Marxist-based critique of OR - Revision history

Laouris at 13:25, 3 February 2023

2023-02-03T13:25:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 3 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Hales (1974),		Hales (1974),
	Rosenhead and Thunhurst (1982), as well as Wood and Kelly (1978) critiqued OR using Marxist arguments. Their critique focused at technical rather than practical ~~aspects~~.		Rosenhead and Thunhurst (1982), as well as Wood and Kelly (1978) critiqued OR using Marxist arguments. Their critique focused at technical rather than practical [[Habermas three types of interests\|interests]].

	<u>Point 1</u>: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.		<u>Point 1</u>: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.

Laouris at 13:23, 3 February 2023

2023-02-03T13:23:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 3 February 2023
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~The main~~ Marxist arguments~~' were directed largely~~ at technical rather than practical ~~OR, and can be summarized as follows:~~		Hales (1974),
			Rosenhead and Thunhurst (1982), as well as Wood and Kelly (1978) critiqued OR using Marxist arguments. Their critique focused at technical rather than practical aspects.

	<u>Point 1</u>: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.		<u>Point 1</u>: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.
Line 5:		Line 6:
	<u>Point 2</u>: Indeed, far from being neutral, OR is ideological - it suppresses open discussion and con- sideration of ends and values in favour of a technical selection of efficient means. It trades on the label 'scientific' to justify particular, instrumental, values.		<u>Point 2</u>: Indeed, far from being neutral, OR is ideological - it suppresses open discussion and con- sideration of ends and values in favour of a technical selection of efficient means. It trades on the label 'scientific' to justify particular, instrumental, values.

	<u>Point 3</u>: Where differing interests and values are recognized, as in Ackoff's work" 12, it is assumed that an agreeable reconciliation can always be reached. This is denied by critics'" 14 who argue that there are genuine, structural conflicts which cannot be resolved consensually, but		<u>Point 3</u>: Where differing interests and values are recognized, as in Ackoff's work", it is assumed that an agreeable reconciliation can always be reached. This is denied by critics'" who argue that there are genuine, structural conflicts which cannot be resolved consensually, but only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status quo.
	only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status
	quo.

	(Source: Minger, 1992)		(Source: Minger, 1992)

Laouris: added refs

2023-02-03T13:20:08Z

added refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 3 February 2023
Line 13:		Line 13:

	==References==		==References==
			* Hales, M. (1974) Management science and the 'second industrial revolution'. Rad. Sci. 1, 5-28.
	* Mingers, J. (1992). Recent developments in critical management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(1), 1-10.		* Mingers, J. (1992). Recent developments in critical management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(1), 1-10.
			* Rosenhead, J. and C. Thunhurst, C., (1982). A materialist analysis of operational research. J. Opl Res. Soc. 33, 111-122.
			* Wood S and Kelly J. (1978) Towards a critical management science. J. Mgt Studies 15, 1-24.

	[[Category: OR??]]		[[Category: OR??]]

Laouris: added refs

2023-02-03T11:32:27Z

added refs

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:32, 3 February 2023
Line 8:		Line 8:
	only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status		only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status
	quo.		quo.

			(Source: Minger, 1992)


			==References==
			* Mingers, J. (1992). Recent developments in critical management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43(1), 1-10.

			[[Category: OR??]]

Laouris: created page

2023-02-03T11:31:11Z

created page

New page

The main Marxist arguments' were directed largely at technical rather than practical OR, and can be summarized as follows:

Point 1: OR has a mistaken view of its own purpose and rationality. It sees itself as an objective, value- free application of science to the common good. In fact, it is neither objective nor value-free, but a part of the developing means of production, committed to improving the effective use and control of the workforce.

Point 2: Indeed, far from being neutral, OR is ideological - it suppresses open discussion and con- sideration of ends and values in favour of a technical selection of efficient means. It trades on the label 'scientific' to justify particular, instrumental, values.

Point 3: Where differing interests and values are recognized, as in Ackoff's work" 12, it is assumed that an agreeable reconciliation can always be reached. This is denied by critics'" 14 who argue that there are genuine, structural conflicts which cannot be resolved consensually, but
only through the exercise of power. Apparent agreement will, in reality, maintain the status
quo.