The never-ending ‘paradigm debate’ in Organisation Studies:
Rhetorical practices that sustain scientific controversies

Ratle, Olivier

Abstract

Many commentators within organisation studies have noted how difficult it is in this field to bring closure to controversies. This paper uses a rhetorical perspective to reflect on the character of one of the most important debate within the field, what is known as the ‘Paradigm debate’. By analysing some of the rhetorical choices made in the landmark controversy between Jeffrey Pfeffer and John van Maanen, I bring attention to some of the dysfunctions that can characterise debates where dissension prevails. Three rhetorical practices that contribute preventing the good conduct and the closure of this controversy are identified: 1) discrediting and distancing the opponent by questioning his ethos; 2) avoiding points of commensurability; and 3) shifting the ground of the debate. Rather than seeing the respective perspectives of Pfeffer and Van Maanen as incommensurable, I argue that their positions are purposefully rendered incommensurate in the course of the controversy.

Citation

Rhetorical practices that sustain scientific controversies. Paper presented at 2nd conference on Rhetoric and Narratives in Management Research, Barcelona, Spain

• Presentation Conference Type: Conference Paper (unpublished)
• Conference Name: 2nd conference on Rhetoric and Narratives in Management Research
• Conference Location: Barcelona, Spain
• Start Date: May 31, 2007
• End Date: Jun 2, 2007
• Acceptance Date: Jun 1, 2007
• Publication Date: Jun 1, 2007
• Deposit Date: Jan 26, 2016
• Publicly Available Date: Feb 9, 2016
• Peer Reviewed: Not Peer Reviewed
• Keywords: rhetoric, paradigm, organisation studies, incommensurability
• Public URL: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/1027316
• Additional Information: Title of Conference or Conference Proceedings : 2nd conference on Rhetoric and Narratives in Management Research