Abstract
In this paper we examine the alleged war between Kuhn and Popper, extending the discussion to incorporate two of their lesser known, but important, protagonists, Lakatos and Feyerabend. The argument presented here is that the four can fruitfully be considered together, and that it is possible to go beyond the surface tensions and clashes between them to fashion an approach which takes advantage of the insights of all. The implications of this approach for management are then considered, using the concept of co-creation in two different contexts to illustrate this.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fuller, S. (2001) Kuhn vs. Popper Cambridge: Icon Books.
Johnson, P. and Duberley, J. (2000) Understanding Management Research London:Sage p 68. 40
See for example the splendid exchange of letters between Feyerabend and Lakatos to be found in Motterlini, M. (Ed.) (1999) For And Against Method Chicago: University of Chicago Press pp 119–373.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Science.
ibid.
Kuhn, T. (1991). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd Ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 41
Gattei, S. (2001) A Plea for Criticism in Matters Epistemological Social Epistemology Volume 17 Nos. 2&3 163.
Feyerabend, P.K. (1975) Against Method New Lef Books.
Feyerabend, P.K. (1965) Reply to Criticism in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 2 pp 223–4.
Lakatos, I. (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Volume 1 CUPress: Cambridge p 156.
ibid. p 156.
ibid. p 100.
Feyerabend, P.K. Teses on Anarchism in Motterlini op. cit. pp 117–18.
To Think with Integrity Hilary Putnam’s Farewell Lecture, available at: http://spazioinwind.libero.it/albgaz/putnam/puteng.html#Testi%20di%20Putnam.
Darwin, J (2001) Alethic Pluralism And The Development Of Management Tinking And Practice Proceedings of Philosophy of Management Conference.
Wilber, K. (2000) Integral Psychology Boston:Shambhala p 62.
Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis London: Heinmann.
Lakatos op. cit.:110-111.
For greater discussion of this, including Lakatos’s view of fallibilism, see Darwin (2005) op. cit.
Drucker, P. Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, 1913, quoted in Waller, J (2002) Fabulous Science Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Waller,J. (2002) Fabulous Science Oxford: Oxford University Press 69–75 Based on Wrege, C. and Perroni, A. Taylor’s Pig-Tale Work Study and Management Services (Vol 9 pp 564–9, 1974).
eters, T. and Waterman In Search of Excellence 198, quoted in Waller op.cit.
Waller op. cit. pp 86–90.
Hough and White Using Stories To Create Change: The Object Lesson Of Frederick Taylor’s Pig-tale Journal of Management.2001; 27: 585–601.
Collins J C & Porras J I (2000) Built to last: Successful habits of visionary companies (3rd Edition) London: Century Press.
Reingold, J and Underwood, R (2004) Was Built to Last Built to Last? at http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/88/built-to-last.html.
ibid.
http://www.whomovedmycheese.com/whomovedmycheese/ Johnson, S. (2002) Who Moved My Cheese? Vermilion.
For example, see Kotter, J. and Rathgeber, H. (2006) Our Iceberg Is Melting Pan.
Gabriel, Yiannis (1998) ‘Same Old Story or Changing Stories? Folkloric, Modern and Postmodern Mutations’ in D. Grant, T. Keenoy and C. Oswick (eds) Discourse and Organization. London: Sage 41.
Max Houck, who runs a forensic science graduate course at West Virginia University, US, quoted at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4284335.stm.
Klatsop County Circuit Judge Paula Brownhill,quoted at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/10/eveningnews/main673060.shtml.
ibid.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/_/hi/sci/tech/42_4___.stm1/hi/sci/tech/4284335.stm.
Pfohl, 1985:295.
Sylvia S. Tognetti, S.S. (1999) ‘Science in a double-bind: Gregory Bateson and the origins of post-normal Science’ Futures 31 689–703.
Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J.R. (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy.
Ravetz J.R. What is Post-Normal Science Futures 31 (1999) 647–653.
ibid.
ibid.
Schein, E. (1987) Process Consultation (s): Lessons for Managers and Consultants Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.
Schein op. cit.
Based on Post-Normal Science — Beyond simplistic belief systems Jerry Ravetz http://www.postnormaltimes.net/blog/archives/2005/05/postnormal_scie_1.html.
For discussion of the concept of Arena of Power see Darwin, J (2003) Preventing Premature Agreement Reason In Practice: The Journal of Philosophy of Management.
Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff (2000) Future search: an action guide to finding common ground in organizations and communities San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler; Robert W. Jacobs (1997) Real time strategic change: how to involve an entire organization in fast and far-reaching change San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.
Harrison Owen (1997) Open space technology: a user’s guide San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Stephen Denning (2001) The springboard: how storytelling ignites action in knowledge-era organizations Boston: Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; Gabriel, Yiannis (1998) Same Old Story or Changing Stories? Folkloric, Modern and Postmodern Mutations. In D. Grant, T. Keenoy and C. Oswick (eds) Discourse and Organization London: Sage.
Ludema, J.D., Cooperrider, D.L. and Barrett, F.J. (2006) Appreciative inquiry: the power of the unconditional positive question in Peter Reason and Hilary Bradbury (Ed.) Handbook of action research: the concise paperback edition London: SAGE.
Chan Kim, W. and Mauborgne, R. (2005) Blue ocean strategy: how to create uncontested market space and make the competition irrelevant Boston: Harvard Business School.
Pine, B.J. and Gilmore, J.H. (1999) The experience economy: work is theatre and every business a stage Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Prahalad C. K and Ramaswamy V. (2004) The Future of Competition: Co-creating Unique Value with Customers Boston: Harvard Business School.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994) Competing for the Future Harvard Business School Press: Boston.
Prahalad C. K and Ramaswamy V. Co-creating unique value with customers Strategy and Leadership Vol 32 No 3 2004 4–9.
ibid pp 4.5.
Watkins, J.M. (2001) Appreciative Inquiry: Change at the Speed of Imagination San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer 133–5.
Srivastva, S. and Cooperrider, D.L. (1999) Appreciative Management and Leadership Eucild, Ohio: Williams Custom Publishing 97, 116–17.
Quoted in Weisbord, N. (1992) Discovering Common Ground San Francisco:Berret-Koehler p 13.
Burkeman, O. The Anti-Secret The Guardian Saturday April 21, 2007.
Gardner, H. (2006) Five Minds for the Future Boston:Harvard Business School Press.
Gosling, J and Mintzberg, H. (2003) Five Minds of a Manager Harvard Business Review, November.
‘A discipline constitutes a distinctive way of thinking about the world. Scientists observe the world; come up with tentative classifications, concepts and theories; design experiments in order to test those tentative theories; revise the theories in the light of the findings; and then return, newly informed, to make further observations, redo classifications, and devise experiments.’ op.cit. 27.
‘Analysis loosens up complex phenomena by breaking them into component parts — by decomposing them.… The key to analysing efectively, in our view, is to get beyond conventional approaches in order to appreciate how analysis works and what efect it has on the organisation.’ op. cit.
‘I would expect that a worthy ‘synthesis on synthesis’ should be clear, at least minimally original, reasonably convincing, and potentially useful.’ op. cit. 70.
‘Far from being uniform, this world is made up of all kinds of worlds. Should we not, then, be encouraging our managers to be more worldly, more experienced in life, in both sophisticated and practical ways? … To paraphrase TS. Eliot’s famous words, should we not explore ceaselessly in order to return home and know the place for the first time.’ op. cit.
‘By virtue of its anchoring in territory that is not yet rule-governed, the creating mind seeks to remain at least one step ahead of even the most sophisticated computers and robots.… ‘The creator … strikes out in unfamiliar directions and enjoys — or at least accepts — being diferent from the pack. When an anomaly arises … she does not shrink from that unexpected wrinkle.’ op. cit. 3,83.
‘Organisations… need managers who see both ways — in a sense, ones who look out the window at dawn, to see through their own refections to the awakening world outside.’ op. cit.
‘The respectful mind notes and welcomes differences between human individuals and between human groups, tries to understand these ‘others’, and seeks to work effectively with them.’ op. cit. 3.
#x2018;Getting into a truly collaborative mind-set means getting beyond empowerment and into commitment. It also means getting away from the currently popular heroic style of managing and moving toward a more engaging style.’ op. cit.
‘An action mind-set is about developing a sensitive awareness of the terrain and of what the team is capable of doing in it and thereby helping to set and maintain direction, coaxing everyone along.’ op. cit.
op. cit. 143.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Darwin, J. Kuhn vs. Popper vs. Lakatos vs. Feyerabend: Contested Terrain or Fruitful Collaboration?. Philos. of Manag. 9, 39–57 (2010). https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20109117
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5840/pom20109117