Construindo conhecimento em estudos organizacionais no Brasil
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Grounded on a more constructivist and procedural perspective of science in which social and cultural practices reveal how science is made, this thesis aimed to analyse how the process of knowledge building in the field of Organizational Studies in Brazil occurred. To this end, we followed the evolution of scientific production from a longitudinal perspective, through the identification of legitimacy strategies of scientific contributions made by the authors in scientific articles that would reveal how these strategies differ rhetorically among them. We, then, unveil how these strategies differ rhetorically and map scientific contribution legitimacy strategies’ networks vs actors (individual and institutional ones) by watching how they influenced the positions of the players-actors in the scientific field over time and how they influenced the process of knowledge building in Organizational Studies. Drawing from the theory of the fields (Bourdieu, 1983a; 2004b; Greenwood, Suddaby and Hinings, 2002; Martin, 2003; Fligstein, 2003; Davis and Marquis 2005; Emirbayer and Johnson, 2008; Fligstein and McAdam, 2011; 2012) and some factors that influence the knowledge construction in Administration, we sought to understand how the actors present and defend their scientific contributions, also how the distribution of capital is organized, how the actors position themselves in the field and how they dispute the monopoly of scientific authority. Data collection consisted in the selection of 500 articles from 1960 to 2014, 430 in national journals and 70 in international ones, composing a database with various information regarding the articles. Data were categorized based on the content analysis (Bardin, 2006) and analysed through rhetorical analysis (Mann and Thompson 1988). This research thesis has shown that the actors use the argumentative capital differently, although apparently similar, depending on the context of their scientific contribution legitimacy’s strategy: internal scientific discourse, the practice’s discourse or the combination of both. Considering the use of these strategies and the ownership of capitals such as scientific and economic, from the rules of the game in the field, stakeholder groups divide themselves and compete for positions from the following setting: scientific vs ambiguous and practical vs ambiguous. Organizational Studies evolved gradually from an initial ‘pre-field’ to the current phase of the field, now with clear goals, well-defined game rules and marked positions within the existing dispute. However, beyond the repertoire defined for internal scientific discourse, the use of scientific contribution legitimacy’s strategies shows that the authors also try to legitimize their contributions through external strategies of the field, which, in turn, endorses that the Brazilian Organizational Studies field cannot yet be considered as a ‘pure’ scientific field still in search of autonomy. Key-words: scientific field, organizational studies, knowledge, rhetorical analysis, legitimacy strategies.