ABSTRACT
In the previous chapters we have sought to provide an overview of our four paradigms in relation to the literature on social theory and the study of organisations. Each of the paradigms draws upon a long, complex and conceptually rich intellectual tradition, which generates its own particular brand of insight. Each of the paradigms has been treated on its own terms. We have sought to explore from within and to draw out the full implications of each for the study of organisations. Using our analytical scheme, destructive critique would have been a simple task. By assuming a posture in a rival paradigm, it would have been possible to demolish the contribution of any individual text or theoretical perspective, by providing a comprehensive critique in terms ofits underlying assumptions. Using the dimensions of our analytical scheme, we could have attacked work located il\ any given paradigm from each of the three other paradigms simply by locating ourselves in turn within their respective problematics. We could then have moved inside the given paradigm and provided a critique from within, evaluating it in terms of the consistency of its assumptions from the point of view of its own problematic. Many ofthe critical treatises in our general area of study attempt to do precisely these things. They evaluate in detail from within, or in terms of fundamentals from a given point outside which reflects their own paradigmatic location. Whilst there may be much to recommend the all-embracing style of critique which our analytical scheme suggests, particularly where the intention is to investigate a single work in depth, or in student essay writing, seminar sessions, and academic papers, it has little to offer here. The task of academic demolition is simply all too easy. We have consciously sought to adopt a constructive stance, to build rather than to demolish. We have sought to show what each of the paradigms has to offer, given an opportunity to speak for itself.
