Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

To the Future with Aristoteles: Phronetic Bricolage?

  • Published:
Philosophy of Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Management has tended to be established as science (Episteme) by using scientific methodologies and techniques. Although the era of Grand Theories has passed some time ago in social sciences, management has been still indicating the tendencies to develop ‘Grand Theories’. However, economic developments associated with globalization and the ‘Lehman brothers’ big bang in financial sector has shaken some assumptions about the nature of management as science and also about the methodologies by which management and entrepreneurship can or could be studied. Specific shift to the future developments through Aristoteles’s intellectual virtue Phronesis has been traced in the work of theorists, such as Flyvbjerg, and others. They indicate new approach to organization studies, called phronetic organization research. In this paper, our exploration of research methodologies builds on Phronesis. Based on results of empirical study of business models in small and medium size companies in Slovenia, and extensive literature review we inductively build theoretical foundations for phronetic studies in the field of management and entrepreneurship and introduce the concept, called ‘phronetic bricolage’. It is based on understanding of management as ‘practical activity’ of ‘wise managers’ and bricolage—the research design (or approach) that builds knowledge from pieces of research from different fields, with different methods and various sources of data. We argue that phronetic bricolage is approach in management studies that links wisdom with complexity and variety of methods and sources of data.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For example: Al-Debei, M. M. and Avison, D. 2010.

    Lambert, S. C. 2012.

    Mahadevan, B. 2000.

    Quinn, R. E. and Cameron, K. S. eds. 1988.

  2. For example: we come from different scientific disciplines (economics, management, education, research methodologies and finances). Also, our ‘individual’ backgrounds are different, for example I have Bachelor degree in pedagogy and philosophy, Master degree in Management in education, and PhD in Theory and policy studies while my later development is in qualitative research methodology, a colleague has Bachelor in engineering, Master degree and PhD in economics but the area of research is management.

  3. We do not address the issues that are related to objectivity and subjectivity in social research (for this topic see Letherby et al. 2013; Hodkinson 2004; Thomas 1998) although we see them related to reflexivity and to underlying paradigmatic standpoints of research methodologies.

  4. How can we study business models? What are business models about?

  5. This ‘multi’ perspectives approach is also related to triangulation, one of the means to increase trustworthiness in qualitative research (see Denzin 2012,) and related questions of validity, reliability and generalizations (see Flyvbjerg 2006a, b; Morse et al. 2002; Ruddin 2006). It is often discussed also by authors, defending Mixed Methods paradigm (for example Greene 2008).

  6. Common European Research Classification Scheme (CERIF), for example classifies S189 as organizational science and S190 as Management of enterprises, general Management does not exist, leadership has not been ‘discovered’ for classification. Field of Science and Technology Classification in the Frascati Manual (FOS 2007) recognizes under no. 5. Social Sciences, and consequently 5.2. Economics and Business, and 5.9. Other social sciences (Slovenian Research Agency 2015b).

    Classifications in social sciences are still based on traditional division of disciplines.

  7. Academy of management was traditionally quantitatively oriented. They started to accept qualitative research, see Bansal and Corley (2011); Gephart (2004) but we have not traced bricolage as research design yet.

  8. Denzin (2012) also describes different types of bricoleurs: methodological bricoleur, theoretical bricoleur, interpretive bricoleur, critical bricoleur, political bricoleur, narrative bricoleur.

  9. When we conducted our study, specifically at the stage of data analysis and findings, there was a recurrent discussion about how to come to branch specific ‘ideal type’ of business model. Underlying question was related to what good, improvements, changes in everyday life of companies this ideal type leads.

  10. We can illustrate this claim by pointing to ‘sustainable development’, the construction of the concept as well as practices, and the agents.

References

  • Al-Debei, M.M., and D. Avison. 2010. Developing a unified framework of the business model concept. European Journal of Information Systems 19: 359–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, G.R., T. Baker, and R. Mauer. 2009. Towards an alternative theory of entrepreneurial success: Integrating bricolage, effectuation and improvisation (summary). Frontiers of Entrepreneurship Research 29(6), art. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristoteles. 1994. Nikomahova etika. Translated by Gantar, K., Slovenska matica, Ljubljana.

  • Aristoteles. 2001. Ethica nicomachea. In The basic works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon, 935–1127. New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., and R.E. Nelson. 2005. Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly 50(2005): 329–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, T., A.S. Miner, and D.T. Eesley. 2003. Improvising firms: Bricolage, account giving and improvisational competencies in the founding process. Research Policy 32(2003): 255–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banerjee, P.M., and B.A. Campbell. 2009. Inventor bricolage and firm technology research and development. R&D Management 39(5): 473–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bansal, P., and T. Corley. 2011. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal 54(2): 233–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biloslavo, R., A. Trnavcevic, D. Edgar, and C. Bagnoli. (under review). Strategic paradoxes as business model’s meta-dimensions.

  • Cullity, G., and B. Gaut. 1997. Ethics and practical reason. Oxford: Clarendon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunha, M.P. 2005. Bricolage in organizations. FEUNL working paper series wp474. Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Faculdade de Economia. https://ideas.repec.org/p/unl/unlfep/wp474.html. Accessed 23 March 2015.

  • Denzin, N. 2012. Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 6(2): 80–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N., and Y. Lincoln. 2000. Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esterby-Smith, M., R. Thorpe, and A. Lowe. 2007. Raziskovanje v managementu. Koper: Fakulteta za management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finlay, L. 2002. Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research 2(2): 209–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. 2001. Making social science matter: Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. 2006a. Making organization research matter: Power, values and Phronesis. In The SAGE Handbook of organization studies, ed. S.R. Clegg, S. Hardy, and T. Lawrence, 370–387. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Flyvbjerg, B. 2006b. Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry 12(2): 219–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gephart, R. 2004. From the editors. Academy of Management Journal 47(4): 454–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C. 2008. Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2(1): 7–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodkinson, P. 2004. Research as a form of work: Expertise, community and methodological objectivity. British Educational Research Journal 30(1): 9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janeš, A. (ed.). 2014. So-ustvarjanje kompetenčnega znanja (Co-creation of competence knowledge). Koper: Fakulteta za management.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kincheloe, J.L. 2001. Describing the bricolage: Conceptualising a new rigour in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry 7(6): 679–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kincheloe, J.L., and K.S. Berry. 2004. Rigour and complexity in educational research: Conceptualising the bricolage. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. 1968. The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kupers, W., and D.J. Pauleen (eds.). 2013. A handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice. Farnham: Gower Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambert, S.C. 2012. Deconstructing business model frameworks using a reference model. Working Paper No. 4. Centre for Accounting, Governance and Sustainability Occasional Working Papers. Adelaide: University of South Australia.

  • Le Loarne, S. 2010. Bricolage versus creativity: What is the difference? Working paper serie RMT (WPS 05–02). 2005, 19 p. <hal-00451857>. http://hal.grenoble-em.com/hal-00451857/document. Accessed 25 February 2015.

  • Letherby, G., J. Scott, and M. Williams. 2013. Objectivity and subjectivity in social research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. 2001. An emerging new bricoleur: Promises and possibilities—A reaction to Joe Kincheloe’s “Describing the bricoleur”. Qualitative Inquiry 7(6): 693–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyotard, J–.L. 1984. The post-modern condition: A report on knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahadevan, B. 2000. Business models for internet-based e-commerce: An anatomy. California Management Review 42: 55–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKeon, R. (ed.). 2001. The basic works of Aristotle. New York: The Modern Library.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers, not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J.M., M. Barret, M. Mayan, K. Olson, and J. Spiers. 2002. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 1(2): 13–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinar, W.F. 2001. The researcher as bricoleur: The teacher as public intellectual. Qualitative Inquiry 7(6): 696–700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R.E., and K.S. Cameron (eds.). 1988. Paradox and transformation: Toward a theory of change in organization and management. Cambridge: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M. 2012. Contextualizing theories and practices of bricolage research. The Qualitative Report 17(T&L Art. 7): 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rooney, D. 2013. Being a wise organizational researcher: Ontology, epistemology, axiology. In A handbook of practical wisdom: Leadership, organization and integral business practice, ed. W. Kupers and D.J. Pauleen, 79–99. Farnham: Gower Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddin, L.P. 2006. You can generalize Stupid! Scientists, Bent Flyvbjerg, and case study methodology. Qualitative Inquiry 12(4): 797–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovenian Research Agency. 2015a. Common European research classification scheme. https://www.arrs.gov.si/en/gradivo/sifranti/sif-cerif-cercs.asp. Accessed 20 February 2015.

  • Slovenian Research Agency. 2015b. Field of science and technology classification in the Frascatti manual (FOS 2007). https://www.arrs.gov.si/en/gradivo/sifranti/sif-cerif-cercs.asp. Accessed 20 February 2015.

  • Thomas, G. 1998. The myth of rational research. British Educational Research Journal 24(2): 141–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trnavcevic, A., R. Biloslavo, A. Bertoncelj, C. Bagnoli, and A. Janes. (under review). Business models as scientific models: A case of perspective?

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Management, University of Primorska, Cankarjeva 5, 6000, Koper, Slovenia

    Anita Trnavcevic & Roberto Biloslavo

Authors
  1. Anita Trnavcevic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Biloslavo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anita Trnavcevic.

Additional information

This paper was presented at the 10th Philosophy of Management international conference in 2015.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Trnavcevic, A., Biloslavo, R. To the Future with Aristoteles: Phronetic Bricolage?. Philosophy of Management 16, 7–18 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-016-0043-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-016-0043-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation