http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 최만기 (검색결과 75 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
-
崔晩基,金榮仁 啓明大學校 행동과학연구소 1988 啓明行動科學 Vol.1 No.1
Since Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions , the concept of parad igm attracts much interests of social scientists. A number of organization resear -chers have also surveyed theories of organizational behavior from the perspective of paradigm. This study defines major concepts associated with organizational behavior paradigms , critically reviews such research , identifies some deficiencies underlying the research , and searches f or a new direct ion toward more appropriate and compre -hensive paradigmatic studies of organizational behavior. According to Kuhn and Ritzer , a paradigm is a fundamental image of the subject matter within a science. The paradigm is the broadest unit of consensus within a science and serves to differentiate one scientific community or subcommunity from another. Yet , a literature survey on the existing studies of paradigm in organizational behavior revealed that such studies have three deficiences: First , most of the studies regarded the Jevel of analysis as a criterion for identifying and classifying paradigms , although organizational behavior has unique characteristics as a disciplinary field only w hen researchers i nclude such levels as individuals , groups , organizations , and groups of organizations. This resulted in a confusion between organizational behavior as an independen t discipline and other disciplinary fields . Second, almost all the studies did not clarify the concept of paradigm or used other concepts which are very similar to Kuhnian concept of paradigm. This resulted in the ambiguity of concepts and the inconsistency of classification. Third, all the studies rarely considered the contextual background in which Kuhn suggested and developed the theory of paradigmatic changes. This resulted in the exclusion of discussing paradigms from a historical standpoint and of analyzing important concepts associated with paradigms such as exemplars , methodologies. and metaphors. A careful reconsideration of existing theories of organizations suggests that the dominant paradigm is positivistic structuralism. This paradigm assumes that researchers should investigate the object ive real it y and structure of organizations based on t he statistical , quantitative analyses. This paradigm, however , has received strong challenges from many researchers who investigate subjective real ities and processes of organizations that emerge from qualitative analyses by interpreting meaning that underlies t he interact ions of organizational members and organizations themselves. This study calls a series of such investigations a natural constructionist paradigm. 1n response to these challenges , proponents of the positivistic structuralism strongly attempt to defend. their view of organizational realities and behaviors. Thus , these two paradigms contend each other to win a political game. 1n this sense , the stage of “" anomaly" or “" crisis ", according to the Kuhnian process of paradigm revolution , seems to be the current paradigmatic status. 1n the conclusion section, this study emphasizes the necessity for enhancing conceptual rigor for the study of organizational behavior paradigms. This study also discusses that future research requires more meaningful and integrative investigations of paradigms in organizational behavior. This study , further , suggests some ideas for such investigations.
-
-
최만기 啓明大學校 産業經營硏究所 1997 經營經濟 Vol.30 No.2
SUMMARY Innovation has continuously attracted keen attention of scholars and practitioners in various areas, since Schumpeter(1942) emphasized inovation as a major source of economic development and corporate growth. Thus, as Rogers(1995) noted, the volume of innovation research has increased rapidly from 24 in 1940 to 3,810 studies in 1992. However, the most alarming characteristic of the body of these studies is instability(Downs & Mohr, 1976). Such instability results from the unclarification of innovation characteristics and the unidentification of theories underlying existing innovation studies. This study, therefore, has a couple of purposes. One is the clarification of four characters of organizational innovation: the subject, purpose, content, and method of organizational innovation. The other one is the identification of four theories underlying the study of organizational innovation: the rational efficiency theory. the symbolic institutionization theory, the procedural evolutionary theory, and the structural contingency theory. Based on the clarifiction and the identification, this study argues that the subject of organizational innovation should be organizational per se, the purpose of organizational innovation should be both for economic benefits, the contents and the attributhes of organizational innovation differ from innovation itself, and the method of innovation is various and can be dependent upon the stages of innovation process. This study discusses the implications of the arguments and provides ideas for future research. Innovation has continuously attracted keen attention of scholars and practitioners in various areas, since Schumpeter(1942) emphasized innovation as a major source of economic development and corporate growth. Thus, as Rogers(1995) noted, the volume of innovation research has increased rapidly from 24 in 1940 to 3,810 studies in 1992. However, the most alarming characteristic of the body of these studies is instability(Downs & Mohr 1976). Such instability results from the unclarification of innovation characteristics and the unidentification of theories underlying existing innovation studies. This study, therefore, has a couple of purposes. One is the clarification of four characters of organizational innovation: the subject, purpose, content, and method of organizational innovation. The other one is the identification of four theories underlying the study of organizational innovation the rational efficiency theory, the symbolic institutionization theory the procedural evolutionary theory, and the structural contingency theory. Based on the clarification and the identification this study argues that the subject of organizational innovation should be organization per so, the purpose of organizational innovation should be both for economic benefits and for noneconomic benefits such as symbolic or ecological benefits, the contents and the attributes of organizational innovation differ from innovation itself, and the method of innovation is various and can be dependent upon the stages of innovation process. This study discusses the implications of the arguments and provides ideas for future research.
-
Beyond qualitative perspectives and methods for organizational reserch
崔晩基 啓明大學校 행동과학연구소 1989 啓明行動科學 Vol.2 No.1
Various methodologies reflect researchers' diverse interests in the realities of organizations, the functions of research, and the topics of inquiry. This paper reviews major interests in qualitative research and identifies potential deficiencies underlying qualitative methodology. Then, as a complement to offset the deficiencies, critical perspectives and methods are proposed and discussed. The paper concludes by urging researchers to triangulate quantitative, qualitative, and critical methodology to understand fully and properly complex orgarnzations.
-
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
