skip to main content

Keberadaan Makna Realitas dalam Penelitian Manajemen Stratejik

*Teguh Endaryono  -  Universitas Prasetiya Mulya, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright 2020 JURNAL BISNIS STRATEGI

Citation Format:
Abstract

Studi ini ditujukan untuk melihat bagaimana ilmu manajemen stratejik memperoleh legitimasi sebagai bagian dari ilmu manajemen. Studi pustaka ini adalah penelitian kepustakaan dengan menganalisis secara deskripsi, inteprestasi dan konstruksi dari beberapa pustaka yang terkait dengan relevan di dalam menegaskan makna realitas dan bagaimana realitas itu dihadirkan sebagai landasan dalam penelitian manajemen stratejik. Hasil kajian dalam studi ini menegaskan, pertama, bahwa obyek dalam manajemen stratejik adalah obyek yang harus dihadirkan dalam bentuk narasi yang kokoh. Peneliti di ranah manajemen stratejik harus memampu memilah dan memilih fenomen yang bersifat stratejik atau bukan stratejik. Kedua, secara aksiologis; kaidah dan norma-norma manajemen stratejik membantu proses kanalisasi ranah realitas yang bersifat stratejik. Obyek penelitian yang dihadirkan seringkali melibatkan beragam proksi seperti aspek lingkungan, perubahan teknologi, maupun desain organisasi, yang notabene terbuka untuk melibatkan ranah keilmuan yang lainnya.. Pendekatan bricolage dalam konteks manajemen stratejik menjadi relevan untuk mencari optimalisasi atau kesempurnaan; namun berorientasi pada pragmatisme “good enough”. Pendekatan interpretative memiliki kemampuan melakukan eksplorasi untuk memperoleh proksi yang esensial dari sebuah fenomena.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: realitas; paragmatik; bricolage; penelitian; manajemen stratejik

Article Metrics:

  1. Bosanquet, B. (1912). The Principle of Individuality and Value - The Gifford Lectures for 1911. Macmillan and Co
  2. Boyd, R. (1980). Scientific Realism and Naturalistic Epistemology. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 2, 613–662. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/192615
  3. Cheng, J. L. C. (1986). Paradigm development and communication in scientific settings : A contingency analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 27(4), 870
  4. Claude Lévi Strauss. (1962). The savage mind. University of Chicago Press
  5. Czarniawska, B. (2000). GRI Report 2000:5 THE USES OF NARRATIVE IN ORGANIZATION RESEARCH
  6. Fletcher, D., Massis, A. De, & Nordqvist, M. (2016). Qualitative research practices and family business scholarship: A review and future research agenda. Journal of Family Business Strategy, 7(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfbs.2015.08.001
  7. Gabriel, Y. (2002). Essai: On Paragrammatic Uses of Organizational Theory A Provocation. Organization Studies, 23(1), 133–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840602231007
  8. Galaskiewicz, J. (1984). Book Review. Organizations and Organization Theory.By Jeffrey Pfeffer. Pitman, 1982. Social Forces, 63(2), 614–615. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/63.2.614
  9. Gribbins, R. E., & Hunt, S. D. (1978). Conceptual Notes Is Management a Science ? The Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 139–144
  10. Hatch, M. J., & Cunliffe, A. L. (2013). Organization Theory, Modern, Symbolic and Postmodern Perspective (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press
  11. Healy, S. (2003). Epistemological pluralism and the ‘ politics of choice .’ Futures, 35, 689–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00022-3
  12. Koontz, H. (1961). The management theory jungle. The Journal of the Academy of Management, 4, 174
  13. Koontz, H. (2008). The Management Theory Jungle. Te Journal of Academy of Management, 22(4), 35590361. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2008.35590361
  14. Krueger, N. F. (2007). What Lies Beneath ? The Experientaial Essence of Entrepreneurial Thinking. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, (February 2007). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2007.00166.x
  15. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In INTERNATIONAL ENCYCLOPEDIA of UNIFIED SCIENCE: Vol. II
  16. Laing, B. M. (1931). The Conception of Reality as a Whole. Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(21), 3–17
  17. Mackinnon, E. (1982). The Truth of Scientific Claims. Philosophy of Science, 49(3), 437–462. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/187284
  18. Nag, R., Hambrick, D. C., & Chen, M. J. (2007). What is strategic management, really? Inductive derivation of a consensus definition of the field. Strategic Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.615
  19. Packard, M. D. (2017). Where did interpretivism go in the theory of entrepreneurship? Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 536–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.004
  20. Pfeffer, J. (1993). Barriers to the Advance of Organizational Science : Paradigm Development as a Dependent Variable. The Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 599–620. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/258592
  21. Santos, F. M. (2017). A Positive Theory of Social Entrepreneurship. Journal of Business Ethics, 111(3), 335–351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s
  22. Weston, T. (1992). Approximate Truth and Scientific Realism. Philosophy of Science, 59(1), 53–74. https://doi.org/10.2307/188119
  23. Wisdom, J. (1977). Appearance and Reality. Philosophy, 52(199), 3–11

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2024-11-25 07:05:55

No citation recorded.