Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch's Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing

Samuel Horner, Joep Cornelissen*, Mike Zundel

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In this paper we provide a counterpoint to the view that prescriptive theorizing reflects a viable means for enhancing the practical impact of management theorizing towards addressing some of the most pressing societal concerns and grand challenges of our times. To do so, we first contextualize the roots of prescriptive theorizing in management research, arguing that the approach developed by Hanisch is reflective of the wider ‘positive’ prescriptive turn in social science theorizing. Second, we problematize the presumptive basis upon which much prescriptive theorizing as well as related ideas around utopian thinking are based. In doing so, our broader aim is to draw attention to the bases upon which prescriptive claims are made and we specifically highlight the dangers of implementing decontextualized, overly simple and stylized prescriptions in the face of complex grand challenges. In contrast to prescriptive theorizing, we propose that the practical impact of management theory may rather be enhanced through a tempering of instrumental rationality with a deep(er) concern for phenomena and experience. We conclude the paper by offering a number of ways in which this can be done.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1717-1730
Number of pages14
JournalJournal of Management Studies
Volume61
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 The Authors. Journal of Management Studies published by Society for the Advancement of Management Studies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Panacea or Dangerous Practice: A Counterpoint to Hanisch's Argument for Prescriptive Theorizing'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this