As contribuições de Robert Cooper para o debate sobre ontologia organizacional

Abstract

Resumo Este artigo, elaborado a partir das contribuições de Robert Cooper, busca pensar uma ontologia organizacional que se distancie das concepções teóricas da administração ligadas à ciência moderna, aproximando-se de uma perspectiva pós-moderna. Após breve contextualização do tema, apresentamos os princípios conceituais que fundamentam o pensamento moderno e suas implicações para a teorização organizacional, bem como suas limitações. Em seguida, descrevemos as bases do ponto de vista pós-moderno e seus desdobramentos. Finalizamos sugerindo que as organizações sejam reconhecidas como acontecimentos inventivos múltiplos, que surpreendem o previsto e acentuam o caráter emergente da realidade social. As ideias de Cooper suscitam uma epistemologia focada na descrição e interpretação da organização como processo, isto é, na captura do presente etnográfico organizacional. As organizações, sendo objetos empíricos, prosseguem vivas, ativas, híbridas, fragmentadas. Como diria Bruno Latour, jamais fomos modernos e nossas organizações também não foram ou não são modernas.

Teoria das representações sociais nos estudos organizacionais no Brasil: análise bibliométrica de 2001 a 2014

“…Even though these types of methodological approaches were used in the theory's original form, SRT didn't remain restricted to this type of methodology. On the contrary, the complexity of the phenomenon of social representation and the wide variety of research options that can be answered using this technique assumes a wide variety of methodological alternatives (SOTIRAKOPOULOU and BREAKWELL, 1992).…”

“…These orientations, added to the complexity of the phenomena investigated by SRT, suggest the adoption of qualitative as well as quantitative approaches as well as a wide variety of methods and procedures for data collection and analysis, including, for example, ethnoGraph observation, experimentation, case studies, in-depth interviews, free association, focus groups, data triangulation, content analysis, and discourse analysis, etc. (NASCIMENTO-SCHULZE and CAMARGO, 2000;WAGNER, DUVEEN, FARR et al, 1999;SOTIRAKOPOULOU and BREAKWELL, 1992;FLICK, 1992).…”

“…Alcadipani and Caldas (2012) analyze, through a post-colonialist perspective, the process of Americanization of management in Brazil. Meanwhile Silva and Toledo (2016), Gobira, Lima and Carrieri (2015) and Amorim and Brüning (2015) analyze, respectively, the contributions of Robert Cooper, of Guy Debord and Maurício Tragtenberg to OS in epistemological and ontological terms.…”

“…In methodological terms, it should be emphasized that there is no one methodological perspective that is mandatory for the study of SR. On the contrary, there are various methodological possibilities, or in other words, there are theoretical SRT studies ranging from ethnoGraph observations to laboratory experiments (WAGNER, DUVEEN, FARR et al, 1999;SOTIRAKOPOULOU and BREAKWELL, 1992). In addition to this wide array of methodologies, according to Nascimento-Schulze and Camargo (2000), SRT studies are innovative in the choosing and development of methodologies appropriate for each specific object, which is the case with Jean Claude Abric's prototypical analysis that developed the concept of the central nucleus (WACHELKE, 2009).…”

“…As a theory, SRT is a form of social knowledge that contributes to the construction of a common reality within a social system (JODELET, 2001) which enables researchers to understand processes that generate and keep social representations alive in social interactions, in addition to understanding structural questions related to SR that are shared on cognitive and linguistic levels (NASCIMENTO-SCHULZE and CAMARGO, 2000). In this sense, the utilization of the theory as a way of understanding social and organizational phenomena requires the adoption of various methodological approaches, compatible with the complexity of the phenomena under investigation (NASCIMENTO-SCHULZE and CAMARGO, 2000;WAGNER, DUVEEN, FARR et al, 1999;SOTIRAKOPOULOU and BREAKWELL, 1992;FLICK, 1992).…”