Incommensurability

Conceptual Overview

The issue of incommensurability has been the subject of considerable discussion in organization studies in recent decades. Opinions differ both about whether incommensurability between different organization studies schools of thought actually exists, and also whether it is desirable. On the question of whether incommensurability exists, scholars such as Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan, Norman Jackson and Pippa Carter, and McKinley and Mone have delivered a resounding answer of yes. Because Burrell and Morgan's arguments are extensively reviewed in the entry on Paradigm Incommensurability, the focus here is on other affirmations of the existence of incommensurability. In particular, McKinley and Mone gave an affirmative response to the question of whether incommensurability between organization studies schools of thought exists, and attributed that incommensurability to the ambiguity of the constructs that are routinely used in organization studies research. Because organization studies scholars do not agree on the definition and measurement of specific constructs, any empirical tests of schools of thought organized around those constructs are likely to be inconclusive. This makes the task of comparing different schools of thought with competing claims very difficult. McKinley and Mone therefore suggested that there is a de facto incommensurability (Charles Booth would call it a weak incommensurability) in contemporary organization studies that stems not so much from different ontological assumptions as from the failure to achieve consensus on how individual constructs are to be defined and measured.

The positions of the organization studies scholars mentioned above can be contrasted with those of another group of scholars who take a more nuanced (or perhaps noncommittal) approach. This latter group maintains that incommensurability between organization studies schools of thought exists, but that it can be bridged if the analyst can ascend to an appropriately abstract meta-level of analysis. For example, Graham Astley and Andrew Van de Ven make this argument, juxtaposing different organization studies perspectives as a way of highlighting their differences while simultaneously emphasizing their underlying similarities. Dennis Gioia and Evelyn Pitre attempt the same feat, pointing out that the boundaries between Burrell and Morgan's paradigms are not clear-cut, but rather characterized by blurred “transition zones” that can be sites for reconciliation of apparently opposed paradigms. They identify Anthony Giddens's structuration theory as one vehicle for potential integration of the functionalist and interpretivist paradigms. Finally, Mark Tadajewski and many others have suggested that incommensurability (in organization studies and other disciplines) can be overcome through an appropriate translation process. Thus, comparison of seemingly incommensurable paradigms is not impossible.

...