Crossroads—Unrecognized Defenses of Scholars: Impact on Theory and Research

There is a body of literature, often identified as the sociology of knowledge, that includes the exploration of the ways by which interpersonal, group, and inter-group dynamics among scholars influence the development of scientific knowledge. (Bourdieu Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK., Feyerabend Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against method. M. Radner, S. Winokur, eds. Analyses of Theories crafting conclusions in such a way that they are not falsifiable by reasoning external to the one used to create the conclusion. Such defensive reasoning not only produced gaps in the theory of which I was unaware. It also hindered seeing important connections with other relevant organizational theories, in this case the Behavioral Theory of the Firm (BTF). For the sake of comparison, I will also focus on the reasoning and research of a few leading scholars of BTF, primarily James March. I hope to show that he too, used defensive reasoning which made it unlikely that BTF scholars will see certain important gaps in BTF, and that, in turn, hindered seeing important connections with TOA. If my analysis is correct, these gaps are especially puzzling since both theories hold similar premises about the nature of organizational reality. For example, the human mind is a finite processing system; organizational life is often dominated by quasi-resolution of conflict and limited learning; that reality is constructed in the form of designs (Simon [Simon, Herbeit A. 1969. The Science of the Artificial. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA.) or life space (Lewin: see Cartwright Cartwright, D., ed. 1951. Field Theory and Social Science. Harper and societal cultures are constructed with features that are consistent with the designs (Berger and Luckmann [Berger, P., T. Luckmann. 1967. The Social Construction of Reality. Doubleday, Garden City, NY., Geertz Geertz, C. 1973. The Interpretation of Cultures. Basic Books, New York.). How is it that two theories that exhibit similar premises lead to significantly different if not, at times, antagonistic views about the alterability and changeability of the universe that each purports to represent?