Hugh Willmott, Warren Miller, Linda Perriton, John Naman and others
have contributed recently to this thread of discussion. I had hoped,
given the broad range of backgrounds and interests of those on this
listserv, that at least some effective dialogue and learning would
be possible. It seems to me that at the very heart or center of many
issues related to management education/development is our difficulty in
interacting when we confront paradigmatic, epistemological or ontological
differences. Linda wrote, "It seems by the recent postings in this thread
that a good, old fashioned paradigm war has broken out. Wars of attrition
are seldom educational past the basics. Is there a better direction we can
turn this discussion in without losing the focus on the contribution of
critical work to management education?"
Perhaps I interpret Linda's comment differently than John did ["And I also
agree with Linda that we should end this digression and return to
discussing more useful issues in management education, training, and
development."] Rather than dismiss these differences or rely largely on
war and assault metaphors as Warren suggests ["As a colleague who also
participates on
occasion in these list discussions wrote me, "The fight for rationality
will be long and hard, like the Cold War. Dig in."], are we and this
medium mature enough to engage in a dialogue or even in an informed debate
on the intellectual and pragmatic returns from critical theory and
poststructural paradigms (for example)? Too often an important issue is
raised, we get
a few comments (some of which seem quick or "tossout" reactions that upset
others) and these lists move on another issue with often "surface-level"
discussion. As a medium for management learning, is this the "best" that
we (as consultants, teachers and professionals) can do? Or are we really in
some postmodern world where we don't care for much other than playful
little diversions and quick skirmishes with the larger and more profound
questions surrounding our professions or careers. On this list
we have articulate individuals (such as Willmott and Boje) who have long
written about paradigmatic challenges and have taken strong and
controversial positions. We also have many others here in academic or
professional careers who oppose (or would oppose) such views. Can this
medium begin to engage improved learning on important issues (and draw
together better theory and practice) or is it a form of "wasteland" or a
"teaser" in which largely disconnected thinking/comments occasionally
draw our interest -- only to disappoint us in their nuturance or fruition.
No, we won't solve the great issues of the day in this or other modes of
communication, but where should we at least be engaging these issues in
some seriousness and depth? It doesn't even seem to occur much through
published academic or scholarly work. Our work lives and other
responsibilities often give us less time to read, and we largely read those
publications that appeal to our existing interests or assumptions.
And most organizations don't seem to encourage or allow much time for
exploring and examining paradigmatic or epistemological differences.
Perhaps if critical academic work has any relevance to management
education/ development it comes in raising questions and concerns for
professionals
(such as I've raised) and continuing to pursue ways to explore these
issues.
Steve Payne
Dept. of Management
Georgia College & State University