The Experts below are selected from a list of 49014 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mariejose Avenier - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science
Organization Studies, 2010Co-Authors: Mariejose AvenierAbstract:The so-called rigor—relevance gap appears unbridgeable in the classical view of organization science, which is based on the physical sciences' model. Constructivist scholars have also pointed out a certain inadequacy of this model of science for organization research, but they have not offered an explicit, alternative model of science. Responding to this lack, this paper brings together the two separate paradigmatic perspectives of constructivist epistemologies and of organizational design science, and shows how they could jointly constitute the ingredients of a Constructivism-founded scientific paradigm for organization research. Further, the paper highlights that, in this constructivist view of organizational design science, knowledge can be generated and used in ways that are mutually enriching for academia and practice.
-
shaping a constructivist view of organizational design science
Post-Print, 2010Co-Authors: Mariejose AvenierAbstract:The so-called rigor–relevance gap appears unbridgeable in the classical view o organization science, which is based on the physical sciences' model. Constructivist scholar have also pointed out a certain inadequacy of this model of science for organization research but they have not offered an explicit, alternative model of science. Responding to this lack, this paper brings together the two separate paradigmati perspectives of constructivist epistemologies and of organizational design science, and show how they could jointly constitute the ingredients of a Constructivism-founded scientifi paradigm for organization research. Further, the paper highlights that, in this constructivis view of organizational design science, knowledge can be generated and used in ways that ar mutually enriching for academia and practice.
Daniel H. Nexon - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Constructivist Realism or Realist‐Constructivism?
International Studies Review, 2004Co-Authors: Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Daniel H. NexonAbstract:In his article “Realist Constructivism,”Barkin (2003:338) described Constructivism as a cluster of research methods and analytical tools: a “set of assumptions about how to study world politics” rather than a “set of assumptions about how politics work.” As such, Constructivism is subject to E.H. Carr's dialectic between realism and utopianism. Barkin also argued that the problem with contemporary Constructivism is that it has been dominated by liberalism and idealism; it would therefore benefit from a healthy infusion of realism. Much of Barkin's essay is aimed at showing that mainstream Constructivism is, or can be, broadly compatible with classical realist theory. Barkin is right that mainstream US Constructivism is liberal and idealist. In this respect, his article serves as an important overarching statement of a position implicitly taken by a growing number of constructivist scholars. However, Barkin underplays the real and substantial differences between a commitment to understanding the social world as a product of contingent social interactions, on the one hand, and a commitment to understanding the social world as a result of natural necessity, on the other. These divergent commitments are assumptions about how politics works—assumptions that place Constructivism in opposition to both liberal and realist approaches to contemporary international relations. By ignoring these distinctions, Barkin's arguments amount to a call for a “constructivist realism”—a realism that takes norms and ideas seriously as objects of analysis—rather than a “realist-Constructivism”—a Constructivism that involves a self-consistent set of arguments about why power cannot be, in any way, transcended in international politics. The latter approach represents the key space in the field occupied by realist-Constructivism, and it provides a better basis for promoting both a dialogue within Constructivism and a dialogue between Constructivism and realism. Where would a properly understood realist-Constructivism fit into the disputes between the so-called “isms” in …
J. Samuel Barkin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Realist Constructivism and Realist-Constructivisms
International Studies Review, 2004Co-Authors: J. Samuel BarkinAbstract:“Realist Constructivism” (Barkin 2003) endeavored to make the case that classical realist theory and constructivist approaches to the study of international relations are not implacably opposed, as has been claimed by self-described realist and constructivist scholars of international relations theory. As such, the goal of the article was to create a set of permissive conditions for a realist Constructivism (unhyphenated, understood as a general approach rather than as a specific theory)—that is, a footnote that future students of international relations could use rather than have to make the case themselves that the two are not incompatible. In creating a set of permissive conditions, my hope was that a variety of specific realist-Constructivisms (hyphenated, understood as more specific theories of international relations within the general approach of realist Constructivism) could be created, each suitable to particular research questions and each contributing to a broader conversation on realist Constructivism in the study of international relations. This Forum constitutes the beginning of such a conversation. The four theoretical formulations in this Forum suggest at least two axes on which specific realist-Constructivisms might differ: (1) how to understand power, and (2) how to deal with the relationships among power, idealism, and liberalism. These questions provide two fruitful areas for a discussion of the potentialities and limits of realist Constructivism in general. Power as a concept is involved in this conversation in two ways. The first is the status of power in a realist Constructivism. Three of the four essays in this Forum argue that power cannot be transcended in international relations. The outlier, Richard Ned Lebow's essay, suggests that power is central to the study of international relations, but it is only one necessary focus among many. But even among the three essays that argue that power cannot be transcended, disagreement exists about the …
Robert Nola - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Constructivism in science and science education a philosophical critique
Science Education, 1997Co-Authors: Robert NolaAbstract:This paper argues that constructivist science education works with an unsatisfactory account of knowledge which affects both its account of the nature of science and of science education. The paper begins with a brief survey of realism and anti-realism in science and the varieties of Constructivism that can be found. In the second section the important conception of knowledge and teaching that Plato develops in the Meno is contrasted with Constructivism. The section ends with an account of the contribution that Vico (as understood by constructivists), Kant and Piaget have made to constructivist doctrines. Section three is devoted to a critique of the theory of knowledge and the anti-realism of von Glaserfeld. The final section considers the connection, or lack of it, between the constructivist view of science and knowledge and the teaching of science.
Patrick Thaddeus Jackson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Constructivist Realism or Realist‐Constructivism?
International Studies Review, 2004Co-Authors: Patrick Thaddeus Jackson, Daniel H. NexonAbstract:In his article “Realist Constructivism,”Barkin (2003:338) described Constructivism as a cluster of research methods and analytical tools: a “set of assumptions about how to study world politics” rather than a “set of assumptions about how politics work.” As such, Constructivism is subject to E.H. Carr's dialectic between realism and utopianism. Barkin also argued that the problem with contemporary Constructivism is that it has been dominated by liberalism and idealism; it would therefore benefit from a healthy infusion of realism. Much of Barkin's essay is aimed at showing that mainstream Constructivism is, or can be, broadly compatible with classical realist theory. Barkin is right that mainstream US Constructivism is liberal and idealist. In this respect, his article serves as an important overarching statement of a position implicitly taken by a growing number of constructivist scholars. However, Barkin underplays the real and substantial differences between a commitment to understanding the social world as a product of contingent social interactions, on the one hand, and a commitment to understanding the social world as a result of natural necessity, on the other. These divergent commitments are assumptions about how politics works—assumptions that place Constructivism in opposition to both liberal and realist approaches to contemporary international relations. By ignoring these distinctions, Barkin's arguments amount to a call for a “constructivist realism”—a realism that takes norms and ideas seriously as objects of analysis—rather than a “realist-Constructivism”—a Constructivism that involves a self-consistent set of arguments about why power cannot be, in any way, transcended in international politics. The latter approach represents the key space in the field occupied by realist-Constructivism, and it provides a better basis for promoting both a dialogue within Constructivism and a dialogue between Constructivism and realism. Where would a properly understood realist-Constructivism fit into the disputes between the so-called “isms” in …
