Lakhasly

This paper argues that the body of knowledge that consti-
tutes administrative science is a socially constructed prod-
uct. Because empirical observations are inevitably medi-
ated by theoretical preconceptions, our knowledge of
organizations is fundamentally shaped by the subjective
world views through which we perceive data. Truth is
defined in terms of the theoretical constructs and concep-
tual vocabulary that guide research and mediate access to
organizational phenomena. The chief product of research
is, consequently, theoretical language, rather than objec-
tive data. The knowledge of administrative science is not
built from objective truths but is, instead, an artifact-the
product of social definition. Institutional mechanisms rein-
force these social definitions of truth by investing them
with the stamp of scientific authenticity.
In an ambitious proposal for enhancing the state of organiza-
tion theory, Warriner, Hall, and McKelvey (1981: 173) invited all
organizational scholars to participate in formulating "a standard
list of operationalized, observable variables for describing orga-
nizations." This invitation was designed to overcome problems
resulting from the tendency of different investigators to use
alternative sets of variables and, consequently, describe orga-
nizations of the same type, and even the same organizations,
in quite different ways. Thus, Warriner, Hall, and McKelvey
(1 981: 1 75) argued that a rMore accurate representation of
organizational phenomena could be achieved by establishing a
repository of "pooled data" on operational measures to be
used in empirical research.
Underlying this proposal is a conventional model of scientific
progress as a cumulative discovery of objective truth. This
model, which currently dominates administrative science,
assumes that knowledge grows linearly as new data are added
to the existing stock of research findings. In this view, the lack
of standardized measures and variables for describing empiri-
cal reality greatly impedes scientific progress and should be
rectified. This paper, in contrast, argues that variety in the
language of administrative science is unavoidable, since it
reflects deep metatheoretical differences between research-
ers whose backgrounds, values, and philosophies diverge radi-
cally. No theory can simply "describe" empirical reality in
neutral linguistic terms; all theoretical perspectives are infused
by the biases inhering in particular world views. The search for
a standard list of variables is, consequently, based on a mis-
apprehension, since differences in perspective between
theoretical approaches cannot be resolved through an appeal
to "objective" truth.
In contrast to the conventional model, this paper represents
administrative science as a fundamentally subjective enter-
prise. Because researchers adhere to different world views,
they generate a variety of alternative perspectives as they
impose different meanings and interpretations upon data. The
field's development is characterized not by increasing conver-
gence upon an accepted body of knowledge but by a growing
divergence in research perspectives and approaches. Intense
competition between rival paradigms prevails as advocates of
diverse theoretical positions attempt to persuade others of the
497/Administrative Science Quarterly, 30 (1985): 497-513
This content downloaded from
147.235.200.212 on Mon, 24 Oct 2022 07:03:06 UTC
All use subject to https