Three Dogmas: A Rejoinder

Offers a reply to Trevor Maddock′s philosophical critique of the authors′ work. Contains a brief summary of the authors′ research programme, located within a perspective on philosophy of educational administration, a series of short responses to some minor criticisms and a number of more extended replies to major criticisms. Defends the authors′ view that a science is quite broad because the adjudication of competing scientific theories is conducted according to coherentist criteria. Also defends a naturalistic view of ethics, thus locating moral judgement on the same explanatory agenda as other judgements an administrator might make about decisions and choices concerning organizational life.