|عنوان فارسی مقاله:||تحول مدیریت به عنوان یک زمینه میان رشته ای|
|عنوان انگلیسی مقاله:||The evolution of management as an interdisciplinary field|
|رشته های مرتبط:||مدیریت، مدیریت تحول|
|فرمت مقالات رایگان||مقالات انگلیسی و ترجمه های فارسی رایگان با فرمت PDF میباشند|
|کیفیت ترجمه||کیفیت ترجمه این مقاله پایین میباشد|
|توضیحات||ترجمه این مقاله به صورت خلاصه انجام شده است.|
|نشریه||امرالد – Emerald|
مقاله انگلیسی رایگان
|دانلود رایگان مقاله انگلیسی|
ترجمه فارسی رایگان
|دانلود رایگان ترجمه مقاله|
|جستجوی ترجمه مقالات||جستجوی ترجمه مقالات مدیریت|
بخشی از ترجمه فارسی مقاله:
بخشی از مقاله انگلیسی:
Purpose – This paper aims to provide insights into the evolution of the concept of interdisciplinarity in management science and management education. Design/methodology/approach – A range of recently published (1993-2002) works, which aim to provide practical advice rather than theoretical books on pedagogy or educational administration, are critiqued to aid the individual make the transition into academia. The sources are sorted into sections: finding an academic job, general advice, teaching, research and publishing, tenure and organizations. Findings – The paper finds that in the evolution of management education and management science interdisciplinarity took different forms: synoptic and instrumental. Both forms resulted from different knowledge strategies of competing and cooperating disciplines. It concludes that in The Netherlands instrumental versions of interdisciplinarity in management research and education prevailed. Research limitations/implications – The paper studies the evolution of interdisciplinarity in management education and management science in the Dutch higher education context. It assumes that the pattern of evolution differs from country to country. Practical implications – Interdisciplinarity is a complex concept. This study provides practical insights into the dynamics of interdisciplinary collaboration. Originality/value – Much has been written about interdisciplinarity in science and education. However there is hardly any empirical and historical research on this topic.
Many management theorists have observed and criticized the continuing differentiation and specialization of academic teaching and research in management (e.g. Whitley, 1988; Porter and McKibbin, 1988; Cheit, 1991; Willmott, 1994; van Baalen and Leijnse, 1995). Whitley (1988, p. 342) states that management studies are characterized by fragmentation, proliferation of diffuse and unconnected intellectual standards, goals and techniques and multiple interpretations of research results. Pfeffer (1993) observes that the field of organizational studies is characterized by a fairly low level of paradigm development, compared to some adjacent social sciences. Donaldson (1995), states that the field (organization theory) is constituted by several mutually incompatible theoretical paradigms. They negate each other, rather than build, on earlier work. Cheit concludes in his study in his history of management thought that the essential nature of management remains elusive.” (Cheit, 1991, p. 217). Some management intellectuals have, therefore, argued that this ongoing fragmentation of management knowledge and curricula into smaller, narrowly focusing sub domains and programs should be halted by establishing a new consensus (Cheit, 1991). Similarly, Pfeffer (1993) believes that consensus with respect to research questions and a method is a critical precondition to scientific advancement of the field. Others advocate reducing the number of different schools of thought to a limited number of main approaches (Volberda and Elfring, 2001). Donaldson (1995) even suggests just one approach (structural contingency theory). Other management theorists hoped that interdisciplinarity could serve as a “non-place” where academics could exchange new views and different opinions which, in the end, will strengthen the development of management and business studies as an interdisciplinary science. (Organization, 2003). A new domain with a new identity being shared by people with a multitude of different backgrounds could take shape. However, interdisciplinary activities in management research and teaching often resulted in disappointments. Knights and Willmott (1997, p. 9) observe that, in spite of the fact that there has been a strong demand for interdisciplinary research and teaching over the last few years, it “often leaves little more that a shrill echo within the corridors of management departments and business schools” and that much lip-service has been paid to the value of interdisciplinary research and teaching in management studies. Fragmentation and disciplinary organization of knowledge fields are not a unique problem of modern business schools. In his cross-national, comprehensive study on higher education systems, Clark (1983) states that “there is so much to counteract, to overcome, since in the content of knowledge and all the meanings associated with academic subject, fragmentation is a dominant force”. Differentiation and specialization in the production of knowledge are, therefore, immanent to the dynamics in higher education systems within modern societies (Stichweh, 1998; Ringer, 1979). Although many management intellectuals have often referred to the ideal of interdisciplinarity in management science and education, the concept has yet to be empirically explored. In this paper, we outline the institutionalization of management studies as an interdisciplinary academic field in the Dutch higher education system. We argue that the rise of interdisciplinary management studies in the 1960s-1970s in the Netherlands should be viewed primarily as a response to the rigid, disciplinary organized higher education system that was unable to respond to the new needs of business and society at large. We further argue that the institutionalization of management studies in the Dutch higher education system took place in the context of a wider (US and Europe) debate about the role of interdisciplinarity in higher education. We finally hope to demonstrate that management is a complex academic field where thoughtful boundary strategies are needed in order to progress. In this article, we will first discuss different views on interdisciplinarity and some social dynamics associated with the institutionalization of interdisciplinarity in higher education. We then describe the institutionalization process of interdisciplinary management studies in three phases. In the first phase, we describe the evolution of business economics as an academic discipline in the period 1910s-1940s. In the second phase, 1940s-1950s, we discuss the forces in Dutch business and society that made the need manifest for interdisciplinary management education programs as an alternative to the disciplinary business economics. We also discuss in this phase the role of interdisciplinary management education movement in this era. In the third phase, 1960s-1970s we describe how the first interdisciplinary management education programs were adopted in the Dutch higher education system. We then continue discussing the main developments of interdisciplinarity in management studies after the first management education programs were institutionalized. We will then end with some conclusions and implications.