Content area
Full Text
Dialogue is a forum for readers who wish to comment on articles recently published in AMR. readers who wish to submit material for publication in Dialogue should use the standard procedures for this journal. In addition, note the following guidelines:
1. Dialogue comments should address only AMR cuticles or AMR Dialogues.
2. Dialogue comments must be timely. Preference will be given to submissions received within two months of the publication date of the material on which the author is commenting.
3. Dialogue comments must be brief. Commentaries on articles should not exceed 4 pages. Commentaries on previous Dialogue entries should not exceed 2 pages.
Trialectics: Questionable Logic for Organization Change Research
Ford and Ford's (1994) article presents three models of logic that they believe can challenge the way we (researchers) have studied organizational change. They suggest that we can uncover unintended biases that may be directing research by explicitly examining the logic paradigms. While being guided in our research by a particular logic heuristic, we may be eliminating the insight other logics may provide. We applaud the authors for introducing nations that challenge our own presuppositions. However, their world is presented in a manner that clearly favors trialectics. Formal logic received only cursory attention, dialectics was presented in a pejorative manner, and trialectics was touted as the logic of "possibility" (1994: 778). We believe that a more balanced treatment may determine more precisely which perspective(s) of logic would assist organizations in meeting the challenges of the future.
The following comments are focused on these major weaknesses of the paper. First, although the authors communicated their bias, they clearly misspecified many aspects of dialectics. Second, the internal inconsistencies found within the presentation of dialectics could potentially mislead further research. Finally, the way in which they presented dialectics and trialectics actually blurred the distinction between the two. As a result, the uniqueness of these three heuristics is minimized.
Mispecification of dialectics. Ford and Ford (1994: 776) indicated that in trialectics "There is no the result that must be considered or is the only one to consider." They also stated that "trialectics makes it possible for us to create different possibilities and relationships." These statements suggest that there is a "the result" in dialectics and that there is...