Rethinking the philosophical and theoretical foundations of organizational neuroscience: A critical realist alternative

Abstract

Stimulated by the growing use of brain imaging and related neurophysiological techniques in psychology and economics, scholars have begun to debate the implications of neuroscience for management and organization studies (MOS). Currently, this debate is polarizing scholarly opinion. At one extreme, advocates are calling for a new neuroscience of organizations, which they claim will revolutionize understanding of a wide range of key processes, with significant implications for management practice. At the other extreme, detractors are decrying the relevance of neuroscience for MOS, primarily on philosophical and ethical grounds. The present article progresses this debate by outlining an intermediate, critical realist position, in which the insights of social neuroscience are one of a number of convergent building blocks that together point toward the need for a more embodied and socially situated view of cognition in management and organizations.

Critical Essay: Organizational cognitive neuroscience drives theoretical progress, or: The curious case of the straw man murder

“…This is in line with Lindebaum's (2016) advocacy of taking more account of a critical realist perspective within OCN research (Healey and Hodgkinson, 2014). In adopting the two-level approach, it becomes clearer that, from a certain point of view, OCN research is not simply embedded within the positivist paradigm, but takes a more integrative approach.…”

“…Although they are not synonymous, OCN shares this holistic perspective with Healey and Hodgkinson's (2014; critical realist view, which is another perspective that provides strong criticism of Lindebaum's arguments (e.g. Lindebaum and Zundel, 2013).…”

“…Lindebaum and Zundel, 2013). Healey and Hodgkinson (2014; also robustly criticize ON's reductionist focus.…”

“…In essence, our conclusion is that Lindebaum's (2016) essay has gone to great trouble to construct an elaborate straw man. In overcoming this, we focus heavily on exploring the assumptions that appear to underlie Lindebaum's criticisms, showing that for the most part they are typical of criticisms made of so-called 'scientific' research methods by those who tend towards a more subjective view of knowledge, many of which have long-since been superseded (Healey and Hodgkinson, 2014). While these criticisms may have some merit, depending on one's point of view, they are not particularly critical of neuroscience per se, but of any research method which aims to quantify and objectify human social behavior.…”

Welcome to the jungle! The neuromarketing literature through the eyes of a newcomer

“…organizational research, where an active ongoing stream of conceptual literature exists, which applies more foundational neuroscience thinking to the area, develops new theories and models about how neuroscientific research can develop management knowledge, as well as exploring how more fundamental knowledge can be drawn from neuroscientific investigations of management topics (e.g. Healey and Hodgkinson, 2014;Senior, Lee, and Butler, 2011). Furthermore, there is a growing stream of literature providing strong critiques of the application of neuroscience to management and organizations (e.g.…”