ONTOLOGY OF MANAGEMENT

PHILOSOPHY
Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979)
a)Assumptions about the Nature of Social Science. Sociological paradigms and organisational
analysis
b) Assumptions about the Nature of Society. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis
c)Two dimensions: Four paradigms. Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis

Presented by:
Anamika
FPM19009
Finance and Accounting Area
IIM Lucknow.
SOCIAL SCIENCE AND SOCIETY
• Society is defined as a network of relationships between social
entities.
• Social sciences focus on the study of society and the relationship
among individuals within society.
CONTENTS
• Assumptions about the nature of social science
Ontology
Epistemology
Human nature
Methodology
Subjective-objective dimension
• Assumptions about the nature of society
Order-conflict debate
Regulation-Radical Change
• Two dimensions: Four Paradigms
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF SOCIAL
SCIENCE
• All theories of organisation are based upon a philosophy of science and
a theory of society.
• Different philosophical assumptions underwrite different approaches
to social science.
• Each researcher has a set of assumptions that shapes their approach to
research.
• Social science may be conceptualised in terms of four sets of
assumptions related to Ontology, Epistemology, human nature, and
methodology.
ONTOLOGY
• Branch of philosophy that studies the nature of human beings’
existence as individuals, in society, and in the universe.
• “Who are we? What are we here for?”
• “Do we make real freewill choices? Or, are external forces controlling
our outcome?”
• “Are humans best understood as individuals? Or, are we best
understood as existing in a group social system?”
ONTOLOGY

External or Internal to
individual

REALITY
Objective or
Subjective

given ‘out there’ or

product of one’s mind
EPISTEMOLOGY
• How one might begin to understand world?
• Branch of philosophy that studies knowledge or knowing.
• The classic epistemological question is: “How do we know what we claim to
know?”
Hard, real, capable of being transmitted in tangible form or it is
KNOWLEDGE

soft, subjective, spiritual kind

Acquired or experienced
HUMAN NATURE
• Human life is necessary subject and object of enquiry in social
sciences.

HUMAN NATURE Product of environment, conditioned by

external circumstances, controlled

Creative role, controller, master

METHODOLOGY

Social world is Social world is

hard, real, external soft, personal, and
to individual subjective

Focus on analysis Focus on understanding

of relationships what is unique and
and regularities particular to individual
between elements rather than what is
general and universal.
of social world
SUBJECTIVE-OBJECTIVE DIMENSION
• The various ontological, epistemological, human and methodological
standpoints maybe illustrated in two polarised perspectives:

Subjective approach to social science

Objective approach to social science
 STRANDS OF DEBATE

Ontological Epistemological ‘Human Methodological

debate debate nature’ debate debate
Nominalism: denies Anti-positivism: social Ideographic: Social
existence of ‘real’ world is relativistic, Voluntarism: Man world is understood by
structure to the world understood from is completely obtaining first-hand
SUBJECTIVE which is outside the individual’s point of autonomous and knowledge, by ‘getting
realm of individual view. free-willed. inside’ situations and
consciousness involving oneself.

Positivism: social world is Nomothetic: Social world

Realism: social world is understood by searching for Determinism: Man
not something which is determined by the is understood by basing
individual creates-it exists
regularities(verification or research upon systemic
OBJECTIVE
‘out there’ independent of falsification)and causal situation or protocol and techniques.
individual’s appreciation of relationships between its ‘environment’ in (surveys, questionnaires,
it. constituent elements. which he lives. personality tests, etc.)
German Idealism Sociological Positivism
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF SOCIETY
Order-Conflict debate
Durkheim, Weber, and Pareto were concerned about the nature of social
order and equilibrium in the society (the way the various components of
society work together to maintain the status quo).
Marx was concerned with role of conflict as the driving force behind social
change.
Dahrendorf Vs Cohen
Dahrendorf and Lockwood sought to revitalise the work of Marx through
their writings and to restore it to a central place in sociological theory.
Cohen criticised that Dahrendorf is mistaken in treating order-conflict
model as being entirely separate. It is possible for theories to involve
elements of both models.
TWO THEORIES OF SOCIETY

The ‘order’ or ‘integrationist’ view of society The ‘conflict’ or ‘coercion’ view of society

Stability Change
Integration Conflict
Functional co-ordination Disintegration
Consensus Coercion
MISINTERPRETATION OF DAHRENDORF’S WORK

• Different adjectives mean different things to different people, hence

the two standpoints of theory of society is open to possibility of
misinterpretation.

Notion of conflict- Cohen argues function of social conflict is to integrate

society.

Notion of consensus- Consensus maybe a product of use of some coercive

force.

Notion of change- Functional theorists recognise that change is necessary to

maintain status quo in the society.

Notion of disintegration-Some constituents may have high degree of autonomy

and contribute little by way of integration.
REGULATION AND RADICAL CHANGE
Sociology of regulation Sociology of radical change

 Focus to understand why society tends to hold  Concerned to find explanations for radical change,
together rather than fall apart. deep-seated structural conflict, mode of domination
 Concerned with the need for regulation in human and structural contradiction.
affairs.  Concerned with man’s emancipation from the
 Concerned in explaining society in terms of unity structures which limit and stunt his potential for
and cohesiveness. development.
THE REGULATION-RADICAL CHANGE
DIMENSION
TWO DIMENSION: FOUR PARADIGMS
FIRST DIMENSION OF ANALYSING SOCIAL THEORIES
SECOND DIMENSION OF ANALYSING SOCIAL THEORIES
FOUR PARADIGMS
FUNTIONALIST
FUNTIONALIST

MAX WEBER
TAYLOR
INTERPRETIVE
INTERPRETIVE

MAX WEBER
DILTHEY
SCHUTZ
RADICAL HUMANIST
RADICAL HUMANIST

KANT HEGEL

SARTRE
RADICAL HUMANIST
RADICAL HUMANIST
RADICAL STRUCTURIST
RADICAL STRUCTURIST
RADICAL STRUCTURIST

KARL MARX
ENGELS
LENIN
TO SUM UP
Special thanks to : Abhishek and
Gurmeet