Kamoche ( 2000 ) for HRM—analyzing recruitment and training within the func-
tionalist paradigm before looking at HRM generally within the terms,Wrst, of a
radical paradigm and, second, an interpretative paradigm. Other writers, however,
argue for the development of a single frame of reference for studying organizations
(PfeVer 1993 ; Donaldson 2001 ).
The organization theory paradigm debate continues in the organization theory
literature (Burrell 2002 ; Keleman and Hassard 2003 ). Tsoukas and Knudsen try to
cut through all of this, however, by observing that when it comes to investigating
‘particular topics, in particular sites,’ organizational researchers do not so much
‘apply’ or ‘follow’ paradigms as ‘explore’ what is available to them and, ‘having to
cope coherently with all the puzzles and tensions stemming from the complexity of
the phenomena they investigate, they extend, synthesize, and/or invent concepts
(cf. Rorty 1991 : 93 – 110 )’ (Tsoukas and Knudsen 2003 : 13 ). This corresponds to a
strategy ofpragmatic pluralism(Watson 1997 ) which similarly follows the basic
principle of Philosophical Pragmatism (Putnam 1995 ; Mounce 1997 ;Rorty 1982 )in
which knowledge is assessed in terms of how eVectively it informs the projects of
the human beings who make use of it, as opposed to judging it in terms of how
closely it ‘mirrors’ or represents objectively existing realities (Rorty 1980 ). The
pragmatic pluralist investigator, in producing an analysis of a particular aspect of
social life, such as HRM, or of a particular set of social events or circumstances,
draws upon elements from various disciplines or perspectives to produce an
analytical framework which can stand as the conceptual foundation for that
particular investigation. Concepts are selected on the criterion of relevance to the
issues arising in the investigation. The framework which emerges must, neverthe-
less, have its own ontological, epistemological, and methodological integrity. It
cannot, for example, jump from an ontological assumption at one stage of the
analysis that organizations are pluralistic patterns of interaction involving varying
goals of a multiplicity of organizational actors to an assumption, at another stage of
the analysis, that organizations are entities possessing ‘organizational goals’ of their
own (Watson 2006 ).
6.5 Four Strands of Organization
Theory Relevant to HRM
.........................................................................................................................................................................................
Having established how we might bring together for purposes such as analyzing
HRM practices ideas from diVerent ‘approaches’ within organization theory, we
need brieXy to map out some examples from this variety of perspectives and note
brieXy how they have played a part in the emergence of HRM so far. To do this, it is
112 t o n y w a t s o n