Barbara Czarniawska

On Time, Space, and Action Nets

Laboratory studies, especially those by Latour and Woolgar (1979/1986) and Knorr Cetina (1981) have proved to be an invaluable source of inspiration for students of organizing. Laboratories, however, are primarily reminiscent of simple factories, an organization form that is no longer central in today’s world of work organizations. Two aspects of factory-like organizing are problematized in this paper: the dominance of chronological time and the existence of centers of calculation. Complementing these aspects with kairotic time and dispersed calculation will bring the two types of studies even closer. Such a rapprochement will allow for the adjustment of methodological approaches in studies of organization in a way similar to that dominant in SST (studies of science and technology) research. Two such changes are suggested: the study of action nets rather than organizations as study objects, which require the reversal of the time perspective; and the use of mobile ethnologies, facilitating study of the life and work of people who move around a great deal.

Consulting as a Liminal Space

The growing literature on management consulting views consultants as allies of management, in temporary positions of power. This article attempts to complement this perspective by assuming a metaphor of consulting as a liminal space. Liminality is a condition where the usual practice and order are suspended and replaced by new rites and rituals. We build on the anthropological analyses of Arnold van Gennep and Victor Turner to find theoretical support for the idea of liminality as applied to the consulting activity. This article is based on our experience as consultants and observers. It collects on-the-job reflections - ours and those of other consultants we have met. These participating observations support the suggestion that consulting can be represented as a liminal space for both consultants and their client organizations.

Emerging Institutions: Pyramids or Anthills?

In the present text, an institution is understood to be an (observable) pattern of collective action, justified by a corresponding norm. By this definition, an institution emerges slowly, although it may be helped or hindered by various specific acts. From this perspective, an institutional entrepreneur is an oxymoron, at least in principle. In practice, however, there are and always have been people trying to create institutions. This article describes the emergence of the London School of Economics and Political Science as an institution and analyzes its founders and its supporters during crises as institutional entrepreneurs. A tentative theory of the phenomenon of institutional entrepreneurship is then constructed by combining elements of sociology of translation, actor-network theory and garbage can model. The article concludes with a suggestion that the way institutional enterprises are narrated may differ from the way they are built, and a genre analysis can be of further help in understanding this phenomenon.

Gone shopping? Universities on their way to the market

In most western countries there is a widely held opinion that, facing competition from other knowledge-producers, universities must change their identity from that of state-financed monopolies to self-financed participants in the knowledge-production markets. Together with a demand for specificity and differentiation, comes the need for comparability and similarity. In order to compete with other sites of knowledge production, universities must make themselves comparable to these. This standard problem is greeted with a standard solution: quality assurance, evaluation and ranking are standard procedures adopted in western Europe and in the countries of former Eastern Bloc. In this paper, we analyze this phenomenon and then illustrate its consequences with examples from current practice in four universities.

Organizing: how to study it and how to write about it

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review emerging approaches to field studies of organizing that aim to avoid the problems of traditional methods and techniques.Design/methodology/approach – The paper is based in pragmatist philosophy and constructionist perspective. Within this frame, the paper starts with a brief history of fieldwork methods in organization study, continues by diagnosing their shortcomings in the light of contemporary developments, and ends by reviewing promising approaches to studying contemporary organizations.Findings – Young researchers are warned about possible risks and gains from experimenting with new methods.Originality/value – The potential value of the paper is in its function of a guide for organization scholars looking for innovative approaches to their study object.

A Four Times Told Tale: Combining Narrative and Scientific Knowledge in Organization Studies

A growing acknowledgement of the fact that social scientific texts employ a variety of literary means encourages and requires collective reflection and genre analysis. The present article applies such reflection to organization theory texts, revealing differing ways in which facts and metaphors, logic and stories are woven together. In conclusion, the genre of organization theory is submitted to an institutional analysis.

Is it Possible to be a Constructionist Consultant

This article explores difficulties of employing a constructionist stance when confronted with the institutionalized expectations of managers. The difficulty reveals itself to be grounded in a contrast between the logic of representation, conventionally used in contacts between researchers and managers, and the logic of practice, which is the medium of everyday organizational life and the focus of constructionist interest. The final discussion raises the question of whether the two kinds of logic can be reconciled with the logic of theory and the contract between managerial practice and managerial theory rewritten along new lines.

Forbidden Knowledge Organization Theory in Times of Transition

There is a body of organizational knowledge that offers insight and reflection over the practices of organizing. Yet most of the curricula steer clear of it, insisting on propagating modernist ideas of control and masculine ideas of mastery. Is it because the new ideals are not yet in place or because reflection over practice is not seen as worth propagating? What kind of organization theory is needed at present and by whom? Are students, managers, and organization researchers interested in the same kind of topics? Rather than providing answers, the essay aims at opening a debate.

Management Education and Humanities

Management Education and Humanities argues that management teachers and researchers seem to be increasingly dissatisfied with the way managers are usually educated in western countries. It claims that educational practices and methods would greatly benefit from reflection on the implicit assumptions and paradigms behind those practices, and debates the role that humanism and humanities might play in the formation of new managerial elites.

A Golden Braid: Allport, Goffman, Weick:

One of the central tenets of Karl Weick’s work and one of his original contributions to organization theory is his insistence that organizational scholars should study structures of events rather than people, objects, or pseudo-objects, important as they all are. Through the operation of sensemaking, events may be portrayed as meaningful actions or random occurrences, but it is the connections among them that are central to organizing. This paper connects Karl Weick’s work to that of Floyd H. Allport and Erving Goffman, two among several writers who inspired Weick. These three authors shared an interest in what Allport called structuring, Goffman called ordering, and Weick called organizing of the events and experiences of everyday life. This genealogical presentation of their work attempts to situate their thoughts within contemporary debates in social sciences, including those determined by the spirit of the times.