Skip to main content
Log in

Practitioner-Based Theory Building in Organizational Ethics

  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Understanding of organizational ethics phenomena requires complex understanding of organizational practices in their real world contexts. We can try to understand and build theory about these complex real world practices from the points of view of: (1) a traditional deductive, ethics literature-based, literature gap formulation approach; or, (2) an inductive, practitioner-based literature gap formulation approach. This consideration of inductive, practitioner-based versus deductive, literature-based literature gap formulation is related to the discussion concerning “engaged scholarship” and relationships and gaps between theory and practice in organization studies [Van De Ven, 2007, Engaged Scholarship: A Guide for Organizational and Research Knowledge (Oxford University Press, NY)]. However, there is an important difference with respect to the key issue of ethics literature versus practitioner-based literature gap formulation. This article offers examples of the two different approaches and makes comparisons between them. Implications for practice-based organizational ethics theory building, Ph.D. education, and public intellectual work are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and Organization: The Conflict Between System and the Individual. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1964). Integrating the individual and the organization. N.Y.: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2003). A life full of learning. Organization Studies, 24, 7:1178-1192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. & Schon, D.(1974). Theory in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J.M. 2007. Academic-practitioner collaboration need not require joint or relevant research: Toward a relational scholarship of integration. Academy of Management Journal, 50: 1323-1333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek, J.M. & Louis, M.R. 1996. Insider/outsider team research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson, G.W. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. N.Y.: Ballantine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyer, E.L. 1990. Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities at the professorate. Princeton, N.J.: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

    Google Scholar 

  • Empson, L.: 2007, My Affair with the “Other”: The Interpenetration of Research and Practice. Paper Presented at the Third Organization Studies Summer Workshop, ‘Organization Studies as Applied Science: The Generation and Use of Academic Knowledge about Organizations,’ Crete.

  • Evered, R. & Louis, M. 1981. Alternative perspective to organizational science: “Inquiry from the Inside” and “Inquiry from outside”. Academy of Management Review, 6: 385-395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, E.: 1955, The Sane Society (Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York).

  • Hirschman, A.O. (1958). The strategy of economic development. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirschman, A.O. (1998). Crossing boundaries: Selected writings. N.Y.: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kubie, L.: 1958, Neurotic Distortions of the Creative Process (University of Kansas Press, Lawrence).

  • March, J.G. (1988). Decisions and Organizations. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mohrman, S.A., Gibson, C.B., & Mohrman, A.M. 2001. Doing research that is useful to practice: A model and empirical exploration. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 357-375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plowman, D.A., Baker, L.T., Beck, T.E., Kulkarni, M., Solansky, S.T., Travis, D.V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. The Academy of Management Journal, 50, 3: 515-543.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Said, E.W. 2003. Humanism and democratic criticism. N.Y.: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H.A. (1982. Models of bounded rationality. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A.H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and research knowledge. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven, A. H. and P. E. Johnson: 2006, Knowledge for Theory and Practice. Academy of Management Review, 31, 802–821.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K.E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whyte, W.G. 1984. Learning from the field: A guide from experience. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiertz, C. & de Ruyter, K. (2007). Beyond the call of duty: Why customers contribute to firm-hosted commercial online communities. Organization Studies, 28, 3: 349-378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. P. Nielsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nielsen, R.P. Practitioner-Based Theory Building in Organizational Ethics. J Bus Ethics 93, 401–406 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0229-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-009-0229-3

Keywords

Navigation