The scientific field of administration: an analysis from the circle of theoretical matrices

Abstract

This essay is the product of a reflection on the scientific development of the administration. It proposes to analyze the field trajectory, from its theoretical bases, reflecting on the epistemological problematic of being before a knowledge that has not even clearly defined its object of study. Thus, through inspiration in the concept of a circle of epistemic matrices, conceived by Paes de Paula (2015), analyzes are carried out based on three matrices of knowledge (Orthodox Studies, Organizational Studies and Critical Studies), describing their trajectories and highlighting the need Of a (re) positioning and a re-signification of its scientific object. Finally, some considerations are made regarding the discussions on the development of the field of administration, in order to instigate the researchers of the area to make more profound reflections on the epistemological bases of this science.

Keywords:
Scientific field; Theoretical Matrices; Scientific Object.

Resumo

Este ensaio é produto de uma reflexão sobre o desenvolvimento científico da administração. Propõe-se a analisar a trajetória do campo, a partir de suas bases teóricas, refletindo acerca da problemática epistemológica de estarmos diante de um saber que sequer tem claramente definido o seu objeto de estudo. Dessa forma, mediante inspiração no conceito de círculo das matrizes epistêmicas, concebido por Paes de Paula (2015), são realizadas análises com base em três matrizes de conhecimento (Estudos Ortodoxos, Estudos Organizacionais e Estudos Críticos), descrevendo suas trajetórias e destacando a necessidade de um (re)posicionamento e de uma ressignificação do seu objeto científico. Por fim, são feitas algumas considerações a respeito das discussões sobre o desenvolvimento do campo da administração, a fim de instigar os pesquisadores da área a fazerem reflexões mais profundas sobre as bases epistemológicas dessa ciência.

Palavras-chave:
Campo científico; Matrizes teóricas; Objeto científico

Resumen

Este ensayo es un producto de una reflexión acerca del desarrollo científico de la administración. Se propone analizar la trayectoria del campo, desde sus bases teóricas, reflexionando sobre la problemática epistemológica de estar ante un saber que ni siquiera ha definido claramente su objeto de estudio. De esta forma, mediante inspiración en el concepto de círculo de las matrices epistémicas, concebido por Paes de Paula (2015), se realizan análisis basados en tres matrices de conocimiento (Estudios Ortodoxos, Estudios Organizativos y Estudios Críticos), describiendo sus trayectorias y destacando la necesidad de un (re)posicionamiento y de una resignificación de su objeto científico. Por último, se hacen algunas consideraciones con respecto a las discusiones acerca del desarrollo del campo de la administración, a fin de instigar a los investigadores del área a hacer reflexiones más profundas sobre las bases epistemológicas de esta ciencia.

Palabras clave:
Campo científico; Matrices teóricas; Objeto científico.

Introduction

Administration, as a social practice, arose thousands of years ago in ancient civilizations, but its study, as a science, is relatively recent, around a century of existence. The historical milestone of the birth of the science of management came with the publication of Federick Winslow Taylor’s Principles of Scientific Administration ({1911} 2010) (CUNHA, 2000, FRANCIA FILHO, 2004; VIZEU, 2010). The idea of introducing productive, planning, specialization, control, and execution knowledge into the productive organization allowed the emergence of modern administrative thinking, whose origins lie in the development of the capitalist system of production, the industrialization process and the doctrinal management movement (VIZEU, 2010 ).

Although it is possible to identify a process of emergence, growth and development of the administration, we are still faced with a very disputed scientific field, since it is common question: administration is science or art? (MATTOS, 2009). In order to solve this question, it is necessary to reflect earlier on, what is science in the contemporary world, since the concept of science in postmodernity goes beyond the concept of science formulated in modernity.

Modern science tends to be exclusive, because it does not contemplate other knowledge in its epistemology; therefore, it tends to discard knowledge such as philosophical, religious and common sense. On the other hand, in the perspective of postmodern science, scientific knowledge is produced based on a multidisciplinary approach that goes from philosophy to aesthetics, involving the arts and sociology, since it tends to be a non-dualistic knowledge, which is consolidated by (MORIN, 1982), Santos (2004), Capra (2004), and others (MORIN, 1982) 2006) and Sousa Santos (2010). In this sense, all scientific knowledge, when dealing with the social sciences, is both natural and social, local and global, philosophical and popular, since it seeks to know human nature. Hence, when one speaks of postmodern science, there is no dichotomy between natural sciences and social sciences, much less between science and art. This distinction is based only on a mechanistic view of science.

Thus, the objective of this paper is to analyze the trajectory of the administration field, based on its theoretical matrix, reflecting on the epistemological problematic of being in front of a field that has not even clearly defined its object of study. In order to do so, we structure the work in three sections, in addition to this introduction:

1. The first makes a historical analysis on the theoretical development of the field, considering the appearance in the literature of three subfields: Orthodox Studies of Administration (OSA), Organizational Studies) And Critical Studies in Administration (CSA);

2. The second makes a reflection on the epistemological foundations of the administration, in order to highlight the need for a (re)positioning and a re-signification of its scientific object;

3. Finally, some final considerations on the outstanding issues are made throughout the text, with the purpose of contributing to the repositioning of the administration field.

The Scientific Field of Administration in the Circular View of Theoretical Matrices

The “administration” construct is used, in this work, with the sense of scientific field of knowledge, a space of positions where dominant and dominated struggle for the maintenance and the obtaining of certain positions (BOURDIEU, 1989; The scientific field is a social field like any other, full of relationships of strength, disputes, strategies and that attends specific interests of those who make up the network.

The administration, as a scientific field, is expressed as an interdisciplinary knowledge that still needs recognition and legitimation of the scientific community. As a field of knowledge in the process of consolidation, there is an effort on the part of its academic community to grant it science status. As a result, three knowledge matrices are given in the literature of the area, whose contents contribute to this purpose: a) Orthodox Studies of Administration (OSA); B) Organizational Studies (OSs) and c) Critical Studies in Administration (CSA).

Usually, these theoretical matrices present specific languages: in orthodox studies, there is predominance of technical language; Organizational language prevails; and emancipatory language stands out in critical studies. Perhaps, for this reason, there is an absence of dialogue and concatenation between these knowledge, thus raising a fragmented view of administrative thinking, since each of them taken separately constitute a blind spot in relation to the other two and potentiate The incommunicability between them (PAES DE PAULA, 2015).

In an attempt to contribute to an interdisciplinary view of the field of administration, the concept of the circle of epistemic matrices was adapted, a theoretical construct elaborated by Paes de Paula (2015), with the specific purpose of rethinking the dualistic, fragmented and rigid conception of Science, formulated by Gibson Burrell and Gareth Morgan (1979), in the diagram of sociological paradigms¹.

The circle of epistemic matrices, with a Hassassian inspiration, conceives three types of cognitive knowledge (empirical-analytical, hermeneutic and critical), which in dynamic process creates favorable conditions for dialogue and coexistence between philosophy and science, thus enabling other forms of Knowledge production, in addition to those suggested by Burrell and Morgan (1979). Figure 1 is an adaptation of the Paes de Paula epistemic matrices circle to the administration field, in order to guide the structuring and analysis of this work.

Figure 1
Circle of Theoretical Matrices of Administration

The circle of the theoretical matrix of administration implies a logic of dialogue and coexistence between knowledge, since each of these (Orthodox, organizational and critical) has a field of vision with specific characteristics that alone captures part of the social reality, but in a dialogical perspective it broadens the possibility of better understanding the meaning of management and the management trajectory as a scientific field. For an understanding of this reality, we will present in the following subsections the pathways and some mishaps of the scientific field of administration.

Orthodox Studies of Administration (OSA): origin, pathways and mishaps

In a comprehensive perspective, orthodox studies of management can be defined as any scientific production applied to commodity productive organizations, conceived in the molds of positivist science, the empiricist method, economic liberalism, engineering principles, with the aim of increasing the productive efficiency of Capital and labor (FRANÇA FILHO, 2003; 2004). In this sphere, there is a collection of managerial theories known in the specialized literature by General Theory of Administration² (GTA), a kind of the mainstream of the field, systematized here in Chart 1.

Chart 1
Chronological Scheme of Orthodox Studies of

• Source: Elaborated by the author.

The emergence of the orthodoxy of administration, mentioned above, had its mark with the publication of the Principles of Scientific Administration (1911). With it, one propagates the belief that it was possible, through management principles, to obtain gains of productivity and profitability in any productive organization. The ideas of work organization contained in the work of the American Frederick Taylor went through the world. Vizeu (2010, p. 789) reports that “in the period between world wars, practically in all types of organizations - economic and non-economic - the application of the principles synthesized by Taylor is observed.” The phenomenon of Taylorism expands across all industrialized countries of Europe (KIPPING, 1997), Japan (SASAKI, 1992) and even communist Russia (BRAVERMAN, 1974).

For Vizeu (2010), three important historical facts explain the origin of orthodox management thinking. First, the emergence of the capitalist system of production, initially driven by commodity capital, through the purchase and sale of commodities, later by industrial and financial capital. In this phase, industrial capital merges with financial capital, thereby creating a new loci of capitalist reproduction constituted in large companies. It is in this economic and social context that the science of management takes its first steps in search of an object of scientific investigation.

The Industrial Revolution, led by eighteenth-century England, is seen by Vizeu (2010) as the second historical fact to explain the origin of orthodox management thinking, since such a revolution created an environment conducive to the emergence of new business and new Organizations, like the factory. With the emergence of the factory, management problems are intensified - productivity level, standardization, inventory control, quality control - and concomitantly increases the need to create adequate measurement methods to determine the optimum point of production maximization, Revenue and cost minimization. It is in this scenario of industrialization of the capitalist economic system that the first managerial problems of modern administration arise. At first, the questions were analyzed within the field of economics, precisely, with neoclassical thinking. Subsequently, operational issues are explained by the movement of scientific management, but under the assumptions of neoclassical thinking - unlimited needs and scarce resources. These assumptions, to some extent, still guide the decision-making of the administrative agents (individuals, companies and governments), since virtually all administrative decisions to allocate resources are made on a cost-benefit basis.

The third historical fact was due to the appearance of the doctrinal movement of management, led by professionals in the area of ​​engineering. The movement is born in the United States of America with the name of works management, but expands to other countries in Europe, Asia and Latin America, with the purpose of developing methods of rationalization of work and production. For Vizeu (2010), the movement is marked by three different stages: ad hoc stage of management, stage of management experimentation and stage of the practical systematization of management.

As can be seen, it is from these historical events that the need arises for a systematized knowledge of industrial organization. It is in this context that the Principles of Scientific Administration ({1911} 2010) becomes a benchmark in teaching and research in management throughout the industrialized world. França Filho (2004), in an analysis of the epistemological foundations of administration, classifies it into three major subfields of knowledge: managerial techniques, functional areas, and organizational theories. Let us see its interpretation:

• Management techniques are work methodologies used in everyday business management. {...} However, always with the pretension of universal validity, that is, transposed to the scope of public, governmental and social institutions, as models to be followed for “administrative efficiency. {...} In the form of managerial models, these methodologies generally incorporate a very technical knowledge about management, in combination with some ideas on topics related to the field of human relations, such as motivation, leadership or communication. As examples are cited: Taylor’s Rational Organization of Work (ROW), Drucker’s Management by Objective (MBO) in the 1950s, and, more recently, in the 1980s and 1990s, total quality waves, reengineering, and Of ISO systems;

• Functional areas communicate with managerial techniques the pragmatic feeling of developed ideas and the prescriptive nature of the field. There are subareas of specialization of administrative practice: marketing, finance, production management and human resources management. {...} its origin goes back to the notion of division of labor proposed by Fayol at the beginning of the twentieth century as a universal principle of administration;

• Organizational theories, in turn, seek to explain: what is an organization? What dimensions are they? What factors influence the dynamics of organizations? The two fundamental pillars of a theory of organizations are therefore in two main orientations: the so-called “organizational behavior” studies and the so-called sociology of organizations. {...} The first is heir to the dominant psychology tradition in the USA and privileges the treatment of topics such as motivation, leadership and decision making in the organizational universe. The second is influenced mainly by functionalist-inspired American sociologists who study bureaucracy and social systems in the wake of Talcott Parsons’ interpretation of Max Weber’s works. {...} On the other hand, a number of other approaches have been developed, which have been called by some of the “critical studies” of organizations, whose fundamental concern is to reveal some important dimensions of organizational analysis not perceived by the functionalist perspective (FRANCE FILHO, 2004, p. 122-130).

The understanding of the field of administration suggested by de França Filho (2004) coincides, in parts, with the structuring of this work. Our caveat applies to the nomenclature given to the managerial techniques subfield, which we classify as orthodox studies of management, including the divisions of functional areas idealized by Fayol, legitimate representative of orthodox thinking, as well as critical management studies within the subfield of Organizational studies. Critical studies in administration, in our view, have their epistemological and methodological specificities, therefore, should not be considered continuity of the organizational studies. As a result, we consider it more appropriate to understand the field from the circle of the epistemological matrices of Paes de Paula (2015), classifying it in orthodox, organizational and critical studies.

In addition, we disagree with França Filho (2004) when he allows us to understand that the scientific object of the administration tends to be the organizations, but without highlighting the possibility of being also the management. This lack of definition, in our view, lies in the author’s difficulty to delimit epistemologically the two fields: administrative studies and organizational studies. At this point, we understand that the scientific object of administration is the management of social relations of production, distribution and consumption, as Reginaldo Santos (2004, p. The organization is the scientific object of the Organizational Studies, in the condition of autonomous discipline, and not of the Administrative Studies. However, we agree with França Filho when he classifies orthodox management thinking as pragmatic, prescriptive and strongly grounded in the functionalist paradigm, a view that is also shared by such authors as Morgan (1979; 1996; 2005), Ramos (1989), Chalat (2000), Aktouf (2001; 2004; 2005), among others.

There is, historically, an attachment to functionalism as a hegemonic source of administrative science in general, both in the field of orthodoxy and partly in organizational studies, but on the other hand, there is also a focus of resistance to this tendency, on the foundations of interpretivism, critical theory, and post-structuralist thought. In this focus of resistance are part of the organizational studies and critical studies in administration, especially the works of François Chalat, Omar Aktouf, Guerreiro Ramos, Maurício Tragtenberg, Prestes Motta, Mats Alvesson, Hugh Willmott, Valérie Fournier, Chris Gray and Reginaldo Santos.

For these authors, orthodox studies consist of applying the presuppositions of neoclassical economics in the sphere of industrial organizations, since they always seek the maximization of gains and losses minimization, strongly present in Taylor’s method of Rational Organization of Work (ROW) In the general administration of Fayol, in Administration by Objective (ABO) of Drucker and / or in the administrative excellence of Robert Monks, as Santos (2004) indicates:

{...} administrative science is born with the advent of the Neoclassical School of Economics, which emerges with the crisis of capitalism of the last quarter of the nineteenth century and beginning of the twentieth century, through the thought and work of authors such as William Petty, Leon Walras , Alfred Marshall, Artur Cecil Pigou, among others that were the foundations of microeconomics. With the changes in the organization of capitalism during the nineteenth century, with the emergence of imperfect markets, through oligopolistic and monopolistic structures, the classical tradition, more focused on the study of the political economy of development, practically gives rise to the study of the behavior of Units of production and consumption, represented by individuals, families and companies. This is the moment in which the logic of labor value is directly replaced by the logic of utility value, based on the rationality of economic factors and consumer sovereignty (SANTOS, 2004, p. 23-24).

The strong influence of the neoclassical thinking of the economy on the rise of the science of management explains the fact that the pioneers thought the administration strictly around the act of managing industrial enterprises, through rational planning, predictability and control, based on the foundations of positivist science, quite in force at the time. At that time, the object of investigation of the administrative science centered in the analysis of the managerial problems of the organization of the work and of the production. However, with the advent of organizational studies, especially with the work of Amitai Etzioni, Kurt Lewin and Elton Mayo, there was a shift from management to organization as a unit of analysis (CUNHA, 2000; FRANCIA FILHO, 2004). This displacement demarcates the subfield of organizational studies and opens a discussion about the “real” object of study of management science, whether it be management or organization. On this, Santos (2004) clarifies that, from the point of view of the scientific framework, the administration is an entirely indefinite field, mainly because it has not yet demarcated its object of scientific investigation. However, defends the thesis:

Although organizations / institutions constitute the gender that contains essential elements of the subject of management discipline, however, they are particular spaces in which only the object inhabits. The essence permeates the spectrum of internal social relations of organizations and is established within the limits of the broader relations, therefore, within the scope of society. {...}This being understood, it can be said that organizations can be an object of research in administration, but never constitute an object that gives the status of management science (SANTOS, 2004, p. 37).

The thesis of Santos consists in the fact that the organization is locus where the object of the administration inhabits and not the object itself, because in the organizational space manifests diverse social phenomena, as: behavior, culture, power, Communication, exchange, memory and, above all, management. Thus, organizations can only be object of research; however, is not particularly of administration, but also of psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics, or even history. On the other hand, there is the phenomenon of management, not only in the perspective of sets of instrumental techniques, such as they were conceived in the orthodox thought of the administration, but, in a perspective of social relations of production, distribution and consumption of the society. By this conception, management, in the condition of social phenomenon, cannot be without protection of a scientific field, capable of observing, describing and explaining the contradictions arising from these relations. In this sense, Santos defends management as an exclusive object of management science, but in a perspective beyond the technical managerialism of orthodox thinking. This view is also shared with Fournier and Gray (2000), Cooke (2004; 2008), Murphy (2008) and Escobar (2007; 2008) when they understand discourses and management practices as historical, social and geopolitical phenomena.

Organizational Studies (OSs): origin, pathways and mishaps

By organizational studies is understood all knowledge produced in an attempt to describe, interpret and explain the behavior of and in organizations, having as theoretical reference the productions from psychology, sociology, anthropology, economics, political science, among others. Commonly, the analysis in this field focus on issues such as rationality, integration, market, power, (re) knowledge, justice (REED, 1999). In short, it is a multi and interdisciplinary subfield.

Fadul and Silva (2009), when analyzing the nature of this subfield, found that it can be designated by diverse expressions, depending on its condition of independence or relevance and the science or discipline to which it belongs. In its analysis:

When completely independent, it is organizational science that, according to Casanova (2006), is a discipline that results from the meeting of other disciplines such as engineering, physiology, administration, economics and sociology, depending on the organization, conceived as a complex system. The science of organization is characterized by its transversality in relation to the other disciplines, which makes it, in the definition of Hilton Japiassú (2006), a hyper discipline. When it belongs to a discipline, organizational studies are the specification of a broader, organizational-oriented discipline defined as part of the subject of study of the discipline of origin. In this pertinence condition, the following stand out: the sociology of organizations and the psychology of organizations. {...} When considered as belonging to the administration, the discipline of organizational studies is designated according to its origin or relevance to another discipline, from the conception of the defined science and even object studied (FADUL and SILVA, 2009, p. 360).

Faced with the complexity of describing the delimitation of the subfield of organizational studies, we are interested here to consider the origin and relevance of administrative studies. In this sense, the studies of Reed (1999), Cunha (2000), Motta (2001), Aktouf (2001; 2004, 2005), França Filho (2004), Santos (2004) Management that positions itself as an alternative to the approach of orthodox thinking. Cunha (2000), when analyzing the development of the field, highlights the role of organizational studies in the science of management.

Organizational science is understood as one of the disciplinary domains that help to form the multidisciplinary territory that is the management. That is, not everything that is management belongs to the domain of organizational science, but all organizational science can be understood as being encompassed by a management science that demonstrates not only applied but also theoretical concerns (CUNHA, 2000, p. 47)

In its analysis, organizational science contributes to the science of management by means of theoretical and methodological support, thus grounding the practical side of management. Organizational science is, for Cunha (2000), a two-way agglutinator: organizational behavior and organizational theories. These two dimensions constitute the theoretical-practical framework of organizational studies and thus are presented:

• Organizational behavior  . Specific domain: the study of individuals and groups in an organizational context, and the study of how internal processes and practices affect individuals and groups. Among its main topics are individual characteristics (beliefs, values and personality), individual processes (perception, motivation, decision-making, judgment, implication and control), group characteristics (dimension, composition and structure), group processes (Decision making and leadership), organizational processes and practices. {...} and the influence of all these factors on individual, group and organizational outcomes, such as performance, turnover, absenteeism, and stress.
• Organizational theory  . Specific domain: construction and testing of theories about organizations and their members and their management, organization-involving relationships and organizational processes. Advances in organizational theory include strategic choice, resource dependency, organizational ecology, and institutional theory. His most recent developments include the critical, feminist, cognitive, and postmodern perspective. The new challenges include quality improvement, strategic alliances, the implementation of new technologies, processes of governance and control, organizational restructuring and global strategic diversity (CUNHA, 2000, p. 47-48).

Given the delimitation of the field, described by Cunha (2000), it is possible to identify in the organizational studies some elements that characterize positivist thinking, especially in the themes that are based on behaviorist and structuralist theories. The fact is that even putting itself as an alternative to the orthodox thinking of the administration does not mean that organizational studies have completely abandoned the functionalist approach, the mark of orthodox thinking. There is a kind of succession of dominance cycles of more conservative thoughts and more progressive thoughts. This duality seems to remain alive, with clearly humanist and other overtly functionalist currents (CUNHA, 2000). The lesson we can draw from this dualistic behavior is that there are two important concerns present in the scientific productions of organizational studies: efficiency / productivity and human labor. In such research, there is an effort by academia to introduce interpretive, critical, and postmodern analyzes into administrative and organizational inquiries.

Another issue to be scored on organizational studies concerns its origin and membership. Reed (1999) argues that organizational studies have their origins in the research undertaken by nineteenth-century scholars, such as Saint-Simon, when he sought to interpret the ideological and structural transformations of industrial capitalist society as well as the contributions of Frederick Taylor, Henry Fayol, Chester Barnard, Elton Mayo, Max Weber. Already Cunha (2000) presents three possible perspectives for the origin of the field, they are:

• A first perspective, mainly held by those who have moved from psychology to organizational science, argues that the beginning of this can be traced back to the work conducted in the mid-1940s by Kurt Lewin and colleagues on leadership and group dynamics;

• Researchers from sociology normally attribute the founding of organizational science to the work developed around 1950 by “bureaucracy sociologists” such as Robert Merton, Philip Selznick, Alvin Gouldner, and Peter Blau;

• A third perspective, defended by that author (Lawrence, 1983, p. 2-3), considers that the birth of organizational science must be associated with earlier works, taken as founders of Elton Mayo’s (Human Problems, of an Industrial Civilization, 1933), Chester Barnard (Functions of the Executive, 1938), and Fritz Roethliberger and William Dickson (Management and the Worker, 1939) (CUNHA, 2000, p. 49).

Certainly, what is verified is the multidisciplinary nature of the field. Regardless of its origins (psychology, sociology or administration), we are facing a field that has a research agenda beyond the concept of discipline, as a delimited and ordered domain of possible knowledge of production, diffusion and learning of a given field of to know.In an attempt to delineate the field of organizational theories, Burrell and Morgan (1979) identified four sociological paradigms (functionalism, interpretativism, radiacal humanist, and radical structuralist) in which all knowledge produced in the social sciences in general and in organizational science in particular. The model proposed by the authors classifies theories based on four possible categories of worldviews, represented in different meta-theoretical propositions regarding the nature of science (subjective and objective) and the change of society (change by regulation or radical change) , As shown in figure 2, below:

Figure 2
Paradigmatic Analysis of Organizational Studies

To classify theories, Burrell and Morgan (1979) used two approaches to science: the subjective and the objective, based on four important scientific structures: 1) ontology (analyzes the assumptions and metaphysical results of the sciences); 2) epistemology (studying the philosophy of science); 3) human nature (man’s view of reality); And 4) the methodology (studying the methods of scientific research), as well as two views on the process of change in society: 1) the sociology of radical change, where there is concern about problems of change, conflict and coercion in social structures, emphasizing Division, hostility, dissent and disintegration; 2) the sociology of regulated change, where social equilibrium emphasizes commitment, cohesion, solidarity, consensus, reciprocity, cooperation, integration, stability and persistence. We can synthesize the four paradigms as follows:

• The functionalist paradigm presupposes a society with concrete and real existence, oriented to the production of a regulated, regulated state of affairs and with a certain systemic vision of reality. It stimulates belief in an objective, worthless social science that produces empirical and useful knowledge. In short, the functionalists understand social organizations as tangible, concrete and objective objects;

• The interpretative paradigm presupposes that social reality does not exist in the concrete sense, but is a product of the subjective and intersubjective experience of individuals. It understands that there is an order and an implicit pattern in the social world that arise from the intentional actions of people, individually or in harmony with others. Science is considered a network of language games, based on groups of concepts and subjective rules. Social reality is an emerging process, an extension of human consciousness and subjective experience;

• The radical humanist paradigm presupposes, like the interpretivists, that social reality does not exist in the concrete and real sense of nature, since it is something socially created and socially sustained that leads to a pathology of human consciousness, a kind of psychic imprisonment. Science is seen as an instrument of domination at the service of capitalism, whose concepts (wealth, scarcity, leisure, democracy, development, etc.) are modes of ideological domination;

• The radical structuralist paradigm considers society a potentially dominating force. In it, what is thought and what is desired is the fruit of what society imposes on each one in its specific place within the structure. In structuralism, there is no autonomy of the individual, since this is always subject to the impositions of structures. Individual action is merely a reproduction of collective structures. For structuralists, human behavior is determined by cultural, social and psychological structures. However, it is linked to a materialist conception of the social world defined by solid, concrete and ontologically real structures (economic, political, technological, etc.). The structuralist is interested in understanding the intrinsic tensions and the way in which the holders of power in society seek to control through various modes of domination (MORGAN, 2005, p. 61-62).

Studies have demonstrated a concentration of organizational theories within the functionalist paradigm, whose belief lies in objective, positivistic, value-free science and in a sociology of regulation, where society is explained based on instrumental and utilitarian rationality. Eight possibilities of organizational analysis (machine, organism, brain, culture, politics, and domination, flow and transformation and psychic prisons) with intersections and also with exclusionary debates between them were also verified through the use of metaphor. All this analysis points to the existence of a field theoretically fragmented as the object (organization) broad, multidimensional, complex and dynamic. Regardless of the criticism of Burrell and Morgan’s work on the exclusionary character of paradigms that contemplate only the modernist tradition, it is important to recognize the contribution he provided to development in the social sciences in general and, in particular, to administrative studies. Management has enabled the development of new theoretical approaches, such as Critical Studies in Administration.

Critical Management Studies (CMSs): origin, pathways and mishaps

Before entering into the analysis of Critical Studies in Administration (CSA), it is necessary to ask a starting point: critical studies on what and to whom? To try to clarify this question we take as reference two important works. Because it is so difficult to construct a critical theory, produced by Boaventura de Sousa Santos (1999) and a more specific one, in the field of administration, At critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management studies, developed by Valérie Fournier and Chris Gray (2000).

The Portuguese sociologist, Boaventura Sousa Santos (1999, p. 197) states that “the task of critical studies is to define and evaluate the nature and scope of alternatives to what is empirically given.” Similarly, Fournier and Gray (2000, p. 16) point out that “being involved in critical management studies means that there is something wrong with management as a practice and body of knowledge and that it must be changed.” These two statements refer us to the understanding that there is a given reality, there is something wrong with that reality and there is a feeling for change. However, what reality are we talking about? Why change this reality?

Sousa Santos (1999; 2010), in order to answer these questions, focuses his analysis on the great promises of modernity that have not been effective or have had perverse effects. Promises such as equality, freedom, perpetual peace and the domination of nature put us before situations and conditions that cause us discomfort and indignation, so there is no lack of facts to criticize. Examples include concentration of wealth, violation of human rights, conflicts between states, destruction of nature, among others, which compel us to critically question the nature and moral quality of our society and to seek theoretical alternatives for these issues.

He also argues that modern science, with its modern critique, based on Marxism and its theoretical ramifications (structuralism, existentialism, phenomenology and psychoanalysis), explains very little social reality. The reason for this lies in the fact that modern critical theory conceives society as a totality and thereby proposes a standard model of economics, science, management, and development, a regulated and culturally homogeneous society. When, in fact, there is a multicultural society that exercises a constant hermeneutic of suspicion against supposed universalisms and / or standardisms. And he goes on to say that “one of the weaknesses of modern critical theory has been the failure to recognize that the reason it criticizes can not be the same as it thinks, constructs, and legitimizes what is objectionable,” since another form of knowledge, Understanding and intimacy that does not separate us from the object we studied (SOUSA SANTOS, 1999, p. 204). In short, it is necessary to construct an emancipatory knowledge, capable of promoting the shift from monoculturalism to multiculturalism, from standardization to diversification, from dichotomy to integration. By this conception, only through a systemic and broad vision of the concept of science can we advance in the complexities of the contemporary world.

Similarly, in a more punctual analysis, Fournier and Gray (2000) emphasize the theoretical and practical misconceptions of the management field and thus state: “In general, the study of management and organizations was inspired by the traditions of the sciences Social, but in a very outdated way “(p. 14). In the understanding of these researchers, the study of management, although being a field of social sciences, was limited in the production of a positivist and functionalist knowledge, while the other social sciences already practiced other alternative forms of knowledge construction, among them are: The neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, post-structuralism, deconstructionism, literary criticism, feminism, psychoanalysis, cultural studies, environmentalism, postcolonialism.

Faced with this theoretical and methodological plurality, management studies and organizations could not be confined to a single social reality (Eurocentrism / American) and / or to a single form of knowledge production (positivism / functionalism). Thus, Fournier and Gray (2000) use the term “critical management studies” in a broad sense to encompass a plurality of conflicting intellectual traditions in order to establish boundaries between critical and noncritical works. For this, they suggest that the demarcation between critical and non-critical studies in management is made based on three parameters: 1) non-performance purpose; 2) denaturalization vision; 3) reflexivity. In addition to these three parameters proposed by Fournier and Gray (2000), we find in the literature a fourth parameter, no less important, proposed by Alvesson and Willmontt (1992). It is the emancipatory search, a parameter also systematized by Davel and Alcadipani (2003). Let’s see the meaning of these parameters:

• Non-performative purpose: this is the most usual parameter to demarcate the boundary between a critical and traditional study in management. The performative premise values knowledge that promotes maximization of gains and minimization of losses. Management, in this category of knowledge, is governed by the performative principle of subordinating knowledge and truth to the production of efficiency, effectiveness and profitability. The critical study does not place itself to generate knowledge in function of the organizational economic performance. When you include performance in the analysis it is to find out what is being done or not on your behalf. Davel and Alcadipani (2003, p.75) tell us that “the focus of critical management study is in the attempt to emancipate people from the mechanisms of oppression, in fact the human being as a fundamental point.”

• Vision Denaturalization of Administration: consists in not reducing reality to what exists, that is, recognizing that social phenomena can and should be understood in different ways. This is because, while traditional management studies are engaged in explaining a given reality, abstracting from their analyzes the social formation and the historical context, critical studies, in turn, seek the systematic questioning of these structures and their theoretical basis. In short, critical studies are interested in revealing that things may not be what they appear to be, even if the reason given for it contemporizes both ontologically and politically.

• Reflectivity: This philosophical and methodological extension must be developed within the field of critical management studies. It is not just that traditional studies are positivist, whereas critical studies are not, but one must uncover why traditional positivist studies dominate. The reflection on epistemology, ontology and methodology should be a constant in critical management studies.

• Emancipatory search: it consists in the liberation of the individual subjects of the relations of power in which they are inserted. Davel and Alcadipani (2003, p.75) state that: “CSAs seek to emphasize, nurture, and promote the potential of human consciousness to critically reflect on oppressive practices, thereby facilitating the extension of levels of autonomy and accountability of people”. Critical studies in management aim at favoring in individuals an autonomous and democratic consciousness of modern institutions and their management practices, therefore, they do not admit the positivist neutrality of traditional studies. That is to say, we can classify the CSA as any scientific production, alternative to the mainstream of administrative thought, whose management of the social relations of production, distribution and consumption is based in principle non-performatic, denatured, reflexive and emancipatory; where societies, organizations and individuals exercise a being of reason capable of transcending the normative universe of modern institutions. It refers to a still recent theoretical approach in the field of management that (re) opens the discussion on the social function of management in administrative and organizational studies (FOURNIER and GRAY, 2000).

In CSAs, management is not simply a set of managerial techniques, as theorists of orthodox management studies conceive, or simply a dimension of organizational life, as organizational study theorists consider. The management of the CSA is a social practice, the fruit of social relations of production, therefore, subject to the ideologies, values and interests of classes (Alveson & Willmott, 1992; Fiornier & Gray, 2000). Conceiving management as simply a technical activity is an attempt to create the illusion of a possible scientific neutrality in management. As a result, it is expected that the CSA may: (a) denounce the oppressive nature of the administration; B) to maintain a critical position regarding instrumental reason; C) oppose dominant power, ideology, administrative privilege and hierarchies; D) demystify the myth of scientific neutrality in administrative and organizational studies.

The CSAs originated in Anglo-Saxon thought in the 1990s with the creation and development of the Critical Management Studies (CMS) movement and with the publication of the collection organized by Alvesson and Willmontt (1992), with the same title. Since then, there has been a series of other publications, colloquia, conferences, workshops and academic networks, designed to discuss what might be a critical management (FOURNIER and GRAY, 2000).

Paes de Paula, Maranhão, Barreto et al. (2010) cite the development of CSA in the USA in the Academy of Management and in the works coordinated by Paul Adler, and highlight the pioneering work of Brazilian authors such as Guerreiro Ramos, Maurício Tragtenberg and Fernando Prestes Motta , That already in the decades of 1950 to 1980 had in its productions a strong critical identity. Guerreiro Ramos produced works with these characteristics between the 1950s and 1980s, as well as Maurício Tragtenberg, between the 1970s and 1990s. Other theorists also worked in the area in the 1980s, such as Fernando Prestes Motta, and developed critical studies that preceded the consolidation of the current in Europe and the United States.

Misoczky and Andrade (2005) acknowledge that although the ACEs have a mandatory reference to the publication of Critical Management Studies (1992) by Alvesson and Willmott in the British context, it is in the United States that there is a more progressive argumentative line, the synthesis of which is expressed In the “mission” of the Critical Management Studies Workshop, promoted by the American Academy of Management:

Our belief is that the management of modern enterprise (and often other types of organization) is guided by a narrow goal - profit rather than being guided by the interests of society as a whole and that other goals - justice, community, Human development, ecological balance - must be brought into the center of governance of economic activity. We are critical of the notion that the pursuit of profit will automatically meet these broader goals. We believe that this unilateral system draws an unacceptable social cost in exchange for the progress it offers. Companies guided by such a strict goal constitute structures of domination. The purpose of the CMS Workshop is, therefore, the development of critical interpretations - interpretations that are critical to management, not to individual managers (CMSW apudMISOCZKY and ANDRADE, 2005, p. 215).

The proposal of critical studies presented by the American Academy of Management seems to be closer to an emancipatory, transforming and libertarian vision of social practices when compared to the proposal of critical studies of the British academy led by Alvesson and Willmott.

The intent of critical theory is not to engage in utopian projects by eliminating hierarchy, division of labor, or even by abolishing the separation of administration from other forms of labor. Rather, its aspiration is to support the development of organizations in which communication (and productive potential) is progressively less distorted by the asymmetric and oppressive relations of power (ALVESSON and WILLMOTT apudMISOCZKY and ANDRADE, 2005, p. 223).

In it (CMSW), it is possible to identify progressive values ​​and post-positivist methodologies, which is compromised by the construction of another form of management. Differently from the proposal of British thought that goes to a reformist critique of orthodox management, only to reveal some distortions of this model of management manifested in social phenomena, as difference of class, gender and ethnicity.

Davel and Alcadipani (2003) verified that the theoretical body that nourishes the development of RCTs basically passes through three theoretical currents. The first chain is composed of the critical modernist theories developed under Marxism, neo-Marxism and the Frankfurt School. This current considers that we live in a world full of pains and conflicts and that much can be done by theorists and critical theories to alleviate these pains. The second chain encompasses post-analytic theories, such as post-structuralism, postmodernism, post-colonialism, post-development, among others. It starts from the assumption that the meaning of things is developed through a social network that can be read as if it were a text. Thus, post-analytic studies reflect and question the ways in which certain texts are highlighted in organizational and social life. In the third chain are the feminist theories that analyze the management from the gender issue, with emphasis on themes such as exclusion, oppression, control, power, functions, elaborating new ways of dealing with such situations.

For Paes de Paula, Maranhão and Barros (2009), it is in this epistemological plurality that the contradictions of the CSA can occur. The question is how to integrate, in the same space, frankfurtian, post-structuralist, Marxist, interpretativist or postmodernist studies, epistemologically and methodologically so different from each other: a) epistemological multiplicity helps to preserve the movement itself; Or b) is there a disagreement with the project of criticism, through “engaged managerialism”?

When analyzing this possible problem within the CSA, Paes de Paula et al. (2009) understand that theoretical eclecticism, a characteristic feature of the movement, makes it possible to distance itself from a critical epistemology in the mold of Marxist theory and critical French theory, as well as the legitimization of criticism by “committed managerialism” in the orthodoxy of the administration And organizational studies. The idea of ​​“engaged managerialism” sounds like a kind of reformist discourse of orthodox thinking, where there is a possibility of internal engagement and resistance, but not in opposition to managerial initiatives.

“Engaged managerialism” does not rule out the performatic principle of management as proposed by Fournier and Gray (2000), but introduces the reformist concepts of critical performativity and micro-emancipation. The argument centers on the idea that critical performativity would be a way of complementing criticism without replacing it, making incremental incisions in unwanted management processes. The micro-emancipation argument, on the other hand, is centered on an understanding that it is not possible to introduce major transformations in society, but only gradual transformations, since space for large-scale revolutions is limited. Therefore, emancipation is possible only in social micro-relations.

From the foregoing, it is possible to identify two critical strands in the field of RCTs. One of a reformist, committed to theoretical plurality, recognizing the limitations of the orthodox school, led by the European and American academy, but firm in defending the fundamental principles of mainstream, such as efficiency, effectiveness and profitability (critical performance) and Micro-emancipation of management. Another of a revolutionary character, committed to a critical thinking that is closer to the Frankfurtian tradition, an opponent of the Orthodox school, a champion of other theoretical and practical realities of management (Tragtenberg, 1974; RAMANOS, 1989, MIZOCZY and CAMARA, 2015; SEIFERT and VIZEU, 2015a; 2015b), in addition to the dominant Euro-American models.

Epistemology of the Administration: the resignification of the object (management)

Having presented the analysis of the theoretical matrices of the administration, it is objected, in this section, to reflect on the epistemological problematic of the object of study of this science. In principle, it is possible to define epistemology as a field of philosophy whose purpose is to question the foundations of science, in order to delimit its object, reaches, values, ideologies, power and recognition (NASCIMENTO, 2002). Usually, it seeks to answer questions such as: What is science? How is it possible to achieve it? Is there scientific neutrality? Finally, it deals with the discursive questions (logos) about science (episteme). And it can, according to Japiassu (1992, p. 24), be classified in three categories: global or general epistemology - when it refers to universally recognized knowledge, be it speculative or scientific; Particular epistemology - when it relates to a particular field of knowledge, be it speculative or scientific; And specific epistemology - when it refers to the close, detailed and technical study of the organization, functioning and possible relationships that a discipline, as a unit of scientific knowledge, maintains with other disciplines.

In this work, the category of specific epistemology applies, since it is intended to reflect on the epistemological delimitation of the field of administration. However, it is not always easy to delimit the field of action of a particular science, since, for this, certain epistemological determinants, such as: object, theory, method, assumptions / hypotheses, etc., must be met with certain precision.

As far as the administration is concerned, Whitley (1977) affirms that this can be considered a factual science, since its object of study is constituted of phenomena of social order, that is, of the study and improvement of the coordination and control of human activities Associated. Thomson (1956) classifies administration as an applied social science, for seeking to observe, describe and explain the social relations existing in the process of organization and distribution of production.

In an analysis of the epistemological bases of administration, Serva, Dias and Alperstedt (2010, p. 278) argue that it is “a social science still in gestation, whose object is not a given reality and ready to be investigated, but something socially built”. They also affirm that it needs to be reconstructed in the light of a specific theoretical problematic and that, in order to respond to the criterion of scientificity, it must not only overcome a number of epistemological obstacles, but also develop adequate tools for analysis. For these authors, the obstacles are found in ideological parasitism, normativism and the traps of empiricism, elements that characterize positivist / functionalist epistemology.

Marchi (2010), studying the field, analyzed the influence of the main currents of the philosophy of science in the formation of administrative knowledge, from rationalist empiricism to the philosophy of complexity. In the latter, complexity has been presented as an approach that can better understand the reality of administrative and organizational problems. Chart 2, which follows, summarizes this study in order to demonstrate the main influences of scientific thinking in the field of administration.

Chart 2
Influence of Scientific Thought in the Field of Administration

• Source: Adapted from Marchi (2010, p. 12-13).

The study reveals that the field of administration arises in the context strongly influenced by the concept of Comtian science and functionalist logic, as we report in the section on orthodox studies. Auguste Comte believed that social phenomena could and should be perceived as phenomena of nature that is, obeying general laws of physics. To do so, they should use observation, experimentation, comparison, and classification as a scientific method (Comtian positivism). Functional logic, in turn, stems from Émile Durkheim’s thinking, which explained the development of society in terms of functions performed by institutions. For him, each institution has a specific function of society and its malfunction means an imbalance in society itself.

The epistemological foundations of positivist / functionalist science influenced the thinking of management precursors and their followers for a long time, yet new approaches emerged in the mid-1980s and 1990s from a critical and postmodern perspective. Marchi (2010) recognizes that these new approaches are late in the administration field. The reasons for this can be explained by the fact that functionalism has concealed from its analysis the ideological and historical element, as well as the disinterest of Marxism by administrative and organizational studies. Systemism is incorporated into administrative and organizational studies, not to change the order it enclosed, but rather to reinforce it. On the other hand, the dialectical approach contributes greatly to overcome the limitations of positivist / functionalist epistemology, focusing on the understanding of power, history, politics and the intentions of the agents (company, government, society) involved.

Complexity emerges as an integrative approach to explain the real or to perceive it in a closer way. In it prevails dialogic logic where it is possible to deal with situations of order / disorder, balance / imbalance, static / dynamic, unlike positivist / functionalist epistemology where knowledge is characterized by being systematic, methodical, demanding demonstration, submits to Test, to establish cause and effect relationships. To know means to divide and classify and then to be able to determine systematic relations between subject and object. Unlike the epistemology of complexity, described by Sousa Santos, Fritjot Capra, Ilya Prigogine, among others, who consider that all scientific knowledge is natural and social, local and total, constitutes common sense and seeks self-knowledge. For these authors, there is no dichotomy between natural sciences and social sciences. This distinction rests on a mechanistic conception of matter and nature.

In analyzing the complexity approach in the field of administrative and organizational studies, Serva, Dias and Alperstedt (2010, p. 279) report that the positivist / functionalist epistemology of management has created a false image of a unitary science, cohere in a managerialist theory. However, at the same time that it generated the image of unity, it excluded the field that did not accept to submit to the orthodoxy of administrative thought. Therefore, there was a break with pragmatic scientism when new members of the administration field claimed the status of applied social science in the perspective of a historiographical and sociological epistemology. The result is an epistemology that is increasingly local, explicit, empirical and pluralistic.

In an attempt to develop an interdisciplinary view of management, based on the study of rationality in organizations and a substantive approach to them, Serva, Dias and Alperstedt (2010) recall Guerreiro Ramos’ criticisms of the epistemology of conventional administrative and organizational studies to substantiate the proposal of a postmodern epistemology.

{...}, Guerreiro Ramos (1989) shows the emerging need for an epistemological reformulation in organizational theory, indicating that it tends to survive only if it is to be transformed and proposed as a viable theory, since, as stated by it, man has different types of needs and his satisfaction requires several types of social scenarios. The market system only addresses some of these types of human needs, and so the author believes that ‘administrative behavior is human conduct conditioned by economic imperatives’ (SERVA, DIAS and ALPERSTEDT, 2010, p. 280).

The understanding of Serva Dias and Alperstedt (2010) is that the whole epistemology of management until then is conceived based on the belief of only a social enclave (market) and of an administrative action based on instrumental rationality. In fact, the market is only an enclave of society and administrative action does not occur only through instrumental rationality, but also through substantive rationality. For these authors, the administration needs to free itself from the bonds of positivist / functionalist epistemology with its formal, rational and utilitarian logic, so that it can walk in the perspective of a science closer to its social reality.

As it is possible to perceive, the administration, in its attempt to conform to the concept of science conceived in modernity, to be accepted as such, was conditioned to construct a decontextualized, fragmented and prescriptive science. In addition, we add the fact that we are facing a field of knowledge that does not even have its defined scientific object. These epistemological limitations hinder the development and consolidation of the field. This becomes clearer in the studies conducted by Santos, Santos and Braga (2016), together with the scientific community of the National Association of Postgraduate Programs in Administration (NAPPA). The studies of these authors prove the existence of a lack of definition by the Brazilian scientific community regarding the object of study of the administration, since this community considers management (45%), organization (24%), structure , 5%) and the individual (10.6%) as possible scientific objects of the administration, not counting a part of this community (7.7%) that was not even able to indicate an element of investigation for the science of the administration. This epistemological indefinition, in our perspective, ends up limiting the development of the field of administration, because when one does not have clarity as to the object and purpose of the field, it loses the direction of its purposes.

Our understanding of this issue is not to rule out the possibility, in fact, of management becoming the scientific object of management. However, when we consider management as the scientific object of management, we also understand that we need to delve deeper into this social construct, since the concept of management is not limited to the internal social relations of organizations, as theoreticians of organizational studies imagine Less to a set of managerial planning and control techniques, methods and / or tools, such as the pioneers of orthodox studies conceived. Management is, above all, a phenomenon that is born from “with”, “and” to “society”, a contract and a social practice that must be legitimized and recognized by all enclaves (State, Market and Society). Studies of this nature have already been carried out by some networks, centers and research centers in the country, with emphasis on: the Research Network on Political Administration of the School of Administration of the Federal University of Bahia (EAUFBA); The Center for Research in Organizations, Rationality and Development of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC); The Nucleus of Dialogical Management Studies of the Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG). In general, the researchers of these networks have been channeling efforts to give another meaning to the managerial imaginary, recovering another direction for the management, emphasizing, besides the technique, the political, social and critical dimensions of management (SANTOS, RIBEIRO and SANTOS, In this paper, we present the results of the PAULA study. To understand management as the object of administration’s study is to go deep into the structures of power, ideology and command of society. It is to observe, describe, analyze, explain and even guide the social relations of production, distribution and consumption, in whatever society, that is, pre-capitalist, capitalist or post-capitalist.

Final considerations

This essay has demonstrated that scientific knowledge, in its contemporary version, is based on principles that value the universal totality of knowledge, regardless of its categories and specializations. To do science means to establish dialogues that range from philosophy to aesthetics, from the local to the global, from the micro to the macro, as well as considering that the research process is not restricted to merely observing, describing and explaining - it is necessary to propose and orient.

In this perspective, it was detected that the administration to consolidate itself as a scientific field needs to free itself from some ties of the modern epistemological thought, since this tries to construct a concept of science that discards and disqualifies the other sources of knowledge. Because of this, the predominance in the scientific production of the administration of a positivist / functionalist thinking is verified, limiting itself to analyzing only the modern organizations, thus disregarding the universe of non-market and postmodern organizations. It must be understood, once and for all, that administrative fact, as a social fact, is not a phenomenon unique to market organizations or the modern state, so we cannot and should not build a science just to serve these organizations Social, even recognizing that they were the ones that gave rise to the field of knowledge.

In our understanding, it is necessary to reflect deeply on what we consider as the scientific field of administration, especially as regards the determinants of this science, that is, object, theory, method and presuppositions. We need to be clearer about the epistemological purposes of this field of knowledge, considering that a science that does not even accurately have its object of study is roughly navigating without direction. Or, a General Management Theory (GMT) that only contemplates orthodox thinking and disregards other theoretical possibilities (organizational studies and critical studies) is subject to be seen as only a manual of business procedures. Or, still, a science that conditions its action only to a social enclave (market), guided, exclusively, by the presuppositions of scarce resources and unlimited needs, in fact, is nothing more than an ideological mechanism of a social category to the detriment of too. We cannot build a science just to meet the needs of the business world (AKUTOUF, 2004), since this is only one dimension in which the administrative fact is manifested, since we must remember the existence of two other dimensions, in our understanding, of greater representativeness and legitimacy than the market, is about the State and Society.

Therefore, when considering administration as a social fact and field of knowledge, it is important to understand that we are facing a phenomenon that encompasses not only corporate management but also, above all, social and state management. As a result, it is imperative to understand that the field of administration is not restricted to the universe of micromanagement, but meso- and macro-management. Macro-management, such as the political regime, the legal order, the economic system, is a social contract resulting from the agreement between the members of society. In it, it contains the project of nation with the general guidelines: what does the nation want to be? Where do you want to go? How should we organize the production system? How should we distribute the wealth generated? Who should consume the wealth generated by this society? The mesogestion or the public management is constituted within the scope of the State, must guarantee the aspirations and desires of society or social management, against the interests and actions of micromanagement or business management. The energetic action of these three categories of management - social management, public management and business management - delimits the field of management and requires the scientific community of management to place a position on the academic responsibility of this social fact. Given this, we defend that:The field of administration takes for itself the study of the management of social relations of production, distribution and consumption in any context and historical moment of the civilizing process of humanity;

• Teaching and research in the field of administration is not restricted to a single model of society and world view;

• Teaching and research in the field of administration are oriented to observe, describe and explain the phenomena, possibly existing in social, state and business management;

• There are correlations of ideological, theoretical and practical forces of management within the field, therefore, a discipline is necessary to unveil evidence and denounce the purposes and the epistemological, methodological and praxiological contradictions of the theoretical aspects that make up the field of administration.

Finally, it is evident that the studies in the field of the administration have to contemplate the diverse forms of management of the social relations, independent of the economic system of production or of its historical time. Only in this way do we believe that it is possible to develop a knowledge that integrates and encompasses rather than excludes and fragments, thus avoiding an outdated, doctrinal and uncritical view of management.

Referências

• AKTOUF, O. Administração e teorias das organizações contemporâneas: rumo a um humanismo radical? Revista Organizações & Sociedade, v. 21, n. 8, p. 13-33, 2001.
• AKTOUF, O. Pós-globalização, administração e racionalidade econômica: a síndrome do avestruz. São Paulo: Atlas, 2004.
• AKTOUF, O. O ensino da administração: por uma pedagogia para mudança. Revista Organizações & Sociedade, v. 12, n. 35, p. 151-158, 2005.
• ALVESSON, M.; WILLMOTT, H. Critical management studies. London: Sage, 1992.
• BOURDIEU, P. Poder simbólico. Lisboa: Difel, 1989.
• BOURDIEU, P. Os usos sociais da ciência: por uma sociologia clínica do campo científico. São Paulo: Ed. Unesp, 2002.
• BRAVERMAN, H. Trabalho e capital monopolista. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar, 1974.
• BURRELL, G.; MORGAN, G. Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis. London: Heinemann. 1979.
• CAPRA, F. O ponto de mutação. São Paulo: Cultrix, 2006.
• CHALAT, J. F. Ciências sociais e management: reconciliando o econômico e o social. São Paulo: Atlas , 2000.
• COOKE, B. O gerenciamento do (terceiro) mundo. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 44, n. 3, {s.p}, 2004.
• COOKE, B. Participatory management as colonial administration. In: DAR, S.; COOK, B. The development management. London/New York: Zed Books, 2008. 111-149 p.
• CUNHA, M. P. Ciência organizacional: passado, presente futuro ou uma viagem dos clássicos aos pós-modernos. In: CUNHA, M. P. Teoria organizacional: perspectivas e prospectivas. Lisboa: Dom Quixote, 2000. 47-65 p.
• DAVEL, E.; ALCADIPANI, R. Estudos críticos em administração: a produção científica brasileira dos anos 1990. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 43, n. 4, p. 72-85, 2003.
• ESCOBAR, A. La invención del tercer mundo. Construcción y deconstrucción del desarrollo. Bogotá: Norma, 2007.
• ESCOBAR, A. Territories of difference: place, movements, life, redes. Durham: Duke University Press, 2008.
• FADUL, E. M. C.; SILVA, M. A. M. Limites e potencialidades disciplinares da administração pública e dos estudos organizacionais. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 13, n. 3, p. 351-365, 2009.
• FOURNIER, V.; GREY, C. At the critical moment: conditions and prospects for critical management studies. Human Relations, v. 53, n. 1, p. 7-32, 2000.
• FRANÇA FILHO, G. C. Gestão social: um conceito em construção. In: COLOQUIO INTERNACIONAL EL ANÁLISIS DE LAS ORGANIZACIONES Y LA GESTIÓN ESTRATÉGICA: PERSPECTIVAS LATINAS, 2.; 2003, Salvador. Anais... Salvador: {s.n}, 2003.
• FRANÇA FILHO, G. C. Para um olhar epistemológico da administração: problematizando o seu objeto. In: SANTOS, R. S. A administração política como campo do conhecimento. São Paulo/Salvador: Hucitec/Mandacaru, 2004. 19-143 p.
• JAPIASSU, H. Introdução ao pensamento epistemológico. 6. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Francisco Alves, 1992.
• LAWRENCE, P. R. Historical development of organizational behavior. Working paper. Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University. Boston, MA, 1983.
• KIPPING, M. Consultancies, institutions and the diffusion of Taylorism in Britain, Germany and France, 1920 to 1950s. Business History, v. 39, n. 4, p. 67-83, 1997.
• KOPELKE, A. L.; BOEIRA, S. L. Reflexividade e criticidade no ensino de graduação em administração. Revista Pensamento Contemporâneo em Administração, v. 10, n. 1, p. 78-95, 2016.
• MARCHI, J. J. Bases do conhecimento científico e sua influência na formação da ciência da administração. In: COLÓQUIO DE EPISTEMOLOGIA E SOCIOLOGIA DA CIÊNCIA DA ADMINISTRAÇÃO, 1., 2010, Florianópolis. Anais... Florianópolis: Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina. 2010.
• MATTOS, P. C. “Administração é ciência ou arte?” O que podemos apreender com esse mal-entendido? Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 49, n. 3, p. 349-360, 2009.
• MISOCZKY, M. C.; ANDRADE, J. A. Uma crítica à crítica domesticada nos estudos organizacionais. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 9, n. 1, p. 215-233, 2005.
• MISOCZKY, M. C.; CAMARA, G. D. Enrique Dussel: contribuições para a crítica ética e radical nos estudos organizacionais. Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 13, n. 2, p. 286-314, 2015.
• MORGAN, G. Imagens da organização. São Paulo: Atlas, 1996.
• MORGAN, G. Paradigmas, metáforas e resolução de quebra-cabeça na Teoria das Organizações. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 45, n. 1, p. 58-69, 2005.
• MORIN, E. Ciência com consciência. Lisboa: Europa-América, 1982.
• MURPHY, J. The rise of global managers. In: DAR, S.; COOKE, B. The development management. London/New York: Zed Books, 2008. 18-40 p.
• NASCIMENTO, D. M. Metodologia do trabalho científico: teoria e prática. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 2002.
• PAES DE PAULA, A. P. Repensando os estudos organizacionais: por uma nova teoria do conhecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV, 2015.
• PAES DE PAULA, A. P. Em busca de uma ressignificação para o imaginário gerencial: os desafios da criação e da dialogicidade. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, v. 17, n. 2, p. 18-41, 2016.
• PAES DE PAULA, A. P.; MARANHÃO, C. M. S. A.; BARROS, A. N. Pluralismo, pós-estruturalismo e “gerencialismo engajado”: os limites do movimento critical management studies. Cad. EBAPE.BR., v. 7, n. 3, p. 393-404, 2009.
• PAES DE PAULA, A. P. et al. A tradição e a autonomia dos estudos organizacionais críticos no Brasil. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 50, n. 1, p. 10-23, 2010.
• POLANYI, K. A grande transformação: as origens de nossa época. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 2000.
• RAMOS, A. G. A nova ciência das organizações, uma reconceituação da riqueza das nações 2. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. FGV, 1989.
• REED, M. Teorização organizacional: um campo historicamente contestado. In: CALDAS, M.; FACHIN, R.; FÍSCHER, T. (Ed.). Handbook dos estudos organizacionais: modelos de análises e novas questões em estudos organizacionais, São Paulo: Atlas, 1999. v. 1, p. 61-98
• SANTOS, E. L.; SANTOS, R. S.; BRAGA, V. Administração do desenvolvimento: percepções e perspectivas da comunidade científica da AnPAD. Organizações & Sociedade, v. 23, n. 77, p. 263-284, 2016.
• SANTOS, R. S. A administração política como campo do conhecimento. São Paulo/Salvador: Hucitec/Mandacaru, 2004.
• SANTOS, R. S.; RIBEIRO, E. M.; SANTOS, T. C. S. Bases teórico-metodológicas da administração política. Rev. Adm. Pública, v. 43, n. 4, p. 914-941, 2009.
• SASAKI, S. The introduction of scientific management by the Mitsubishi Electric Engineering Co. and the formation of an organized scientific management movement in Japan in the 1920s and 1930s. Business History, v. 34, n. 2, p. 12-27, 1992.
• SEIFERT, R. E.; VIZEU, F. Crescimento organizacional: uma ideologia gerencial? Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 19, n. 1, p. 127-141, 2015a.
• SEIFERT, R. E.; VIZEU, F. Tréplica: Davi e Golias: possibilidades de ruptura ao gigantismo em estudos organizacionais e de gestão. Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 19, n. 1, p. 160-168, 2015b.
• SERVA, M. A Contribuição do Colóquio Internacional de Epistemologia e Sociologia da Ciência ao campo da administração no Brasil. Cad. EBAPE.BR, v. 14, n. 1, p. 1-11, 2016.
• SERVA, M.; DIAS, T.; ALPERSTEDT, G. D. Paradigma da complexidade e teoria das organizações: uma reflexão epistemológica. Revista de Administração de Empresas, v. 50, n. 3, p. 276-287, 2010.
• SOUSA SANTOS, B. Porque é tão difícil construir uma teoria crítica? Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, v. 54, p. 197-215, 1999.
• SOUSA SANTOS, B. Um discurso sobre as ciências. São Paulo: Cortez, 2010.
• TAYLOR, F. W. Princípios da Administração Científica. São Paulo: Atlas, {1911} 2010.
• THOMPSON, J. D. On building an administrative science. Administrative Science Quarterly, v. 1, n. 1, p. 102-111, 1956.
• TRAGTENBERG, M. Burocracia e ideologia. São Paulo: Ática, 1974.
• VIZEU, F. (Re)contando a velha história: reflexões sobre a gênese do management Revista de Administração Contemporânea, v. 14, n. 5, p. 780-797, 2010.
• WHITLEY, R. The sociology of scientific work and the history of scientific developments. In: BLUME, S. (Ed.). Perspectives in the sociology of science. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1977. 21-50 p.

• *
  Source: Author’s personal archive. Book Cover Contemporary Administratve Theories: dialogues and coexistence. Hucitec and Editons Uesb, 2016.

• 1
  The diagram is represented by a system of Cartesian coordinates, formed by two perpendicular axes: one horizontal and one vertical, which intersect at the origin of the coordinates. The horizontal axis is formed by two possibilities of sociological changes: sociology of radical change and sociology of regulated change. The axis of the vertex is constituted by the dichotomous vision of science, subjectivity-objectivity. For these authors, the dichotomous view of society and science is the result of the thought and action of social scientists.

• 2
  It is important to emphasize that it is not our purpose to describe and / or analyze the specificities of these theories, but only to cite them, in order to provide the reader with an evolutionary view of the field of administration in its totality.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  June 2017

History

• Received
  23 July 2015
• Accepted
  27 Apr 2017