Epistemology

Conceptual Overview

Epistemology concerns the philosophy underpinning any given science. It is not the study of scientific methods (methodology), but the study of postulates, hypotheses, and the way that knowledge is produced in a given scientific field, designed to identify the origin of that knowledge, the logic of its articulation, and how its findings fit within the framework of an a posteriori evaluation. Epistemology denotes the idea of a theory of knowledge, including the connections constituted between the “human being,” or knowing subject, and the “object” of his or her knowledge. Hence, it addresses issues that have to do with the extent to which a representation is appropriate. Two meanings of epistemology will be applied to organization: the organization as a tangible object (such as a given company) and the organization as a concept. The organization as an object raises the question of the independence (or not) of the object organization from the human being who observes it and who dwells within its spaces and shadows. We find here the duality between “positivism” and “constructivism.” The opposition between positivism and constructivism in organization science (OS) is a common one. Positivism argues that there is, in principle, one best way of apprehending the world of phenomena; constructivism sees that world as always existing in a relationship constituted by all the relevancies and interests of the knower. From the latter perspective, any best way will always be considered as such because some broader historical or social project has been able to establish it as such. Knowledge is contingent on its social and historical construction and the phenomena of social life have no necessary story attached to them. Such concerns raise the question of what constitutes an adequate representation of the world and of the relations between phenomena and the place of the human being who apprehends that world in which he or she is immersed. In a universe of “organizations” these are questions with significant consequences because if the organization has a necessary and sufficient one best way of being apprehended, then this stands as a revision of any other attempts to make sense of it; if, on the other hand, the organization is rather more of an effect of the varied ways in which differing people constitute, understand, and relate to it, then how are appropriate theoretical models built, with the aim of giving an understanding as well as a satisfactory application of actions within organizations? We can more dissociate than oppose, item by item, the positivist posture from the constructivist one: