Organizations and Movements
Organizations and Movements
复制标题
组织和运动
DOI：
10.1017/cbo9780511791000.003
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Scott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Doug McAdam;W. Scott
导言毫无疑问，在过去的40年里，社会科学中最活跃和最具创造性的两个学术活动领域是组织研究(OS)和社会运动分析(SM)。尽管两个阵营的学者都是在20世纪60年代初在相对贫瘠的土地上开始他们的项目，但两人在智力上都很活跃和活跃。OS的学生与科学管理的残余物、他们的人际关系批评家以及对官僚行为的零散研究一起开始了他们的工作。SM学者被关于谣言、恐慌、人群和暴徒的早期实证工作以及包括集体行为、大众社会和相对剥夺方法在内的理论观点的“大杂烩”所包围(McAdam，McCarthy，and Zald 1988：695)。在这两种情况下，先前的工作缺乏理论上的连贯性，也没有什么乐观的基础。此外，在这一早期阶段，这两个领域之间不存在或似乎不可能存在联系，因为前者集中在工具性的、有组织的行为上，而后者的重点是“自发的、无组织的和无结构的现象”(Morris 2000：445)。随着人们认识到更广泛的环境的重要性，OS开始获得牵引力，首先是物质资源和技术特征，然后是政治，最近是体制和文化力量。开放系统的概念为这个领域注入了新的活力，这个领域长期以来一直专注于内部管理设计、领导力和工作组凝聚力的问题。
Introduction There is little question that two of the most active and creative arenas of scholarly activity in the social sciences during the past four decades have been organizational studies (OS) and social movement analysis (SM). Both have been intellectually lively and vigorous in spite of the fact that scholars in both camps began their projects during the early 1960s on relatively barren soil. Students of OS took up their labors alongside the remnants of scientific management, their human relations critics, and scattered studies of bureaucratic behavior. SM scholars were surrounded by earlier empirical work on rumors, panics, crowds, and mobs together with a “smorgasbord” of theoretical perspectives, including the collective behavior, mass society, and relative deprivation approaches (McAdam, McCarthy, and Zald 1988: 695). In both situations, prior work provided scant theoretical coherence and little basis for optimism. Moreover, in this early period no connection existed or, indeed, seemed possible between the two fields since the former concentrated on instrumental, organized behavior while the latter's focus was on “spontaneous, unorganized, and unstructured phenomena” (Morris 2000: 445). OS began to gain traction with the recognition of the importance of the wider environment, first material resource and technical features, then political, and, more recently, institutional and cultural forces. Open systems conceptions breathed new life into a field too long wedded to concerns of internal administrative design, leadership, and work group cohesion.