2012-20
Knowledge production connected to the social constructionof the Urgent Project System in Sharp Co.
: Revisiting social constructionism
Toshihiro Kanai

Noboru Matsushima

Mitsuhiro UranoKnowledge production connected to the social construction of the Urgent Project System in Sharp Co.
: Revisiting social constructionism
Toshihiro Kanai
Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University
Noboru Matsushima
Graduate School of Business Administration, Kobe University
Mitsuhiro Urano
School of Management and Information, University of Shizuoka
Abstract: In this article, we propose that the scientific knowledge has a public nature. Our knowledge production,
therefore, is inevitably connected to the realities socially constructed. We discuss how our knowledge production isconnected to the management practices, according to our field research of the urgent project system in Sharp Co..

worse (e.g., Latour and Woolgar, 1986). In sociology it

1. Introduction‘Society’ (including corporation itself) as perceived

is now almost taken for granted that the lived reality is

by us does not exist externally (‘out there’) but rather

shaped by the ‘society’ constructed in the mind. Social

exists as visualization in our mind (‘in here’). This isconstructionism has had this significant impact because

not to say that our reality is therefore all fiction. The

it has encouraged a revival of classical works as ansociety in our mind concretises our daily life andattempt to re-evaluate the fundamental theoreticalconstructs our lived reality. This type of reality cannot

propositions of the social sciences in the face of thebe comprehended with a positivist approach, since thisdominance of positivism.

approach is predicated on the externality of ‘society’

However, according to Hacking (1999), thoughand seeks (or attempts to seek) to explore its essence.

social constructionism had been trendy, now has

This is one of the fundamental reasons why

become rather dull and uttering the very phrase ‘socialorganisational ethnography is often adopted as aconstruction’ seems more like standing up at a revival

method in our attempts to comprehend our lived reality

meeting than enunciating thesis or project (pp. 35–36).

(Kanai, Sato, Kunda, and Van Maanen, 2010).

Just as positivism which holds that an exploration ofThis is what is called social constructionism, and its

the essence of externally existing society leads to an

lineage goes back to Merton (1979) and even tounderstanding of reality has also now become

Mannheim (1925). However, because the practice ofdisesteemed, in fact a derogatory epithet (Burrell andnatural scientists, who are the torchbearers ofMorgan, 1979, p. 5), so too has social constructionism

positivism on our society, was selected as the object oflost its initial impact when the changes in its meaning

analysisand use are acknowledged.

in

early

discussions

from

a

socialconstructionist viewpoint, it has become adopted as

Still, we should be able to see the ways in which

received wisdom and also emerged in a form that canreality is socially constructed by examining the use of

only be described as a sensationalist fad, for better or

the now over-used term ‘social constructionism’. We1

also should be able to find a way forward in the act ofHowever, as ‘social constructionism’ has become taken

identifying the disagreements in the methodologicalfor granted as part of the mental furniture in these

discussion surrounding social constructionism.

disciplines,

The current article aims, first, to revisit the over-tired

it

has

become

clear

that

socialconstructionism has now become a sacred cow and has

concept of social constructionism and then togone far beyond what was originally intended.

reconstruct it as a useful method of knowledge

Hacking (1999) has been sarcastic about the ways inproduction in the study of management theory. In thewhich social constructionism is used in the social

second section, the article reviews the rise and fall ofsciences. According to him, the radical politicalsocial constructionism and explores what connotation

attitudes that are associated with social constructionism

we need to preserve or discard from it. In the third

have been used to indicate attitudes ranging fromsection, the article examines the aspects in which‘bemused irony and angry unmasking up to reform,

academic knowledge production intersects with therebellion, and revolution’ (p. 35). Not only that: ‘If youpractice of business management, drawing on ouruse it favourably, you deem yourself rather radical. If

fieldwork.

you trash the phrase, you declare that you are rational,
reasonable, and respectable’ (p. vii). However this

2. Revisiting social constructionism

sarcasm does not mean that social constructionism is

As there are a number of detailed reviews ofan empty theory completely devoid of content. In fact,

theoretical developments and disputes in social

this situation is exactly what demonstrates reality being

constructionism in a variety of fields, there is no need‘socially constructed’. In other words, because of social

to add any more words to this topic (see e.g., Gargen,construction,

1982; Nakagawa, 1999; Nakagawa, Kitazawa, and Dio,

constructionism is being formed.

2001; Ueno, 2001; Taira and Nakagawa, 2006). It isalmostimpossible

anduseless

to conductanewrealitybasedonsocialTherefore, not all of what is described as ‘sociallyaconstructed’ in explaining a phenomenon constitutes

comprehensive review of works drawing from socialsocial constructionism. Let us now examine the cases

constructionist theory due to the proliferation ofwhich are often described as being ‘sociallyvarious arguments purporting to be based on social

constructed’ in a more concrete manner. These

constructionism, which has now become faddish, as

situations can be divided into two groups. One of them,mentioned above. This article first re-examines what iswhich is common, includes situations that aremeant when it is said that something is ‘sociallydescribed as socially constructed because they are theconstructed’ (2.1). Following that, it reviews the heatedproducts of human interpretation. Indeed, it is intuitive

methodological debate in social constructionism (2.2)

to distinguish objective reality from subjective reality

and identifies a new research agenda which we shouldbased on ontological perspective. The other groupaddress (2.3).

collects those situations that are described as sociallyconstructed because of the interaction involved

2.1 What is meant by ‘socially constructed’?

between people (or between people and objects). It

In the context of the social sciences which analyse

appears that this group also reasonably represents thethe society that comes into existence in the mind andidea behind social constructionism, namely, not to

the reality that is predicated on that society, it goes

reduce reality to some collection of essential attributes.

without saying that reality is socially constructed.

However, these instances can actually be understood2

without describing them as ‘socially constructed’.

without saying that the ‘society’ is a product of human

When ‘social’ simply signifies interpretations andinterpretation through interaction, and it can beinteractions, one does necessarily gain anything byanalysed if necessary. However, that ‘society’ is also

describing these situations as ‘socially constructed’;socially constructed. The pursuit of the ‘society’ thatthey can just be described as interpretations andconstitutes the reality, an act of endless going back, isinteractions.

not

of

any

interest

totheoriesofsocial1

In other words, in these arguments, a reason orconstructionism. Therefore, Berger and Luckmann

imperative for the use of the term ‘socially constructed’(1966) have emphasised that what is to be examined

is simply missing. Let us now return to what is deemedthrough experiential analyses is the reality that humans

to be the canon of social constructionism. Berger andconstitute as their daily life, and that ‘within the frame

Luckmann’s(1966)of reference of sociology as an empirical science it isconceptionofsocialphenomenologicallyconstructionism

drivencanbepossible to take this reality as given, to take as datasummarised in the following way. Their argument

particular phenomena arising within it, without further

starts with the recognition that ‘society’ appears to us ininquiring about the foundations of this reality, which isa self-evident, forceful, objective form and that ita philosophical task’ (p.19).

simply exists there (pp. 21–23; p. 60). According to

If reality is constructed on the basis of a reserve of

this premise, objectified society simply constrains

resources or clues provided by ‘society’, researchershuman thought and action; therefore, the argument ofmust also take some kind of ‘society’ as a site ofBerger and Luckmann (1966) has been criticised as

analysis. Mannheim (1925), the founder of the schoollacking in dynamism (e.g., Yoshida, 2002, pp.

of thought known as the sociology of knowledge, saw

204–207).

its role as exposing the socially constructed reality. Its

However, this critique is not necessarily on target.

role, however, is not limited to critiquing reality, since

For as Berger and Luckmann (1966) see it in relation toeven that requires the perception of the ‘society’ that is

the tradition of phenomenology, the ‘society’ that has

the basis of the critique. In other words, the researchers,

been objectified according to common practice servestoo, can construct a new reality using the objectified

as a source of resources or clues in constructing a new‘society’ as a clue. The new reality that is constructed

reality. In short, what is important in social

by the researchers can then finally expose theconstruction is not the subject’s interpretation or

impossibility of the ‘society’. In this sense, describing

interactions. As soon as we begin to interpret society, it

the reality constructed by (the use of) social

becomes, as the object of interpretation, a necessity toconstructionism, just as Hacking (1999) did, is an act

move forward (pp. 30–31). The starting point is not theof exposing what cannot be taken for granted that goessubject but ‘society’. Therefore there remains no otherbeyond the original intention of the philosophy.

way but to say that reality is constructed as ‘social
products’.

2.2 Learning from the methodological debate in social

As long as a researcher believes in a ‘scientific’constructionism

approach, we may as well assume that he/she should

What remains in our memory is not only social

explore where the ‘society’ that constitutes that reality(interpretation) comes from and furthermore, by what

1 This can be examined by focusing on the methodologicalprocesses it has been constructed (interaction). It goesorigin of social constructionism as an attempt to reject
positivism; we will look at this in more detail in the next
section.

3

constructionism as a theoretical framework to explain

This camp of scholars emphasise methodologicalthe phenomena discussed above, but also theobjectivity by arguing that if the researcher takes themethodological debate that has arisen when theview, as an ethnomethodologist would do, that the

explanatory principle of social constructionism wasactor interprets social problems (i.e., the view implying

applied back to the researchers themselves (Holstein

self-reflexively through experience), the same principle

and Miller, 1993; Miller and Holstein, 1993).

should be applied to the researcher him-/herself

The debate was initiated by Steve Woolgar, a theorist(Woolgar, 1988). While it is possible for a researcher toof scientific and technological society who has also

focus on the actor’s own definition, he/she has to selectplayed an important role in developing social

the situation to be problematised and, moreover, toconstructionism as it exists today, and Dorothyinterpret

Pawluch,interpretation

an

ethnomethodologist(Woolgarand(secondary(primaryobservation)observation).

theactor’sThorough

Pawluch, 1985). They focused on a contradiction that

constructionists have therefore come up with atheysolution: to examine the researcher’s interpretation on

identified

hiddeninthemethodofethnomethodology as adopted by Spector and Kitsuse

equal terms as the actor’s interpretation.

(1977), who critiqued the positivistic epistemology of

For instance, Woolgar (1991) reports on fieldwork

the conventional study of social problems, proposing

involved in the project to develop an educationalthat these problems had to be re-captured from thecomputer in which he participated as an assistant to theviewpoint of the actor and should not be identified

project manager. He attempted to capture the processes

lopsidedly by the researchers. In other words, they tried

through which the image(s) of the eventual user held

to define social problems as ‘activities of individuals orby employees reflexively evolved as the computergroups making assertions or grievances and claims

development progressed. Not only during thewith respect to some putative condition’ (p. 75).

experiments, in which they observed the users’

However, what is problematic here is whether,

reactions first hand, but also when deciding the size ofmethodologically speaking, this truly defines social

the computer, the differences among departments

problems from the actor’s point of view. For example,

became evident and the image of the user was revised

in exploring the actor’s definition of claim-making

This was reported together with the evolution of theactivities (e.g., infant abuse), the researcher has alreadyimage of the user held by Woolgar.

selected a particular situation (for instance, the act on

Has the methodological contradiction that Woolgar

the part of a parent of beating his/her child) frombrings up been solved by this method?

numerous other potential situations. Woolgar andconclusion Woolgar reached after examining and

Pawluch dubbed this methodological contradiction ofre-examining various interpretations is that technology

ethnomethodology

has been interpreted in a multitude of ways, which is a

with

the

name

‘ontologicalgerrymandering (OG)’.
A

heateddebateThevery evident thesis. It is of course methodologically
on

this

methodologicalcorrect to apply the method of social constructionism

contradiction ensued and resulted in two positions:to the researcher himself/herself (as long as social

thorough constructionists and strict constructionists.

constructionism means ‘interpretation’). However,Let us first review the position taken by thorougheven if the researcher is conscious of this, it does notconstructionists, including by Woolgar, who pointed

mean that he/she can free him-/herself from aout this methodological contradiction in the first place.

self-imposed, theoretically loaded interpretation. That4

is a different problem altogether. As a result, some have

who dare not to apply the method back to thepointed out that the method of the thoroughresearchers. In short, it strictly adheres to theconstructionists has only achieved to compromise thesubstantive aim to expose the self-evident nature of thecritical capacity to expose the impossibility of thesocially constructed reality.
As we have seen, the participants in theconstructed reality by social consructionism (Kanamori,methodological

2000, p. 219).

debates

concerningsocialIn contrast, John I. Kitsuse and his colleagues, whoconstructionism have right from the beginning been

were criticised by Woolgar, are classified as ‘strict

talking past each other. It follows that there is no merit

constructionists’. Ibarra and Kitsuse (1993) argue thatin discussing which camp should more rightfully be

the researcher has to capture the actor’s definition of a

supported.

situation more strictly to address the OG problem.

On the other hand, there is a common concern that

However, we need to be careful as to what is meant by

can be found in both. That is, both have been

‘strict’. Nakagawa (1999) distinguishes two levels in

discussing the social construction of reality and thethe OG problem. The first is OG of the definition of theresearcher who observes it separately. The strict

situation itself; there is no use for the method of social

constructionists, who focus on the substantive meaning

constructionism if an explanation is made by way ofof social constructionism, overlook the fact that thethe perceived concepts of the researcher. Therefore we

researchers themselves construct the reality. Even if

need to avoid OG at this level. The other level is OG

scholars studying this issue are not concerned with theconcerning daily language. Even if we ignore this on

analysis of the specific reality that is constructed by the

purpose, the type of methodological contradiction

researchers, it is still a substantive problem for social

which has been pointed out by Woolgar and others

constructionism if they are involved with construction

would not occur (Nakagawa, 1999, pp. 275–284). Inof the reality (Nakagawa and Taira, 2006, pp. 317–320).

other words, the method of the strict constructionists isOn the other hand, the thorough constructionists, whoa kind of declaration of intent that we shouldemphasise interpretation by the researchers, appear to

approximate the actor’s definition of a situation aspresuppose that the researchers have an interpretive

much as possible, if not to the level of daily language.

process which ‘correctly’ analyses the actor’s

In short, what the strict constructionists aimed to dointerpretation. This is what is called methodologicalwas not to confront the methodological contradiction

essentialism (Matsushima, 2005; 2009). In other words,

Woolgar and his colleagues have pointed out but tothe thorough constructionists fail to comprehend thatelegantly dodge it. They have proposed a method tothe researchers are as particular as the actors and thatanalyse socially constructed reality itself, and they

they are also involved in the social construction ofwere not at all concerned with the fact that thereality (Rouse, 2001, pp. 196–7).

researcher’s reality was also socially constructed.

In short, regardless of whether one is a strict

Furthermore, as the case of Woolgar shows, being

constructionist or a thorough one, the debate

obsessed with methodology and losing sight of simple

surrounding the methodology of social consructionism

research interest in the phenomenon to be observed

has isolated the researchers from the real world and as

would often end up making one a prisoner of one’sa result has come to bear resemblance to positivism,

theoreticallythe very philosophy that social constructionism has

loadedinterpretation.

Therefore,

rejected.

Nakagawa (2004) supports the strict constructionists
5normative knowledge, or producing job units that had
2.3

The

new

research

agendaforsocialnot existed before by way of job breakdown. At its base,constructionism

we can see Taylor’s belief system, that of someone

So far, this article has re-examined the theoreticalbrought up by a Quaker father and the mother who

meaning of ‘socially constructed reality’ (2.1) andhave ancestral ties with Puritan (Wren and Greenwood,

reviewed the methodological debate in social

1998, pp. 134–140) as well as the exercise of power2

constructionism. By so doing, it has acknowledged thatbased on efficiency, a concept that has been legitimised

there is a risk of convergence between social

in modernity (Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips, 2006,

constructionism

pp. 46–52).

andpositivism,

which

socialconstructionism has been trying to overcome, as

What is important here, however, is that theevidenced in an ill-focused debate (2.2).

scientific management method, which is characterisedThis last sub-section in section 2 examines theby the segmentation of knowledge, has allowed the

problems that we need to tackle as a result of theconstruction of various realities through industrial

preceding debate: to expand the scope of analysis

production. Jobs which had been trusted to the workers

regarding the practice of constructing a lived reality sowere now managed by the firm. Tools which used to be

as to clarify various phases of reality in which thethe workers’ personal property were now standardised

researchers are substantively involved in (not just theand managed by the firm.3 To the workers whose

reality for the researchers).

ultimate decision-making rights in doing the job were

Steve Fuller points out that researchers are involved

taken away in various ways, the management methodin the social construction of reality in all aspects ofproposed by Taylor was none other than rule of the

production,ofworkplace by the supervisor. For this reason, thescientific knowledge in today’s knowledge society

confrontation between the employers and the(Fuller, 1988 [2002]; 2002). He starts with the premiseInternational Union of Mechanics arose. At thethat knowledge produced by researchers is not beyond

Watertown Arsenal, where Taylor himself introduced

the reach of actors who construct a reality but is atime management, it even escalated to the sacking of

public good that is a referent in the construction of afoundry workers who refused to abide by the method.

lived reality.

Taylor was summonsed to testify as a guilty party at

dissemination

andconsumption

Fuller uses the scientific management method

the special inquiry set up at the demand of the labour

proposed by Frederick W. Taylor as a case to illustrateunion leaders to look into this incident. Quite simply,

the fundamental relationship between the public nature

the responsibility of the knowledge manufacturer wasof scientific knowledge and the construction of reality
2 For instance, Taylor tried to pacify the resistance to the(Fuller, 1992, pp. 413–419; 1993, pp. 307–311).

deprivation of the final say in work matters from the workers,
which was brought about by the segmentation of knowledge
through job breakdown by arguing that they are ‘higher
priced men’ (Clegg, Courpasson and Phillips, 2006, pp.
47–48). Here we can catch a glimpse of the exercise of
power using efficiency as a stalking horse (by Taylor
himself), which is the same as switching the point.
3 One of the characteristics of company management in the
US is the ‘puzzle of ownership’ in which not only financial
ownership by the capitalist but also ownership of strategy bymanagement and ownership of the tools and jobs by theworkers are intricately entangled (Ito, 2009).

According to Fuller, scientific management is not
something that explores what is already there and tries
to uncover the law behind it, as assumed in positivism.
Upon considering Taylor’s management method, more
concretely in its aspects of time management and task
management,itbecomes

clear

that

scientificmanagement is a result of the segmentation of6

questioned.

in the railway business and, furthermore, to raise theBut for Taylor, the objections from the workers were

workers’ pay. We can see that the designation of theunexpected because his aim was not to merely improve

term ‘scientific’ to Taylor’s management method was

the efficiency of the factory (meaning that thetaken up by Brandeis as an ideological move, toexploitation of the workers was not at all intended) but

legitimise his position.

to eliminate labour disputes. He originally proposed the

However, Taylor certainly did not add the term

discriminatory payment-by-result system in order to‘scientific’ to the management method he developed in

redress the vicious circle in which the harder one

Brandeis’s step to defend his otherwise indefensible

worked the less the rate of pay became. At that time,

method. Ultimately, Taylor argued in The Scientificemployers reduced the unit price as output grew, inManagement Method (1911) that his aim was neither toaccord with the approach of outcome management,

ensure co-prosperity of the employers and the workers,

which was prevalent. Taylor’s intention was to create a

nor to overcome organisational slowdown, nor tosystem in which hard-working employees would be

propose a new pay system to achieve those two. In

remunerated fairly and therefore would have an

short, he completely changed his stance. It was in the

incentive to work (Taylor, 1985, p. 861). This is why

end an incredibly simple argument: transition from

Taylor emphasised at the special committee hearing‘empirical rule’ to ‘science’ (pp. 24–25). Taylor did not,that

reducehowever, see his management method as a ‘scientific’confrontation between employers and workers and as aendeavour. The management method he came up withresult contribute to an increase in national wealth (U. S.

was not like metal cutting involving meticulous

Government Printing Office, 1912 [1947], pp. 17–18).

measurement; it was not any kind of science that lay

The reason why Taylor adopted the term ‘scientificpeople may imagine (pp. 116–117). Furthermore,management method’ emerged from these labour

Taylor was aware that even with insights from physics

disputes. The term was originally coined by theand physiology, which were the cutting-edge science of‘people’s lawyer’, Louis D. Brandeis, in order tothe time, one could not determine the optimal tasks for

oppose the rail-fare rise triggered by the Eastern Ratea worker (pp. 53–54). Still, at the special inquiry

hismanagement

methodwould

4Case. Brandeis argued that if Taylor’s management

hearing, he asserted the system was not a subjective

method, which was supposed to solve labour disputes‘Taylor system’ but a scientific management method

and contribute to the growth of national wealth, were to(U. S. Government Printing Office, 1912 [1947], pp.

be adopted, it would be possible to increase efficiency

5–7). In this instance, what Taylor meant by ‘science’
was a virtue that leads humanity.

4 Just before the public hearing by the State Trade

As we have seen, knowledge production by

Committee took place, Brandeis realised that they did nothave a proper name under which to publicise Taylor’s
management method and gathered Taylor’s students
including Frank B. Gibreth and Henry L. Gantt to discuss aname. Brandeis pointed out that Taylor often used the word‘scientific’ in his papers, and it was decided to call it the‘scientific management method’. Because this public hearing
was widely reported by the newspapers and magazines, the‘scientific management method’ attracted much attention,and because the scientific management method was thenadopted by the Army’s supply department, it led to thedispute at Watertown Arsenal, which in turn led to the setting
up of the special inquiry committee (Wren 1994, pp.
120–121).

researchers is not like what positivism assumes it is;knowledge is not produced by observing reality as an
outsider. Scientific knowledge is involved in theconstitution of lived reality in all aspects of production,
distribution, and consumption. This is expected whenknowledge in business management is produced toaddress real problems in management on theassumption that it will be referred to by the firms and7

used to solve problems (Willmott, 2009, pp. 148–149).

of a problem of business management

What researchers need is not the positivistic attitudes to

The Urgent Project System has been explained fromexpect naively that identification of the essence of thea variety of angles as an exemplary form of projectsociety at issue will uncover a law to solve theorganisation developed in Japan for developing new

problem; they need constant, active participation in the

products by forming a cross-functional team whichconstitution of reality, predicated on an understanding

directly reports to the president. This article focuses onof the society through the production of knowledge. In

the fact that business management theory has been

the next section, we will examine the ways in which

deeply involved in providing such explanations. In fact,

researchers’ knowledge production is connected to thelectures and writings by Sharp employees makesocially produced reality of the practice of businessfrequent reference to explanations provided bymanagement, drawing from the fieldwork webusiness management theory. According to them, theconducted.

System achieves innovation, such as the developmentof a new product, by cross-functionally mobilising a

3. Knowledge production connected to the reality

range of knowledge across departments and enabling

constructed by the Urgent Project System

flexible decision-making due to the allocation of

In this section, we examine our fieldwork on thespecial authorities where needed. In other words, theUrgent Project System (hereafter, ‘the System’), a

Urgent Project System has been described as a form ofwell-known system of Sharp Corporation intended toorganisation which can overcome the problem

produce innovation. The article focuses on the fact thatcharacteristic of bureaucracy in which novelty is

the System constructs a lived reality and that not only

blocked due to departmental/sectional division andthe actors but also the researchers are involved in

new initiatives are stifled by power relationships.

various manners with this reality.

However, such explanations are creating new

To summarize the conclusion beforehand, there areproblems. For instance, Mr Katsuhiko Machida, thefour aspects in which researchers’ knowledge

fourth president of Sharp, has stated the following:production is connected to the practice of business
When I introduce Sharp’s Urgent Project System
in my lectures and so on, all the business leaders
in attendance say, ‘This is such a good idea. We
will definitely try it ourselves’. But when we meetin a few years’ time and I ask them how it went,
they would invariably say ‘well, it did not workfor us’. (Machida, 2008, p. 157)

management via the System. First, the theory ofbusiness management uncovers new issues in business
management when it’s utilized to by the firms (3.1).
Second, while researchers’ knowledge production is
primarily oriented to the act of theoretical revision, theknowledge is internalized in the context of involved
actors to contribute to the solution of real problems

We have also frequently encountered the response(3.2). Third, researchers’ production of theoretical‘systems like the Urgent Project System can be foundknowledge nonetheless becomes involved in real

everywhere these days’, 5 when we tell corporate

political interaction (3.3). Fourth, although involved inleaders that we are conducting fieldwork on Sharp’s

the interaction, the knowledge produced by researchers

System. Advocating dismantling bureaucracy is now

still needs to be recognisable as public ‘science’ (3.4).
5 On the other hand, some said it was spooky that

although a cross-functional organizational structure which
is with special authorities was adopted everywhere, it only
works for Sharp.

3.1 Management theory contributing to the formation
8

considered common sense that there is no need to referdepartment would then nominate the personnel

to business management theory. In fact, since thenecessary for the project. As a result, if a number ofovercoming of bureaucracy has now become common

projects which require similar skills were to come insense, it lost its appeal as an insightful explanation of

succession, the project teams would be constituted by

Sharp’s Urgent Project System.

largely the same members.

The Urgent Project System office, which is

Furthermore, urgent project teams were not separate

responsible for planning and management and hasfrom existing power relationships and obligation. As afacilitated our fieldwork, was seriously concerned withproject is set up and the lead department or section is

this problem. The disenchantment found in the popular

selected, the responsibility of running the project is

attitude toward the System has become an urgent

transferred to the head of the department or section.

problem in terms of its ontological security. As we

The project chief who drives the project is not the

explain later, our fieldwork was initiated as a part ofperson who has proposed the theme but instead

the

Human

someone who has a strong presence and is known toResource Development project by the Japanese

everyone in the department. As a result, the same

Ministry of the Economy, Trade and Industry (METI).

people are repeatedly nominated as project chief (e.g.,

Our first point of contact with Sharp was therefore the

Sakurai and Fujimura, 2008).

Industry-Academia

Partnershipfor

Human Resource Development Centre in the Human

As long as the conventional portrayal of urgent

Resources Department. As the fieldwork progressed,

project team as a debureaucratized organisation is

the main point of contact shifted to the Urgent Project

accepted, the above description of the System, which is

System office, with which we were put in touch by theso different from the official one, would never have

Human Resource Development Centre. This was

been disclosed to us, researchers from the outside.

because those who were most in need of a new

However, some doubts had already been raised about

justification of the System were at the System officethe conventional description. The Urgent Project

itself.

System office was therefore in search of a newunderstanding of the System.

3.2 Production of knowledge in business management

Faced with a reality different from the publicly

and practical problem solving

circulated explanation of debureaucratization, ourLed by the System office in the search for a newconcern as researchers was revising the conventional

justification, we were then exposed to a different side

theories of bureaucracy (Urano and Matsushima, 2011).

of the project from what had been offered as an official

Max Weber’s main argument about the function of

explanation.

bureaucracy can be simply stated that bureaucracy

As mentioned earlier, the conventional explanation

possesses a principle which enables organisational

had it that creativity was nurtured in the System by

behaviour without co-ordinating specific behaviour ofgathering members cross-functionally from the firm.

individuals under rational and legitimate rules

However, we found that existing networks were used(compliance to formalised rules. However, bureaucracy,

in selecting members for urgent projects. Once thewhich has been described as an ‘iron cage’, evokes a

implementation of an urgent project was decided, thepessimistic image that has obscured its fundamental

selection of the department that would be responsiblefunction, and the inflexible side of bureaucracy has

for the project would follow, and the designated9often been emphasised. 6 One of the reasons why

high-risk’; and ‘a pampered and talented horse which

innovation is discussed as the key virtue in businesschooses its rider and which can be difficult from timeadministration today is in reaction to the stifling image

to time’.

ofbureaucracy.

It

goes

without

sayingthat

As we have seen, our knowledge production itself

debureaucratization (i.e., bypassing the rules and being

did not solve problems in the area of businessliberated from existing power relationship) is no moremanagement.

than an antithesis to the image of bureaucracy. In

researchers create a new reality by being translated byaddition, innovation attempted by debureaucratization

actors. The System office acquired ‘practitioner’s

was originally a function that was expected of ainsight, which is so self-evident yet easy to overlook’bureaucracy to enable flexible responses in athrough interactions with us and found that ‘it has led

constantly changing environment.

us to an answer to the problem of “what is the Urgent

However,theories

proposedby

What must not be forgotten here is the fact that no

Project System?”, a question which had been very

matter how eager we are to revise theories of businessvaguely asked among ourselves’.7 Obviously this does

management, what the actor, in this case, the Urgent

not mean that the System office is now making direct

Project System office, wants to know is not a newreference to the theory we have proposed to proclaim

management theory (or correct theoretical explanation)

the essence of the Urgent Project System lies in

itself. With the assistance of the System office, webureaucracy. But the vocabulary they have developed

came to focus on bureaucracy, and it was all because

for themselves constitutes new knowledge for their

the problem they were facing was created because of aown problem-solving process.

theory of business management (in this case, the theory
3.3 The politics of knowledge productionof bureaucracy).
Consequently, the System office was engaged with

While researchers’ primary concern is usuallytranslating our explanations into their own vocabulary

directed to revising theories, it’s not that ourand reconstituting them as ‘useable knowledge’ rather

knowledge production does not take place independent

than referring to them as they were. In fact, the Systemof external realities. Our knowledge production is also

office, representatives of which accompanied our

involved with political interactions arising fromfieldwork throughout, was in the process of producing

differences in the practice of management.

its own vocabulary and analogies to explain the System.

As already mentioned, our fieldwork was initiated

For instance, the Urgent Project System was describedas part of the Industry-Academia Partnership for

as a ‘very sentimental institution’ as well as, variously,

Human Resource Development project by MEIT. As‘the weapon of last resort, which can be repeatedly

seen in the phrase ‘knowledge-infrastructure society’,

used as a trump card because it is so useful, but needs

what is now sought after in society is creative

constant attention’; ‘it is the magic feather which

individuals that create new industry who are also

encouraged Dumbo the elephant to fly whenhighly developed, intelligent, and talented. With this as

challenging a difficult issue which is widely seen as

guidance from MEIT, we took part in the project withthe aim to develop and train leaders that would actively
lead enterprise innovation. The Urgent Project System

6 According to Clegg and Lounsbury (2009), the origin of

this image of inflexible bureaucracy lies in Parsons’
mistranslation of stahlhartes Gehäuse as the ‘iron case’,when it would be better translated as the ‘steel-hardened shallor casing’ (p. 119).

7 Personal e-mail communication from Mr A. from theUrgent Project System secretariat on 9 September 2010.

10

was included in the project because its benefit in staff

development, solely based on the accounts of the actors.

development had begun to be widely touted.

It is true that there were a number of new products

The reason they began touting the benefit of thedeveloped through urgent projects. However, we

System in staff development probably had to do withconsidered it is not an exaggeration to point out thatthe fact that the explanation of the System as aone of the main effective functions of the System isdebureacratized organisation had become overused.

staff development.

Innovation is not a mere organisational mechanism;

At the same time, the Urgent Project System office,what is important is the individuals who will create

which acted as the facilitator of our fieldwork,

innovation. The System is equipped with a mechanism

respondedthrough which such individuals are developed. What isdevelopment immediately and with concern. They did

more, those individuals whose talent is developed

not want the purpose of the System to bethrough participation in urgent project then become‘misunderstood’ as staff development even as anstaff members who take on the future running of urgent

unexpected consequence.10

to

our

conclusion

regarding

staff

projects and ultimately the company itself. In short, theThere is no point in trying to figure out which

System is seen as a model example of ‘leadership

position is right. What is required here is to understandchain reaction’. In fact, Sharp’s executives touched

why this conflict in views has emerged. The clue lies inupon this when they gave lectures. 8

the fact that, from the System office’s point of view, theThe staff development effect has not only been

purpose of the Urgent Project System had to be fordiscussed in talks and articles. We have also foundquickly solving urgent issues that may change theevidence that confirms the System’s positive effect on

future of Sharp.

staff development in our fieldwork. For instance, all

The Urgent Project System has not only developed

technology-related directors at Sharp had worked on

new products. It has been engaged with a number ofurgent projects in the past. There were also cases inissues, including re-organisation of the company inwhich technical staff members who were not up toorder to address Sharp’s environmental impact andscratch for an urgent project were nonetheless sent tonatural resource exhaustion, reforming the internal IT

join the team because their departments or sections

system, and reviewing the sales organisation. Each ofwanted their abilities to develop further. Furthermore,these problems was an urgent issue the solution to

ex-members of the HR department who were in charge

which played a role in determining Sharp’s future.

ofstaff development would

argue that

staff

However, if staff development is touted as a benefit

development in general should be pursued through theof the System, it would lead actors to feel that it’s

9

System.

acceptable for an urgent project to fail solving urgent

It goes without saying that we did not conclude thatproblems, since at least staff would be being trained

the System was organised for the purpose of staff

and developed. This would lead to a benign attitude to

8 ‘Leadership chain reaction’ has been proposed by Kanai

10 At the lecture in which the ‘leadership chain reaction’(2008), who is one of the authors of this article. Kanai
was chairing the lecture (‘leadership and climate for thehuman resource cultivation lecture’ hosted by Japansociety for chief human officer, held on 21, May, 2009) inwhich leadership chain reaction was mentioned.
9 This corresponds to ‘theory-in-use’ as used in Schön(1983).

was mentioned, there was a question from the floor
whether some individuals were assigned to an urgent
project for the purpose of training and development. To
this, the System secretariat replied that the Urgent Project
System was not for staff development and that no staff
was deliberately assigned to an urgent project for the
purpose of training and development.

11the failure of urgent project to address the problems. It

by the heads of R&D and HR at Sharp, who had

is conceivable to regard staff development as one of the

explained the Urgent Project System to the public

issues that Sharp faces and, in fact, one of the ex-HR

through lectures and talks, as well as the vice president.

managers clearly held this view. However, the System

The document went through numerous revisions,

office regards the same situation differently, as

taking more than half a year from the first draft; in thementioned above: it would undermine the System’s

end we exchanged a formal contract for joint

raison d’être if there were a ‘way out’ for urgent

development with an official seal.11 In drafting thisprojects. This illustrates the fact that even researchers

joint development contract, the System office was most

who are engaged with the revision of theories are

insistent that the following wording should be inserted:

connected to real politics, in which the different

the documented case study ‘would not be used except

intentions held by actors in different positions collide.

for educational and research purposes’.
What is intriguing here is that they felt the need to

3.4 Business management as scienceexamine very closely a theoretical exploration which

Last, we would like to examine the meaning of thewas not of much interest to them. This is because they

commoditisation of the knowledge we produce as

had been using the theories of business management,‘science’, as an aspect of the connection of researcherswhich was developed and presented as a ‘science’. The

to the socially constructed reality. As discussed intheory we have produced while led by the System

section 2.2, the management theory we revised based

office naturally contradicts this official explanation.

on our fieldwork did not directly solve the problem of

The System office felt that it was beyond their capacity

the System office. Sure enough, alerted to their concern,to gauge what kind of impact the publication of an

we have uncovered the side of the System which could

explanation

not

be

accounted

forbypublicly

circulated

which

‘goes

explanation] by miles’

12

beyond[theofficial

would have when it ispublished as a scientific finding.

explanation—its inbuilt bureaucratic principles. We
then engaged to revise the theory in order to describe

Furthermore, using debureaucratization to convey

more accurately what we saw. In contrast, the System

the Urgent Project System is effective when

office was not concerned with the theoretical point ofdebureaucratization is commonly accepted as today. In

whether bureaucracy can underpin innovation. This

other words, by making the use of management

was the reason why they were engaged withtheories, one can justify and legitimise initiatives. In adeveloping their own more practically orientedsense, Sharp has been making good use ofanalogies and knowledge which could be used in their

management theories in explaining the System. Fromreality while we were busy with theoretical reflection.

Sharp’s point of view, while explanations given byThis is not to say, however, that the System officefamous management scholars may not be entirely

and Sharp were completely oblivious of or uninterested

convincing, it would be foolish not to use the message

in the theory we were developing as a research finding.

of debureaucratization at times when it is the mostThe case study we compiled by re-evaluating theeffective

means

to

internallyandexternallybureaucratic principles was checked thoroughly for
11 Upon the signing of this joint development contract,publication. It was read not only by the System office,Urano, Matsushima and Kanai (2010) was published,describing the process.
12 Personal e-mail communication from Mr A. from the
System secretariat on 3 February 2010.

our facilitator, and the respondents, who provided us
with information through interviews and so on, but also
12communicate the position of the System as being

reality. This is a simple and rather obvious point.

responsible for the company’s future. Our revision of

However, it has rather profound implications.

the bureaucratic principles could therefore be seen as

That’s because if researchers are involved in the

carrying the danger of ruining such a resource.

construction of reality, the normative nature of the

However, as we have repeatedly stated, the official

knowledge that they produce must be presupposed, andrationale for the System already contained problems.

its utility becomes the focus of questions. It is not

Therefore, neither Sharp nor the System officebecause social constructionism takes a so-called

necessarilyofpost-modern stance that this complicated problem

management theory based on the findings on thearises. In positivism it is held that scientific knowledge

System They did not ask for our seal to be stamped on

is useful because of the superiority of the researchers in

the joint development contract because they wanted tothe act of exploration of laws or regular patterns behindhide our research findings away from the public gaze.

the facts (Burrell and Morgan, 1979, p. 5). However, it

However, they were concerned that our attempt tois not inevitable that laws and regularity in facts will be

review the bureaucratic principles when there arefound. There is no reason in that instance why

various prevailing theories of bureaucracy and theirresearchers should occupy an advantageous position,

usage as ideology was common could lead to a

and above all, there is no reason why researchers’

misunderstanding that Sharp’s Urgent Project Systemknowledge would be useful. The various assumptions

was phony institution. Notwithstanding this concern,on which positivism is built are merely norms sociallywhat they wished for from us was a ‘scientific’constructed by researchers who are conscious of

explanation of the System as a mechanism for creative

natural science.

viewednegatively

the revision

activities unique to Sharp.

This kind of attitudes still survives in the social
sciences, which should be examining lived realities

4. Conclusion

rather than striving for objectivity. Even the

We have reflected upon the rise and fall of social

post-modernists who reject positivism still hold the aim

constructionism and argued that the theoreticalof science as the accurate description of reality while

meaning of ‘social construction’ lies in the way it

placing oneself outside of what is being described.

captures various aspects of the constitution of realities

According to the anthropologist James Clifford, thisby focusing on ‘society’ as objectified existence (2.1).

reflects the persistence of the ideology that claims the

In addition, by reviewing the methodological debate,transparency of expression and the intuitiveness of

we have argued that it is not enough to regard theexperience (Clifford, 1986, p. 2) and is an expressionsocially constructed reality as an object of observationof strategic opposition by those who are afraid of the(2.2)

collapse of clear criteria for evaluation (Clifford, 1986,

and

that

the

knowledge

we—researchers—produce is publicly shared ‘science’p. 7).

which is used in the substantive construction of reality

But as we witnessed in our fieldwork on the System,

2.3). Our fieldwork at Sharp has also revealed specificmanagement theory created a management problem

phases in which researchers are connected to the(3.1) and the production of knowledge by thepractice of management through the System. To sum

researchers was also part of the politics of the realup, what the article has been arguing is that researchers

practice of management (differences in positions) (3.3).

are invariably involved with the social construction of

The theory we developed is not something that would
13

directly lead to the solution of the problems the actors
had (it leads to problem-solving once translated into

Acknowledgments

their own vocabulary) (3.2). On the other hand, our

The article is based on research funded by the Japan

theory was expected to be ‘scientific’ and publicly

Society for the Promotion of Science under its

sharable (3.4). This illustrates the fact that businessscientific research grant Infrastructure Research (A)management theory is embedded in practice, which‘Genba base no jinzai ikusei no kenkyu (task number

already constitutes reality in a complicated manner.

22243031)’ and Infrastructure Research (B) ‘Keieigaku

Researchers are not supposed to assume there is ano jissenteki tenkai (task number 21330093)’.
[2012.5.21 1087]

theory that is distinguishable from the practice and thento ask whether that theory is useful in practice to begin

Referencewith.

Argyris, C. (1993) Knowledge for Action: A Guide toOvercoming Barriers to Organizational Change,

In the past, Kurt Lewin declared that ‘there is

Jossey-Bass.

nothing so practical as a good theory’ (Lewin, 1943
[1951], p. 169). What Lewin meant is not as simple as

Becker, M. C., Knudsen, T. and March, J. G. (2006)

saying that ‘good research will in the end be useful’.

“Schumpeter, Winter, and the Sources of Novelty,”

Inspired by traditional American pragmatism, Lewin

Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.

proposed ‘Action Research’, 13 which aimed at353-371.

14

asBerger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social

shown in sayings such as ‘no research without action

Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology

and no action without research’ and ‘the best way ofof Knowledge, Doubleday.

research practice thoroughly based in reality,

understanding a system that is constituted by human

Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociologicalbeings is to try to change it’. What we should do is not

Paradigms

question the utility of scientific knowledge but instead

Heinemann.

try to comprehend utility as one of the constitutiveandOrganizational

Analysis,

Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D. and Phillips, N. X. (2006)

conditions of science.

Power and Organizations, Sage Publications.

To conclude this article, we would like to remind the

Clegg, S. and Lounsbury, M. (2009) “Weber Sintering

readers that the last lecture by Professor Tadao Kagono,

the Iron Cage: Translation, Domination, andProfessor Emeritus at the University of Kobe, one of

Rationality,” in Adler, P. S. (ed.) The Oxford

the leading scholars promoting positivistic research in

Handbook of Sociology and Organization Studies,business management in Japan, was entitled ‘In

Oxford University Press, pp. 118-145.

defence of normative business management’.

Clifford, J. (1986) “Introduction: Partial Truths,” inClifford, J. and Marcus, G. E. (eds.) Writing Culture:
The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography, University

13 Argyris (1993) proposes ‘Action Science’, an approach

which aims to produce a theory that would be useful insolving real problems, drawing from Lewin’s idea of Action
Research. It should be mentioned here that the concept of theleadership chain reaction, which was given to the Urgent
Project System but rejected by the System secretariat, was
not proposed as a simple descriptive model but as a way ofsolving the problem of developing staff who were leadershipmaterial.
14 This is what he repeatedly told Douglas M. McGregor of
MIT and the young Edgar H. Schein.

of California Press, pp. 1-26.
Fuller, S. 1988 [2002] Social Epistemology, 2nd
Edition, Indiana University Press.
Fuller, S. (1992) “Social Epistemology and the
Research Agenda of Science Studies,” in Pickering,A. (ed.) Science as Practice and Culture, The14

17, pp. 113-131 (=Cartwright, D. (ed.) (1951) Field

University of Chicago Press, pp. 390-428.

Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical

Fuller, S. (1993) Philosophy, Rhetoric, and the End ofPapers, Harper & Row, pp. 155-169).

Knowledge: The Coming of Science and Technology

Machida, K. (2008) Only One ha Soui dearu, Bungei

Studies, University of Wisconsin Press.

Syunju (in Japanese).

Fuller, S. (2002) Knowledge Management Foundations,

Mannheim, K. (1925) “Das Problem einer Sozilogie

Butterworth-Heinemann.

des Wissens,” Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft undGergen, J. K. (1982) Toward Transformation in Social

Sozialpolitik, Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 577-622.

Knowledge, Springer-Verlag.

Matsushima, N. (2005) “Keiei Gensyo no Ontological

Hacking, I. (1999) The Social Construction of What?,

Gerrymandering: Ito Sezaru Kekka Bunseki no

Harvard University Press.
Holstein, J. A. and Miller, G. (eds.) (1993)

Kousei Syugiteki Tenkai ni Mukete,” Keiei to Seido

Reconsidering Social Constructionism: Debates in(Journal of Business and Institutions), No. 2, pp.

Social Problems Theory, Aldine de Gruyter.

23-34 (in Japanese).

Ibarra, P. and Kitsuse, J. I. (1993) “VernacularMatsushima, N. (2009) "Jouho Keieigaku ni Okeru

Constituents of Moral Discourse: An Interactionist

Kaisyaku Syugi no ‘Jissen’ (‘Practice’ of the

Proposal for the Study of Social Problems,” inInterpretive Approach on AIS),” Nihon Jouhou Keiei

Holstein, J. A. and Miller, G. (eds.) Reconsidering

Gakkaishi

Social Constructionism: Debates in Social Problems

Management), Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 14-25 (inTheory, Aldine De Gruyter, pp. 25-58.

Japanese).

(JournalofInformationandIto, H. (2009) American Company: Ibunka toshiteno

Merton, R. K. (1979) The Sociology of Science: An

America Kigyou wo Kaisyaku Suru, Hakutou

Episodic Memoir, Southern Illinois University Press.

Syobou (in Japanese).

Miller, G. and Holstein, J. A. (eds.) (1993)

Kanai, T. (2008) “Jissenteki Jiron no Gengoka ga

Constructionist Controversies: Issues in Social

Sokushin Suru Leadership Kyouyu no Rensa

Problems Theory, Aldine de Gruyter.

(Constructing Chains of Leadership Sharing throughArticulationofPractical

Nakagawa, N. (1999) Syakai Mondai no Syakaigaku,

Leadership

Sekai Sisou Sya (in Japanese).

Theory-in-Use),” Kokumin Keizai Zasshi (Journal

Nakagawa, N. (2004) “Kouchiku Syugi to Empiricalof Economics & Business Administration), Vol. 198,

Researchability,” Syakaigaku Hyoron, Vol. 55, No. 3,

No. 6, pp. 1-29 (in Japanese).

pp. 244-258 (in Japanese).

Kanai, T., Sato, I. Kunda, G. and Van Maanen, J.
(2010)

SoshikiEthnography

Nakagawa, N., Kitazawa, T, and Doi, T. (2001) Syakai(Organizational

Kouchiku Syugi no Spectrum: Perspective no Genzai

Ethnography), Yuhikaku (in Japanese).

to Kanousei, Nakanishiya Syuppan (in Japanese).

Kanamori, O. (2000) Science Wars, Tokyo Daigaku

Nakagawa, N. and Taira, H. (2006) “Kouchiku Syugi

Syuppankai (in Japanese).

Approach no Totatsu Ten: Empirical na Kenchi

Latour, B. and Woolgar, S. (1986) Laboratory Life:

Karano Kadai to Tenbo” in Taira, H. and Nakagawa,

The Construction of Scientific Facts, Princeton

N. (eds.) Shinban Kouchiku Syugi no Syakaigaku,

University Press.

Sekai Shisou Sya, pp. 285-328 (in Japanese).

Lewin, K. (1943) “Psychology and the Process of

Rouse, J. (2001) “Two Concepts of Practices,” inGroup Living,” Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.

Schatzki, T. R., Cetina, K. K. and Savigny, E. V.
15

Paper, 2010-45 (in Japanese).

(eds.) The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory,
Routledge, pp. 189-198.

U. S. Government Printing Office (1912) “Hearings

Sakurai, Y. and Fujimura, S. (2008) “Innovation wo

Before Special Committee of the House of

Souzou Suru Hito to Soshiki: Sharp Gihou kara

Representative to Investigate the Taylor and Other

Bunseki Shita Dosya no Innovation System (Persons

Systems of Shop Management Under Authority ofand Organization that Create Innovation: Innovation

House Resolution,” 90, pp. 1300-1508 (=Taylor, F.

System of Sharp Corporation through the Analysis

W. with a forward by Person, H. S. (1947) “Taylor’sof

Testimony Before the Special Hose Committee,” initsTechnical

Journal,”Soshiki

Kagaku(Organizational Science), Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 15-25

Scientific(in Japanese)

Management,

Schön, D. A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How

UntersuchungPrinciples

of

Shop

ScientificHouse Committee, Harper, pp. 1-287).
Willmott, H. （ 2009 ） “Science as Intervention:

Schumpeter, J. A. (1926) Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen
eine

The

Comprising

Management and Testimony Before the Special

Professionals Think in Action, Basic Books.
Entwicklung:Management:

uber

Recasting Weber’s Moral Vision,” Organization, Vol.

Unternehmergewinn, Kapital, Kredit, Zins und den

16, No. 1, pp. 143-153.

Konjunkturzyklus, 2, Duncker and Humblot.

Woolgar, S. (ed.) (1988) Knowledge and Reflexivity:

Spector, M. and Kitsuse, J. I. (1977) Constructing

New Frontiers in the Sociology of Knowledge, Sage

Social Problems, Cummings.

Publications.

Taira, H. and Nakagawa, N. (2006) Shinban Kouchiku

Woolgar, S. (1991) “Configuring the User: The Case of

Syugi no Syakaigaku, Sekai Shisou Sya (inUsability Trials,” in Law, J. (ed.) A Sociology ofJapanese).

Monsters: Essays on Power, Technology and

Taylor, F. W. (1895) “A Piece-Rate System, Being a

Domination. Sociological Review Monograph 38,

Step Toward Partial Solution of the Labor Problem,”Routledge, pp. 58-100.

Transactions of the American Society of MechanicalWoolgar, S. and Pawluch, D. (1985)“OntologicalEngineers, Vol. 16, pp. 856-903.

Gerrymandering: The Anatomy of Social Problems

Taylor, F. W. (1911) Principles of Scientific

Explanation,”Social Problems, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.

Management, Harper & Brothers.

214-227.

Ueno, C. (2001) Kouchiku Syugi toha Nani ka, Keisou

Wren, D. A. (1994) The Evolution of Management

Syobou (in Japanese).

Thought, 4th Edition, John Wiley and Sons.

Urano, M and Matsushima, N. (2010) “Institution

Wren, D. A. and Greenwood, R. G. (1998)

Works on Innovation WORK: The Linguistic

Management Innovators: The People and Ideas That

Institutionalization with Bureaucratic Principles in

Have Shaped Modern Business, Oxford University

an Innovative Japanese Electronics Company”

Press.

Graduate School of Business Administration Kobe

Yoshida, K. (2002) “P. L. Berger ‘Genjitsu no

University Discussion Paper, 2011・12.
Urano, M., Matsushima, N. and Kanai, T.

Syakaiteki Kousei’ Ron ni Okeru Mondaisei to(2010)

Kanousei (Problems with P. L. Berger’s ‘The Social“Innovation wo Umidasu Seido: Sharp Kabushiki

Construction of Reality’ and Possible Ways toGaisya no Kinkyu Project,” Graduate School ofRegenerate it),” Ritsumeikan Sangyo Syakai Ronsyu

Business Administration Kobe University Discussion(Ritsumeikan Social Sciences Review), Vol. 37, No.
16

4, pp. 195-219 (in Japanese).

17