modernizqtion'soptimum use oi
eqrth-moving equipment to creqte Ilot sites thqt qre the prerequisites
lor "the victory o{ universol civilizotion over locolly inllected culture."
Pöstmodernist orchitecturelby contrqst, seeks to both commenl upon, ond
integrote within, such leqtures oI the environment thot promote q sense
oi continuity with the locol post. For example, the poslmodem develop-
ment ol Frqnklin Court, Philodelphiq, Ieqtures Benjomin Frqnklin's house
"ghosted" in stoinless steel qbove his presewed memorcrbilicrond soyings
on ploques 0encks, lgSg:l4).This ourdoor museum ond public spqceoito*t
people to move through the qreq while goining qn immediqte understqnd-
ing ol the historicol signiliconce ol the spoce. The qrchitecture serves to
promote q connection to surrounding buildings ond the locql post. Other
postmodern buiidings tqke qdvqntoge oi locol lopogrophy to creote idio-
syncrotic cross-culturolchollenges lo occeptedconventionsusing modern-
istic lechniques (Frompton, l9B3:22-23).
In the sociql sciences.the coll lor increqsed qttention to locsl knowl-
edge hos been sounded most cleorly in onthropology (seeCliiiord & Mqr-
cus, l986; Geertz, l9B3).The modernist ospirotion to "drqw pure structure
Irom its culture-specificsccretions" (Bqrkun, lg68:33)hqs been decried by
Geertz (1983:182)"os q proposql lor q perverse sort of olchemy to turn
gold into leod." Within orgonizotionol studies,the movementowoy lrom
moss survey reseorch on dozensof empiricolly derived vqriqbles (o move-
menl signoled, Ior exomple, by Storbuck's[1981]devostotingcritique ol
lhe Aston studies)hos been iiercely resisted by those who deline sociql
science os consistingol only this kind of work (see,e.g.,Donoldson,1995).
Nevertheless,detqiled ethnogrophicwork wilhin conilictedond locolized
orgonizotionol settings hos begun to oppeor.
A book thot providesq detoiled ethnogrophicexqminotionol the con-
iiicted orgonizotionol production ol the seli is Kondo's (1990)occount oi
identity tronslormqtionin Tokyo sociql settings.In this work Kondo con-
vincingly outhenticqtedthe postmodernemphosis on the lluidity ol iden-
tity. She showed how her ow'n identity os o Joponese-Americqnwomon
wqs reconiigured in o voriety ol contexts including the joponese home
ond workploce (o smoll Tokyo condy mqnulqcturer).Kondo'ssuccess(qnd
consternolion)in mostering the vqrious gendered identitiesovqilqble to
young women in Japon provoked on intense interest in how identity "is
negotioted, open, shilting, ombiguous, the result ol culturolly ovoiloble
meonings ond the open-ended,power-loden enoclmentsoi those meqn-
ings in everydoy situotions" (Kondo, 1990:24).Her work is postmodern in o
very explicit woy: she showed how textsond selvesqre croltedproductions
within very specilic sociql contexts.Fiction, there[ore,opplies not just to
the world outside the sell. but olso to the constitutionol the seli.
A recentexomple oi how to qchieve o degreeol quthenticlocol repre-
s e n t o t i o nw i t h i n t h e l i m i t s o l o j o u r n o l q r t i c l ei s C q s s e l l ' s( 1 9 9 6 : 4 1 ) e x q m i -
nqtion ol how women surgeons embodied themselvesin q cqreer domi-
noted by "oggressive.mqcho mole peers."Cossell qvoided the reduction
470

19. 1997 KildullondMehrq 471
oi mole/lemole diilerences to either biology or q Sociql constructionist
plosticity. She sought on explonotion ol the coreerpotlerns ond experi-
-encesol lemole surgeons without limiting herseli to the orguments thol
(q) humons ore biologicolly divided into lwo sexes,qnd qll else iollows,
or (b) gender diilerences qre creoted by sociolizqtionprocesses.She drew
on Bourdieu's(1977)conceptoi hobjlus to illuminqte why some mqle sur-
geons reqcted with viscerol misoErynyto the presenceol lemole surgeons
in operoting rooms, why the lemqle surgeons tended to hqve Cqtholic
bockgrounds, qnd why subordinote women nurses sometimes reocted vi-
ciously to iemqle surgeons'chollengesto the embodied sociol order.
Cassell ploced o strong ernphosis on underslsnding the personol.
embodied experience ol the 33 women she studied. She tried to bqlqnce
representotiveness ond diversity. A comprehensive sompling ot the iirst
sile wos lollowed by the strolegyol mqximizing thediversityoi the somple
in the lour remqining sites: "If I leqrned ol q surgeon-who wqs Africqn-
Americqn or Orthodox Jewish,or one in o speciolty I hod not yet observed.
or in q porticulorly interesting personol or prolessionol situqtion, I tried
to study her" (Cqssell, 1996:47).Cqssell speculoted olout the possible
importonce lor lemqle surgeons of the Cqtholic iobitus ol the nun, who
is "permitled to obtqin higher educotion, to intimidqte ond discipline
moles,ond to leqd,in theserviceoi humonity" (Cossell,1996:48).According
to Cqssell, no correspondinghobilus is qvqilqble lor Jewishwomen dis-
senlers, eoch ol whom must "poinfully deiine hersell.on on individuol
level, ss q rebel ogoinst qn embodied set oi strucluring principles ond
common schemes ol perception ond conception" (Cossell, lg96:49).
Cqssell, qs quthor, wos quite irqnk qbout the possibility thot she
might be "projecting upon the surgeons my own personol reqctions to the
choices they must moke snd thot my ieeling oi utter viscerql certointy
qbout this onolysis soys more obout me thon obout lhe women surgeons"
(Cqsseli, 1996:51).Her work is postmodern in possessingpersonolcertointy
qnd conviction, but eschewing dogmotic clqims to verity. Cqssell's work
qlso underploys lhe rhetoricql imporlonce oi methodologicol rigor, seeks
on explonqtion oi dillerence beyond simple gender or biologicol dichoto-
mies, gives voice lo undetrepresented norrqlives, ond ottempts qn qmbi-
tious resolution to the problem ol generolizing lrom her somple. She or-
gued thot the concept ol äobilus "qllows lor iine-groined discriminqtions
without socrilicing the obility lo generolize" (Cqssell,1996:47).Bourdieu's
(1977)conceptis o sensitizingdevicethot permitsthe elucidotionoi diller-
ences without the resort to either grond theory or reductionistdichotomies.
Cqssell's work is port ol the ieminist chollenge to the moster nqrrq-
tives ol modern mqn. Feminist postmodernism is politicol in its chollenge
to the stotus quo in pctriorchicol sociely, qnd ot the sqme lime ollers qn
epistemologicol crit.ique oi existing proctices of representqtion (Foster,
1983:xiii). As Owens (1983:59)hos pointed out, postmodernislsseek not
to trqnscendrepresentqtionbut "to exposethotsystemoi power thqtqutho-
rizes .certoinrepresentotionswhile blocking, prohibiting or involidoting

20. t 1 a
Academy ol Monogement Beview April
others." Feminist postmodern reseorchers seek to represent womei qs
subiects rother thon objects qnd to give voice to the nqrrqtives ol those
who violote -whst Cqssell (1996:46) reierred to ss the "principles ol the
incsrnqte sociol order."
Mix ond Mqtch: The Eclectic Approoch
Postmodernqrchitecture ochieves much ol its stunning visuql impoct
through on explicit eclecticism thot cqrelully combines clqssicql styles
irom q voriety ol dilierent periods ond troditions with o Pop-icon humor
designed to oppeol to qnd rellect on the contemporory scene.For exomple,
the AT&T Heodquorters building designed by Philip Johnson ond Philip
Burgee Jeqluresq cqthedrol-like bose thot incorporoleseclectic relerences
to both the itqliqn Renqissqnce qnd Egyption sqcred buildings: 37 stories
ol pink gronite snd s S0-lootsplit pediment "with gently upturned eors,
q chqrqcteristic eighteerrth century gesturä ol reiinement" flencks, l9B7:
231).This most iqmous öl postmodern buildings succeeds in opening up
q discourse"with its neighbors, the post. ond the grid ol New York" fiencks,
iggZ:ZgA).At the sqme time. the building retoins o typicol sense ol post-
modern humor: mechqnicql equipment hidden behind the split pediment
blows out clouds ol vopor "when the temperqture is right" (Jencks.1987:
t Q t
This porticulor combinqtion ol humor, historicql scholorship, ond
ecleclic borrowing is rqre in the sociqi sciences,but hos been mostered
by RobertMerton (1965)in trocing the source oi the ophorism, "li I hqve
seen lurther,it is by stonding on the shouldersol gionts,"ond in his more
recent orticle (1995)exqmining the portiol citqtion phenomenon.Merton
hqd qttributed the so-cqlled Thomos theorem ("li men deline situqtions
qs reql, they ore reql in lheir consequences") to W. I. Thomqs in severql
previous publicotionsdespite the loct thqt the theorem oppeored in the
l92B book written by both W. i. Thomqs qnd Dorothy Swqine Thomqs.
Mertonhod previouslyexploined in iootnotesthqtDorothySwqine Thomqs
hersell hqd coniirmed to him thqt this lheorem wqs formuloted by
W. I. qlone. Nevertheless,he lound himsell conlrontedby on occusqtion
ol institutionqlizedsexism in ottributing the theorem solely to the mole
suthor o{ the book in which it oppeored.His previouslootnotesexploining
the ottribution hqd no discernible eJIect.
In whqt woy is Merton'sorticle cloriiying the quthorshipol the Thomqs
lheorem postmodern?First, the style ol the orticle "deports irom the tidy
iormot thot hos come lo be prescribed ior the scientilic poper" (Merton,
I995:379).Merton relerred to the qrticle qs "this discursive composite of
qrchivol documents,"but this lqils to copture the ölqn with which he
weqves textuqlirogments,Ietters,qnd observqtionstogetherin pursuit oi
the biogrophy ol o sociologicol ideo.
The mystery os to whether W. i. qctuqlly wos responsible for the
theoremis solvedeorly in the orticle in qn extendedlootnote.But o power-
iul norrqtive tension drives the qrticle Jorwqrd,qnd this relqtes to the

21. 1997 Kildu[!ond Mehro 473
diliiculty ol estoblishing the truth. How .on M"rton'conrrince us of rvhot
he believes? This is the dilemmo loced by the sociol scientist irom q
poslmodern perspective. It is not enough to merely qssert thot privote
correspondence exists thqt shows thot Dorothy Swoine Thomqs declqred
W. I. Thomos to be the sole progenitor ol the theorem.Merton's ottempted
solution is to put qll the evidencehe hos belore the reqder.This includes
iocsimiles ol qll letters beoring on this question between himsell qnd
Dorothy Swoine Thomqs, letters thqt contqin much other,opporently irrele-
vqnt inlormqtion. This iull inclusion ol source mqteriqls in the body ol the
text enobles the reqder to discern not merely the strength ol Dorothy
Swqine Thomqs's testimony, but the relolionship between her qnd Merton,
between her ond W. I. Thomqs, snd between Merton ond W. I. Thornqs.
Reoders qre enobled to judge lor themselves the truth ol the mqtter in o
woy thot would be impossible were Merton content to summorize the
evidence,rqtherThqn to presentit in Iull, including not merely typescripts
but octuol photocopies.The opporently irreievqnt detqils help with ou-
thenticoting the correspondence,qnd contextuqlizing the dispute over
origins. Further, these detsils estoblish the culturql bockground within
which the collqborotionbetween the Thomoseswos embedded,qnd con-
trqsts eqrlier culturql procliceswith lhe somewhot di{ierentcontextol the
conlemporqry ocodemy.
Thus, Merton succeeded,to some extent,in overcoming the problems
oi how to represent the evidence qnd how to ossert the truth oi q clqim.
He did this through o highly personolizedtext,presentedos o story,with
identilioble chsrqcters,qnd qn orroy ol epistolotoryevidence.As Merton
mentioned, he drew on the trodition oi the epistoiory novel qnd on the
streqm-oi-consciousnesstechniquesinitiqted by the lSth-centurynovelist
Lqurence Sterne (in Tristrom Säondy). This cqse study seeks to estqblish
the truth concerning one sentence in the history oi sociology.Merton over-
whelmed the reqder with the sheer volume oi evidence but monoged to
orroy this evidence in qn qeslheticolly pleosing text thqt mosquerodes
not qs science but qs linely wrought liction. This work is one exomple ol
how cqrelul scholqrship, criticol thinking, personol nqrrotive, ond highly
chorged humor con combine to produce work ol losting vqlue in the best
trqdition ol emerging postmodern eclecticism.
Seorching lor Pcrrqdox
The modernist ethos is summqrized in Mies Vqn der Rohe'sophorism,
"l don't wqnt to be interesting, i wont to be good" (Fleming, Honour, &
Pevsner, 1972:I93).Echoes ol this stqtement qre oiten heord concerning
orgonizotionql reseorch (e.g.,Donqldson, 1995:232).By controst,postmod-
ernists preler the interesting over the obvious ond ploce o high vqlue on
porodox, contrqst, counterintuition, qnd humor (see Fine & Mqrtin, 1995,
ior q discussion oi sorcqsm, solire, ond irony in the work ol Erving Gcli-
mon). From q postmodernist reseqrch perspective, there is no point in
estqblishinq the obvious throuqh lqborious reseqrch. Such reseqrch not

22. Acodemy ol Management Review April
only brings sociol science into disrepute with its publics (thus violqting
the postmodernist emphosis on relevqnce), but it qlso wsstes iesources
on reseorch questions thot simply conlirm whot everyone olreody knows.
Postmodernism,then, involves q secrrchfor the nonobvious,the coun--
terintuitive, qnd the surprising, This does not meän qn endless pursuit of
the new. As we hqve qlreody orgued. postmodernist enquiry lokes ploce
in the context ol the long trodition oi modernism. Thus, the porodoxes
discovered by poslmodern enquiry ore likely to be deeply embedded in
qnd counterpoisedto the clossic themes ol the lield.
Reierencehos olreody been mode to the postmodern chsrqcteristics
o{ the experimentql work ol Leon Festinger, Stonley Schqchter,ond their
qssociqles (e.9.,Festinger & Cqrlsmith, 1959;Schqchter & Singer, 1962).
One exomple will sullice to illustrqte how Isr this work deporls from
the mojority ol the lob experiments thot crciwd the poges ol the opplied
psychologryjournols in which most microorgonizotionoi behqvior reseorch
iS published.
Schochter ond Singer's (1952)ellort to uncover.-thedeterminqnts ol
emotionol stqteexhibits mony poslmodernistieqtures.First is on explicit
oppeol to clossic reierences in the {ield. In the cqse ol the emotions,
the clossic relerence wos Williqm Jomes's (1890)theory oi o conneclion
between bodily slqtes ond emotions.Jsmes is relerencedond quoted in
the first sentenceol the reseqrch report, thus setting lhe report in the
requisiteclqssicqltrqdition.Note thot this relerenceto Jomesis not grotu-
itous, nor occomponied by other grond-sounding nomes to buttress the
orticle's clqim to sttention. On the controry, the trqdition is evoked qs q
meqns ol communicoting the continuity ol the scholorly trqdition,which
is shown lo spon over 70 yeqrs. In o typicol postmodern iqshion, work
{rom very diilerent erss is treqted cs port ol q continuum. There is no
pretence oi q drostic "breok" with trqdition. Not only_is work irom o very
dillerent erq introduced os q clqssicql irqme lor tl'E contemporqry, but
reseorch Irom q di{{erentcuilure is olso presentedqs relevqnt ond vitql
to the reseqrchcontinuum; the quthors reierence,quote extensivelyfrom,
ond comment on o 1924poper published in o French iournol, snd oller,
in o footnote,trqnslqtedcopies ol this work to the reoder,thus,in q chqrqc-
lerislic postmodernistgesture, including the reqder in the reseqrch en-
deovor.
All ol these vitql relerences estqblish on historicql context lor the
contemporory reseorch.The experiment itsell is o mosterpieceo{ double-
coded,hilqlious drqmq. Adrenolin-inlluencedsub)ectsore eitherprovided
lvith thecorrectexplonotion lor symptoms ol srousql,qn incorrectexplono-
tion, or no explonotion.The quthors go to considerqbletrouble to enqct
the dromotic props, setting, ond diologue necessorylor the creotion of
the illusion thqt qn experiment on vision is underwqy.The igh point of
this dromo comes in the description oi how the stooge creqted for the
subject either o euphoric or qn qnger explonotion ol the puzzlingodren-
olin-induced orousql. In the euphoriq condition, the stooqe proqresses

23. Kildull ond Mehro
Irom doodling to pqper bqsketbqll to hulq hoops. In the qnger condition
the stoogeprogressesfrom comploining obout the questionnsire to ongrily
crossing oul items to teoring up the questionnoire qnd hurling the pieces
on the iloor. The questionnoire in the ongei condition, we qre told, ends
with "With how mony men (other thon your lother) hos your mother hsd
extrqmqritql relqtionships?" The qvoilqble cotegories cle "4 qnd under,
5-9, qnd l0 qnd over."
The results-oi the experiment include such humorous touches os lhe
description ol the subject in the euphorio condition, "who threw open
the window ond, loughing, hurled poper bosketbqlls ot possersby." The
conclusions coniirm the potentiolly revolutionqry hypothesis: given pre-
cisely the some stqte oi odrenqlin-induced emotionol qrousql, "we hqve,
by meons ol cognitive monipulotions, been oble to produce in our subjects
the very disporote stqtes of euphorio ond onger."
This experiment is on exomple ol how o postmodernist sociql science
con employ stogecroit,trqdition,humor, qnd the Iull ponoply of modernist
methodology to exomine topics, such os the determinqnts ol emotionql
stote, thqt lie qt the boundories oi severql disciplines qnd thus escope
qttention lrom segregqtedqcqdemic deporlments.Postmodernism,in its
eclecticism,stretchesqcross disciplines in pursüit ol the interesting ot
the expense o( the obvious. Postmodernists.like Schochter, tend lo hqve
-highly diverse cqreers. (Schqchter, besides his collqborqtive work on
sociol olliliolion, emotionql stotes,ond cognitive dissononce,qlso col-
lqboroted on pioneering contributions to reseqrch on obesity, smoking
cessqtion, qnd the rqndom wqlks theory ol stock mqrket vqriotion.)
Orgonizotionql studies,lying ot the crossroods ol mqny disciplines, oliers
mqny opportunities ior octivist postmodern reseqrch. The postmodern
ogendo is to ovoid porodigmotic norrowness, obvious hypotheses, qnd
contextlessempiricism while borrowing ireely irom the qvqiloble reper-
toire oi methods qnd r6seqrch styles in rigorous chollenges to conven-
tionql wisdom.
ANTI.CONCLUSION
We were ot q meeting oi quontitqtive sociql scientistsrecently ond
one oi us hoppened.to mention, in the course ol q conversqtion between
sessions, qn interest in the work ol Derridq. The result wqs qstonishing:
q senior socisl scientist stoggered bockword os il physicolly struck. Thot
the invocotion ol Derridq's nqme should evoke such q viscerql response
is one indicqtion ol the polorizqtion between empiricists ond postmodern-
ists. It is eosy to lorget the guli between those empiricists distrustiul ol
speculotion in the qbsence ol rigorously collected quontitotive dqto ond
those postmodernisls dismissive o{ oll ottempts to use dotq to represent
the world. Acrossthis guli, the two sides eye eqch other suspiciously while
iighting ior jorirnol spqce ond ocodemic odvqncement.
We qre not sure whqt cqn be done qbout this undeclqred wqr. We
hove emphqsizedo relotively inclusive version ol postmodemism in this

24. 476 Acodemy ol Monogemen! Review April
qrticle, but, cleorly, much ol the hypothesis-testing emFliricql resesrch
thot oppeors in our journols hqs lew il ony of the leotures thqt we hove
discussed os postmodern.Mony reseqrchers who seek lo conlirm conven-
tionql wisdom sssume thot dqto repre5ent the truth obout on objectively'meqsured
world. Such reseorchersrigorously exclude intuition or subjec-
tive experience lrom their reseorch reports, ond signolly distrust humor.
irony, ond the porodoxicol. Much reseorch, in shorl, Ioils to rqise ony
chollenges to porodigms of enquiry or proctice, ond loils to benefit irom
the whirlwind oi ideqs qssocioted with postmodernism.
Those cought up in the excitement ol postmodernism, however, con
eosily lose sight oi the revolutionqry potentiol of postmodern ideqs lor
the proctice ol so-cqlled normql science.Porl oi our purpose in this qrticle
is to suggest how orgonizotionol studies might be reshoped by postmod-
ernismin woys thot enhonce rqther thqn detroct lrom the resecrrchqdven-
ture. We hqve endorsedthe inclusive elements in postmodernism snd hove
outlined how poslmodern commitments to breoking down disciplinory
boundqries, chollenging conventionql wisdom, ond giving voice lo view-
points ond perspectives hitherto silenced con employ some qspecls ol
opprooches commonly identilied with modernism. In drowing qttenlion
to epistemologicol problemotics thot postmodernists hqve surlqced, qnd
in suggesting how some resecrrchershove begun to deol with these prob-
lemqtics, we oller less q mop ol the territory thon signposts on how to
storm the Bostilleol conventionolthinkinq.The prqcticeof reseqrchshould
never be q timid odventure.
REFERENCES
Agger, B. 1991.Criticol lheory, postslructurolism, postmodernism: Their sociologicol rele.
vonce. Ännuol Feview ol Sociolog:y,l7: 105-131.
Alvesson. M.. & Deetz,S. 1996.Criticol theory ond postmodernopprooches to orgonizotioncl
studies. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hordy. & W. R. Nord (Eds.),Hondbook ol orgonizotion studies:
l9l-2t7. London: Soge.
Arringlon. C.8., & Froncis.R.J. 1989.Lettiirgthe chot oul oI the bog: Deconstruction.privilege.
ond occounling reseorch.Accounling. Orgonizotions ond Society, l4: l-28.
Bqrkun. M. 1968.Low wilhoul sonclions: Order in prim ilive socieIies ond the world communit;1.
New Hoven, CT: Yole University Press.
Boudrillord. J. 1983.SimuJolions.New York: Semiotext(e).
Ben-Ari,E. 1995.On ocknowledgments in ethnogrophies. ln J.Von Moonen (F.d.).frepresento.
. lion in ethnogrcphy: 130-164.Thousond Ooks. CA: Soge.
Best. S.. & Kellner. D. 1991.Poslrnodernlheory.'Crilicol interrooqtions.New York: Guillord
Press.
Boie, D. M. 1995.Slories ol the storytelling orgonizotion: A postmodern onolysis oI Disney
os "Tsmoro-lond." Äcodemy ol Monogemenl lournol. 38:997- 1035.
Bourdieu. P. 1977.Outline o[ o theory ol proctice. Combridge. Englond: Combridge Univer-
sity Press.
Burrell,G. 1988.Modernism.posl modernism ond orgonizolionol oncrlysis2: The contribution
ol Michel Foucoult.Orgonizalion Studies, 9:221-235.

25. I997 Kildull ond Mehrc 477
Eurrell. G. 199{.}"lodernism,post moderiism ond orgonizotionol onolysis 1:The contribution
of Jurgen Hobermos.Orgonizolion Studies. l5: I-19.
Burrell,G. l996.Normolscience,porodigms. metophors.discoursesond geneologiesol onoly-
sis. In S. R. Clegg, C. Hordy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.),The handbook ol orgonization iludies.'
642-558.London: Soge.
Burt. R. S. 1976.Positionsin networks. Socioj Forcer, 55:93-122.
Burt. t|. S. 1987.Sociol contogion ond innovolion: Cohesion versus struclurol equivolence.
American lournol ol Sociology.92: 1287-1335.
Corter. P.,& Jockson.N, 1993.l'fodernism, postmodernism ond motivolion. or why expectoncy
theory Ioiled lo come up to expectolion. ln J.Hossqrd & M. Psrker (Eds.).Poslmodernism
ond orgonizotioas: 84-100. London: Soge.
Cossell. I. 1995.The womon in the surgeon's body: Understonding dillerence. Amcdcon
Anthropologist, 98: 4l-53.
Clegg. S. 1990.Modern orgonizalions: Orgonization sludies in lhe poslmodern woild. Lon-
don: Soge. :
Clitlord. 1..& Mqrcus. G. E. 1985.Writing cu/lure: The poelics ond politics of ethnoglophy.
Berkeley:University ol Colilornio Press.
Codrescu, A. 1986.A crcving lor swan. Columbus: Ohio Stote University Press. :
Colemon..l., Kotz. E., & Menzel, H. 1965.Medicol innovolion.'A dillusion sludy. Ne'r York:
Bosic Books.
Cooper.8. 1988.Modernism.post modernism ond orgonizotionolonolysis 3: The contribution
ol iocques Derrido. Orgonizolion Studies. l0: 479-502.
Cooper. R..& Burrell.G. 1988.Modernism, postmodernism ond orgonizqtionol onolysis: An
introduction.Organizotion Studies, 9: 9l-l 12.
Covoleski, M. 4.. Dirsmith, M. W., & Somuel, S. In press. A strotegic deconstruclionol John
R. Commons' regulotory discourse, lournol o/ Economic /ssues.
Cronboch. L. J. 1982.Prudenl qspirolions lor sociol enquiry. In W. H. Kruskol (Ed.),fÄe sxiol
sciences:fheir nolure ond uses:61-81,Chicogo: University ol Chicogo Press.
Cronboch. L. l. 1985.Sociol enquiry by ond lor Eorthlings. ln D. W. Fiske & R. A. Shweder (Eds.),
Meto lheory in sociol science.'P,luroJismsond subjeclivities.'83- 107.C hicogo: University ol
Chicogo Press.
Dovis. G. F..& Powell, W. W. 1992.Orgonizotion-environment relolions. ln M. D. Dunnette &
L. M. Hough (Eds.),Hondbook ol induslriol and orgonizotional psychology 12n6gi.), vol.
3: 315-375.Polo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Derrido, t. 1976.Ol grommolology. Boltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Derrido, J. 1988.limiled /nc. Evonston, lL: Northwestern University Press.,
Dickens, D. R.. & Fontono. A. 1994.Postmodernism ond social enquiry. New York: Guiliord
Press.
Donoldson. L. 1995.Ämericon anli-monagemenl llreories ol organizalion.'A criligue ol para-
digm prolilerclion. Combridge, Englond: Combridge University Press.
Donoldson. L. 1996.The normol science ol struclurol contingency theory. In S. R. C)egg"
C. Hordy, & W. R. Nord €ds.). fÄe Aondboo& ol orgonizotion sludies.'57-76.London: Soge.
Drews, P. 1987.Log'icsol disinlegrolion. London: Verso.
Ely, R. ). 1995.The power in demogrophy: Women's sociql conslruction ol gender identily ol
work. Äcodemy ol Monagcmenl lournol,3S: 589-634.

26. 478 Acodemy ol Monogemenl Resiew Aprit
Fomey, D. 1994.Nqlurol questions.lYol! StreetJouna!. Iuly ll: Al,48.
Feotherstone, M. 1988.In pursuit ol Ihe postmod e-r..Theory, Culture. ond Society, 5: 195-216.
Feyerobend, P. 1970.Consolotions lor-the speciolist. ln l. Lgkotos & A. Musgrcve (Eds.),
Crjlicism ond the growth ol knowledge:197-230. New York: Combridge University press.
Festinger, L., & Corlsmith, I. M. 1959.Cognitive conseguences ol lorced complionce. Joumal
ol Abnormol ond SocioJ Psychology,5S: 203-210.
Fine, G. 4., & Mortin, D. D. 1995.Humor in ethnogrophic writing: Sqrcqsm, sotire, ond irony
os voices in Erving Gollmon's Asyi ums. ln J.Von Moonen (Ed.).Fepresen totion in ethnog.
rapän 165-197.Thousqnd Ooks, CA: Soge.
. Fish, S. 1980./s therea lex! in lÄjs closs.'Theauthority o[ inlerpretive communilies. Combridge.
MA: Horvord University Press.
Fish, S. 1996.Prolessor Sokol's bod joke. New York fimes. Moy 2l: A23.
Fleming, J..Honour, H., & Pevsner,N. 1972.The Penguin diclionary ol orchiteclure, Hormonds-
worth. Englond: Penguin.
Flint, A. 1993.Silber tops into brood debote: Acodeme divided on intellectuol theories he
, lesists ot BU. Soslon Globe, December 3: {0.
Foster. H. 1983.Postmodernism: A preloce. In H. Foster (Ed.).IÄe snti.oeslÄetic: Essoys on
poslmodern cullure: ix-xvi. Seqttle. WA: Bäy Press.
Frompton,K. 1983.Towords o criticol regionolism:Six poinls lor on orchitectureol resistonce.
In H. Foster(Ed.).Ihe onli-oes!äelic.'Essoyson posfmoderncullure: l6-30. Seottle, WA:
Boy Press.
Fuchs. S..& Wqrd. S. 199{.V/hot is deconstruclion.ond where ond when does it toke ploce?
Moking locts in science. building coses in lqw. Ämericon Sociologicol Review,59:
{8 I -5C0.
Geertz, C. 1983.Locol knowledge..Furt.her essoy,sin interpretive onthtopology. New York:
Bosic 8ooks.
Gergen, K. 1992.Orgonizolion lheory in the poslmodern ero. In M. Reed & M. Hughes (Eds.),
EeIhi nLi ng organizo tion: 2O7-226. London: Soge.
Giddens, A. 198.{.Ihe conslilulion o[ society,Stonlord, CA: Stonford University Press.
Giddens, A. 1387.Slructurqlism,post-slructurolism ond the production ol cullure. ln Sociol
theory ond modern sociologT:73-108.Stonford, CA: Stqnlord University Press.
Giroux. H. A. 1992.Border crossings.'Culturol workersond lhe politics o/ educolion. New
York: Roulledge.
Golden'Biddle. K.,& Locke,K. 1993.Appeoling work: An investigotion of how ethnogrophic
texls convince,Orgonizotion Science,4: 595-616.
Gottdiener, Nt. 199.t.Semiotics ond postmodernism. In D. R. Dickens & A. Fonfono (Eds.),
Poslmodernisrnond sociol enquirl: 155-181.New York: Guilford Press.
Honnon, lvl.T..&Freemon.I.l9?T.Thepopulotionecolog"yolorgonizolions.ArnericonJourno!
o/ Socio/ogy, 82: 929-96.{.
Honnon, M. T., & Freemon. J. 1984.Structurql inertio ond orsonizotionql chonqe. funerican
Sociologicol Review.49: l.l9- 164.
Horvey. D. 193"o.fÄe condi!iono[ postmodernity:An enquirJ jnlo lhe origins o[ cu!turqlchonge.
Combridge, M.{: Bosil Blockrvell.
Hossord,l. 1994.Poslmodernorgonizotionol onolysis: Toword o conceptuol lromework.,four-
n o l o l M o n a g e m e n tS l u d i e s ,3 l : 3 0 3 - 3 2 1 .
Horvley. A. 1950.Humon ecology. New York. Fonold Press.

27. I997 Kildutl ond Mehro
Jqmeson,F. 1994.Poslmodernism.or the culturol logic ol lote copiiälism. New Lelt Review,
I 46: 53-92.
jomes, W. l8-Q0.IÄe principles ol psychology. New York: Holr.
Jencls, C. 1987.Postmodernism:The new cJossicisrnin ort ond_orchileclure.New York: Rizzoli.
Jencks. C. 1989.llhal is post-modernism? (3rd ed.). New York: Bizzoli.
Kildufl, M. 1993.DeconstructingOrganizotions.Acodemy ol Monagement Review, lg: l3-31.
Kondo, D. K. 1990.Cralting selves:Power. gender, ond d.iscourseso! identity in o !oponese
wotkploce. Chicogo: University ol Chicogo Press.
Kroll, L. 1987.Än orcÄitecture ol complexity. Combridge, MA: MIT Press.'
Kuhn, T. S._1962.Iäe slrucfure o/scienli/ic revolulioas. Chicogo: University ol Chicogo Press.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970.Rellections on my critics. In I. Lokotos & A. l"lusgrove (Eds.).Criticism ond
the growth ol knowledge:231-278. Combridge: Combridge Universiry press.
Levins,R. 1958.Evolulionin changing environmenls.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUoiversity Press.
LinsTesd,Sj 1993.Deconstructionin the study ol orgonizotions. In J. Hosscrd & l"t. Porker
(Eds.),Postmodernism ond organizotions; 49-70. London: Soge.
Lyotord.J.F. 1984.Ihe post.moderncondition:A report on knowledge. Minneopolis: University
ol Minpesoto Press.
Monning, P.K. I995.The chollenges ol postmodernism. In J.Von Moonen (Ed.).Sepresenlolion
in ethnogrophy:245-2?2. Thousond Ooks, CA: Soge.
Morch. J. G.. & Simon. H. A. 1958.Orgcnizolions. New York: Wiley.
Mortin. J. 1990.Deconstructingorgonizctionol toboos: The suppression ol gender contlicr in
orgonizolions.Orgonizotion Science, l: 339-359.
Morx, K. 1867/1975.Copital. London: Penguin.
McKeon. R. 1985.Freedom ond history ond othet essoyslZ. K. McKeon, Ed.).Chicogo: University
o[ Chicogo Press.
Merton. R. K. 1957.Sociol lheory ond sociol struclure. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Merton. R. K. 1965.On lAe sÄoulders o/gionls: Ä Shondeon postscripl. New York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. 1975.Structurol onolysis in sociology. In P. M. Blou (Ed.). ÄpproocÄes to the
study ol socioJslruclure:21-52. Ne.* York: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. 1995.The Thomos lheorem cnd the Motthew ellect. Social forces, ?4:379-421.
Mill, i. S. 1865/1955.Augusle Comple ondposifivism. Ann Arbor: Universily of Michigon Press.
Nkomo. S. M. 1992.The emperor hss no clothes: Rewriting "roce in orgonizotions." AcodemT
ol Manogemenl Review, l7:487-513.
Nietzsche,F. 1873/1995.On truth ond Iolsity in rheir extromorol sense(M. A. Mugge. Trons.).In
R.Grimm ond C. M, Vedio (Eds.),Pbilosopl:icol wrilings:87-99. New York: The Continuum
Publishing Compony.
Owens, C. 1983.The discourse ol others: Feminists ond postmodernism. In H. Foster (Ed.),
Ihe onli-oeslhelic: Essoys on poslmodern cullure.. 57-82. Seottle, WA: Boy Press.
Porker.M. 1993.Lile olter Jeon-Froncois.In J.Hossord & M. Porker (Eds.),Postmodemismond
orgo nizalions: 204-212. London: Soge.
Peirce.C. S. 1931.Collecled popers. Ccmbridge. MÄ: Hqrvqrd University Preis.
PIeller,J. 1993.Borriersto the qdvonce of orgonizotionol science:Porodigm development os
o dependenl vorioble. Acodemy ol Monagement Review, l8:599-620.
479

28. 480 Acodemy ol Maaogement Feview April
Popper. K. R. 1970.Normol slience ond its dongers. In l. Lokotos& A. Musgrove (Eds.).Criljcism
ond fhe growlh ol knowledge: 5l-58. New York: Combridge University Press.
Portoghesi. P. 1982.Alter modern orcr!ileclure. New York: Ri:zoli.
Feod ings. 8., & Schober. B.(Eds.).I 993.Poslmodernjsm across!he ages. Syrocuse, NY: Syrocuse
University Press.
Reinhorz. S. 1992.Femjnisl mellrods in sociol reseorcÄ.New York: Oxlord University Press.
Rorty, R. l9?9. PAilosophy and lÄe mirror o/ noture. Princeton,NJ:Princelon University Press.
Foscoe. P.B. 1995.The pe ri ls ol
'posilivism'
in culturql sn lhropology.Ä-arericon Anthropologisl,
97:492-504.
Bosenou, P. M. 1992.Posl.modernism ond ,J:esociol sciences.'Insic'Äls, intoads, snd in lrusions.
Princeton. M: Princelon University Press.
Soussure, F. 1966.Course in general iinguislics. New York: McGrow-Hill.
Schochter,S..& Singer,J.E. 1962.Cognitive, rociol. oni physiologicoldeterminonts of enro'
tionql stote. Psychologicol Review, 69: 379-399.
Schumpeter, -1. A. 1947. Copilolism, sociolism, snd democrocy (2nd. ed). New York:
Horper & Row.
_
Seorle, J. R. 1970.Speech ocls.'An esso'yin the phitosophy ol longuoge. Combridge. Englond:
Cor?rbridge University Press.
Sherif, K. W. 1979.Bios in psycholog.y.ln J. A. Shermon & E. T. Beck (Eds.).fhe prism o/sex.
Mqdison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Smircich, L., & Colös, M. B. 1987.Orgonizotioqol culture: A criticol ossessment.In F. lv{.
Joblin, L. L. Putnom. K. H. Roberts.& L. W. Porter (Eds.).f/ondbool ol ocgonizotioncl
co-mmunicolion: An in!erdisciplinary perspeclive: 228-263.Newbury Pork, CA; Soge.
Stoblein, R. 1995.Dolo in orgonizotionol studies.In S. R.Clegg, C. Hordy, & W. R. Nord (Eds.).
Hondbook ol organizotion sludies.'509-525.London: Scge.
Storbuck. W. H. 1981.A trip to view the elephonts qnd rqttlesnqkesin the gorden oI Aston.
In A. H. Von de Ven & W. F. Joyce(Eds.).Perspec!iveson orgonizalion desiga ond ÄeÄovio.';
167-198.New York: Wiley.
Thompson,P. 1993.Postmodernism:Fotoldistrqclion.ln J.Hossord& M. Porker(Eäs.).Postmod'
ernism ond organizolions; 183-203.London: Soge.
Vqn Moonen, J. 1988.IoJes o/ lie /ield; On writing ethnogrcphy.Chicogo: Universily ol
Chicogo Press.
Von Moonen. i. 1995.Style os theory. Orgonizalion Science.6: 133-143.
Vottimo. G. 1992.The lransporent sociely,Bqltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press.
Weover, G., & Gioio, D. A. 1994.Porodigms lost: lncommensurobilily vs. slruclurolist inquiry.
O rgo niza tion Studies. I5(a):565-5-o0.
Weick, K. E. 1983.Controdictions in o community ol scholcrs:The cohesion-occurocytrodeoll.
Review ol Higher Educolion, 6:253-267.
Weick, K. E. 19S3.The collopse ol sensemoking in orgonizolions:The Mqnn Gulch Cisester.
Administrotive Science Quarterly, 33: 628-652.
V/eick. K. E. 1995.Sensernokingin organizations.Thousond Ooks, CA: Soge.
Wisdom. r. O. 1987.CÄol/engeobi!ity in modern science.Dorset.Englond: Blockmore Press.
Witlgenstein. L. 1958.Philosophicol investigotions.Oxlord, Englond: Bosil Blockwell.

29. Kildull ond Mehra
Moain Kildull is sn ossocioteprolessorol orgonizotional behoviorst The pennsylvo.
nio stote university. His current resecrch includes on ethnogrophic srudy of identiry
in o Joponesehigh technologyioctory,c shokespeoreon perspectiveon motivqtion.o
discourseonolysis ol resistonceto modernity in o community torgetedos o hczordous
woste dump, on exominotion ol individuol perceptions ol sociol networks, ond on
ongoing look ot slructuresol opporlunily in the US economy.He received his ph.D.
lrom Cornell University.
Ajcy Mehro is q doctorolcondidote ot The Pennsylvonio srote university. His schol.
orly interests include sociol networks, the crqlting of imcae ond identity, sense-
moking processes,ond the implicotions ol the postmodern turn lor orgonizorionol re-
seorch-
4 8 1