Handbook of Corporate Communication and Public ... - Blogs Unpad

awareness of what is involved in inquiry so
that we may recognize the virtues and limitations
of our claims to knowledge.
Empirical and scientific knowledge is but
one form of belief. Positivist ‘research’ practices
suppress epistemological issues, and result in
the making of bold and hegemonic claims to
knowledge. This is commonplace in management
studies. Empirical study is taken to be
about things that happen, and even nonempirical
claims may have empirical consequences.
‘Much of what is considered positivistic
management research may not actually
represent positivism as it remains undertheorized
and conceptually lacking, thus perhaps
being better described as naïve empiricism’
(Johnson and Duberley, 2000: 60).
Tudor (1982) suggests general criteria for
the acceptance of knowledge. For knowledge
to be accepted it is shared by a body of ‘significant
others’ (an epistemic community,
Holzner, 1972) (intersubjective legitimation).
The knowledge has to be congruent with
what that epistemic community already
knows (coherence with accepted preconceptions).
In principle, the truth is publicly
demonstrable. Pragmatically, what gives good
practical results is considered ‘good’ knowledge
(contribution). Only positivists would
insist on correspondence with the ‘facts’ of
‘reality’. Yet the will to pragmatism can bypass
coherent theoretical foundation.
For us, being critical does not mean standing
outside management and exposing its
flaws and weaknesses. It entails an active
and passionate commitment to improving
managers’ abilities to deal with the problems
they face, and helping them to discover
how to manage better. This involves
both sustained investigation at the practical
level and equally sustained critical activity
at the level of theory and analysis; it also
entails a requirement of both managers
and academics to be self-critical. A critical
capacity then is not something which is
outside and opposed to management – on
the contrary, it is the very condition for
management to be able to learn, adapt
and influence the rapidly changing world
conditions of the coming century.
(Fulop and Linstead, 1999: 1–2)
In reflecting on management education,
I recognize the significance of the anthropological
notion of a complex ‘web of belief’
(drawn on by Quine and Ullian, 1970). The
philosopher Kant wanted to abolish knowledge
to make way for belief. In mindlessly
pursuing ‘science’, maybe that is largely what
we have achieved! Is too much of our so-called
‘research’ no more than the ‘discovery’ of evidence
to confirm our own beliefs-in-use of the
moment, or can we really aspire to use some
rigorous and systematic process to change our
beliefs and values for the better
‘Teaching’ methodology for
communication research
The traditional rationale is to teach research
methods – sophistication and proficiency in
using (the right) method is taken to be the
(only) path to warranted knowledge. I wondered
how well what happens ‘between
people’ could be treated entirely with scientific
method. ‘From a purely positivist point of
view man (sic) is the most mysterious and
disconcerting of all the objects met with by
science. In fact we may as well admit that
science has not yet found a place for him (sic)
in its representations of the universe’ (Teilhard
de Chardin, 1959: 181).
Since this comment, the fields upon which
corporate communication researchers might
draw (cognitive psychology, social psychol-
© 2004 Sandra Oliver for editorial matter and selection;
individual chapters, the contributors