About 'Time'

First, if it were possible to make judgment only based on definitive identities of things with regard to rationality, it would become extremely difficult to explain why sometimes discontinuous changes are observed. It is too apparent that actors cannot identify things with their respectively definitive identities; thus, always refer to contents and contexts to establish reality intelligible to them. But, even in case that reference to contents and contexts are presumed, visible attributes are not likely to differ significantly between actors simply because they share more or less identical visual perceptive systems. Then, bringing about significant differences between actors should be attributed to what cannot directly be observed. As Gibson (1978) establishes, human perceptive systems can as their normal capacities generate two distinct sense data between direct observation and indirect background information at one time. Without assuming this characteristic of human perceptive systems, the most critical assumption in the concept of sensemaking or the logic of practical rationality that one can see a thing in relation to other things is not possible. Then, because of this characteristic shared by all of the actors, visible side of attributes identified can amply certainly be predicted to resemble one another. However, still, such resemblances in appearances never guarantee any exactly identical understandings on such resemblances. Simply, each one has her own perspective. What has been perplexing us most is invisibility of source of each one's perspective. While it is too obvious that different actors have different perspectives, we do not know what causes such differences. Then, scientists tend to look for something we can directly observe. This is the very beginning of mistake, or, such is literally a wrong start. What makes significant difference cannot be observed by anybody by any means including by means of sophisticated devices. Scientists tend to assume that what makes difference should be variance in capacities or environmental factors among different actors partly because they are relatively superior in terms of intellectual capacities to others. Simply, they can see more than others. But, what makes significant differences is something that is never directly observed even by gifted scientists. Time is it. What is important is the fact that everyone can feel time while no one can see it. Why does everyone feel time, then? One is because we have memories. Another is less explicit but, because we are registering data about ceaseless movements through our ceaselessly moving physiological perspectives, we may eventually feel time. Thus, the reason why everyone without exception feels time is grounded conspicuously in sense data received from materially real things. Hence, time is both material and fictive. 

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Inclusive axeology, realistic ways of centering human beings

With this inclusive axiology of practice view, human actors appear to be regaining their territories within organizations. While it is questionable if they are liberated from 'iron cage' of bureaucracy, human actors' capabilities to make sense of events and phenomena, things, fellow actors, and self seem to be acquiring realistic and critical positions from which more accurate explanations about organizational reality can be presented. This thesis attempts to push a step further such movements towards the realistic manner of centering of human actors in the analyses of organizational phenomena.

With regard to the word 'realistic', I should clarify my position. Admitting possible criticisms of determinism, naturalism, or essentialism, I mean by 'realistic' that capabilities of human actors are constrained by nature; and thus, analyses of processes of organizing should firmly be predicated in such immutable and inherited natural capabilities of them. Among such innate capabilities, those of reasoning and socializing are seen to be originating in nature as well as those of feeling and acting. Put differently, human beings are regarded as naturally evaluative and social beings as well as sentient and mobile beings; and thus, practices they engage need to be understood to be taking place in nature. At the same time, however, to subscribe also to 'realistic' in conventional terms, this thesis does not focus on individual actor's capabilities in isolation from other actors including non-human entities. As has just been mentioned, human beings are to be seen as naturally social beings; thus, their natural capabilities deserve analyses in practical field of organizations only if positioned in relationships with others.

  

Evernote helps you remember everything and get organized effortlessly. Download Evernote.

Research Methods

Czarniawska, B. (1998)
Anticipation & Prediction

Semantic reading & Semiotic reading

Narrative seems to be a device which can bridge action (practices) enacted and objects (including objectified concepts, institutions, etc.)

Gubrium, J. (1988)
Structure as object and processes in which human actors are interacting making sense of their respective realities

Ethnomethodology: focusing on the process-side
However, investigating only those processes would bring us nowhere unless we at one point draw our attention to already existing structure as objects that have been being utlilised by human actors.

Noblit, G. W. and R. D. Hare (1988)
Interpretivist research aims at enriching human discourse.
Writing qualitative research reports necessarily requires to think about to whom the reports are addressed. Hence, in the process of writing, dialogue should be made between the author and the prospected audience.
The author's interpretation should naturally anticipate interpretations of the audience.
In order to make the author's interpretation more credible (or intelligible), ethnographies need to indicate that there exist multiple voices, thus, worldviews in our society while explicitly stating the author's ideological (theoretical) standpoint.

Subjectivity

refers to individuals' having capacity for agency (Patriotta & Lanzara 2006)

but,,,

I don't like the term "agency",,,,

simply because it's difficult for me to imagine what it is in our daily lives,,,

has anyone ever seen agency?

I am not interested in the occult ;)

Exploring Boundaries

Lawrence, W. G. (1999) in W. G. Lawrence ed. Exploring Individual and Organisational Boundaries: A Tavistock Open Systems Approach

... reality is not something exclusively 'out there', that there is not a domain of order outside of the individual which merely has to be discovered, but that the individual is a bearer of that reality. Reality is both inside and outside of him. Furthermore, it is his construction of the phenomena of reality that is to be investigated. ... Ultimate reality, .... , does not fall into the domain of knowledge. Ultimate reality can only be in a state of 'becoming'; it cannot be known. And it is this idea of 'becoming' that is to be held on to when thinking about modes of inquiring into social processes in groups and institutions. The 'becoming' enables us not to fall into the traps of either solipsism or positivism but to engage with the creative tensions among what people believe to be realities and fantasies. (p. 5, stress by the poster)