 |
 |
I hope that you are right, Daved, that in ten years organizational aesthetics will have the same legitimacy that qualitative research has achieved. I say legitimacy because it feels like I have to fight for the legitimacy of approaching something from an arts based perspective every time I write for an MOS journal. I also have the same experience when I try to write about action research. And I realize that there was a time when action research had moved pretty far up the legitimacy curve in MOS (there were centers of action research at prestigious universities such as MIT's Sloan school), but it somehow failed to make it. So I have a cautionary tale in my head as well. And to add to Mike's idea, I think that beauty is one way to legitimacy. Beautiful writing, beautiful research, or at least artful writing and research is much harder to ignore and leave in the dustbin of academic history - whether that research is science based or art based. Anyway, just my thoughts on this fine April morning (it is still below freezing here in New England). - Steve On 4/8/07 6:51 AM, "Daved Barry" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I didn't mean that aacorn is being scientized. Actually, I meant the > opposite, that we're beginning to find arts-based standards for making and > judging work that are just as rigorous, important, contributive, etc., as > the hard science standards that have been used in MOS (mgmt. and org > studies) for the last century. Things like what you're mentioning here > (creative use of constraints) and like what Steve Carroll mentioned last > time (e.g., noticing the unnoticed). It's kind of like what happened when > Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba wrote "Naturalistic Inquiry"--where they > developed a set of counter standards for social research. > Steven S. Taylor, PhD Assistant Professor Worcester Polytechnic Institute Department of Management 100 Institute Rd Worcester, MA 01609 USA +1 508-831-5557 [log in to unmask]