Abstract
In Chapters 5 and 6 we have looked at two contrasting approaches to the question of what justifies our belief that social research can provide us with knowledge (in particular knowledge about organisations and management). In both cases the answer has been in terms of a kind of foundation, a basis which is firm and stable — in one case (naturalism) enough for us to build structures of knowledge on its root, in another (interpretavism) enough to allow us to add fresh insights and incorporate them into an existing nexus of perceptions and texts. Obviously, phrased in this way this is naive. Not everyone who calls themself a naturalist or hermeneutician is so innocent of the difficulties of establishing knowledge. But this is the aspiration, whatever its reality.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Copyright information
© 2002 Paul Griseri
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Griseri, P. (2002). A Postscript (to Chapters 5 and 6) which is also a Preamble (to Chapters 7 and 8). In: Management Knowledge. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-0545-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4039-0545-1_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-77094-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-0545-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)