This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lewis, M. W. Articles by Kelemen, M. L. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Multiparadigm Inquiry: Exploring Organizational Pluralism and Paradox

University of Cincinnati, Marianne.lewis{at}uc.edu

Mihaela L. Kelemen

Department of Management, Keele University, UK, m.l.kelemen{at}mngt.keele.ac.uk

Organization studies is a robust field, replete with diverse, often contentious perspectives that may enrich understandings of pluralism and paradox. Yet polarization of modern paradigms and ruptures between modern and postmodern stances may inhibit researchers from tapping this potential. In response, this article delves into a provocative alternative - multiparadigm inquiry. First, we juxtapose modern, postmodern and multiparadigm approaches to contrast their underlying assumptions. We then review three multiparadigm strategies, exploring their objectives, exemplars and limitations. Our conclusion addresses how multiparadigm inquiry fosters greater reflexivity, while posing considerable challenges.

Key Words: multiparadigm • paradigm • paradox • pluralism • reflexivity

Human Relations, Vol. 55, No. 2, 251-275 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/0018726702055002185


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. Kupers and J. Weibler Inter-leadership: Why and How Should We Think of Leadership and Followership Integrally? Leadership, November 1, 2008; 4(4): 443 - 475. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Tadajewski Incommensurable paradigms, cognitive bias and the politics of marketing theory Marketing Theory, September 1, 2008; 8(3): 273 - 297. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. W. Cox and J. Hassard Ties to the Past in Organization Research: A Comparative Analysis of Retrospective Methods Organization, July 1, 2007; 14(4): 475 - 497. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Sieben Themed article: Doing research on emotion and virtual work: A compass to assist orientation Human Relations, April 1, 2007; 60(4): 561 - 580. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. Ofori-Dankwa and S. D. Julian Conceptualizing social science paradoxes using the diversity and similarity curves model: Illustrations from the work/play and theory novelty/continuity paradoxes Human Relations, November 1, 2004; 57(11): 1449 - 1477. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. Beech, H. Burns, L. de Caestecker, R. MacIntosh, and D. MacLean Paradox as invitation to act in problematic change situations Human Relations, October 1, 2004; 57(10): 1313 - 1332. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Mantzoukas Issues of Representation within Qualitative Inquiry Qual Health Res, September 1, 2004; 14(7): 994 - 1007. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. Corbetta and C. A. Salvato The Board of Directors in Family Firms: One Size Fits All? Family Business Review, June 1, 2004; 17(2): 119 - 134. [Abstract] [PDF]