Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：The Association of The bulletin of arts and sciences  

In organizational studies, the presence of space, landscape, and the artifacts that constitute them has long been neglected. These elements have often been substituted with concepts such as culture or symbols and analyzed accordingly. However, recent approaches in anthropology and geography have sought to examine these phenomena without replacing them with alternative conceptual categories. By drawing on these approaches, this paper aims to refine sociology‑based organizational research and enhance its analytical potential.

Section 1 highlights the importance of analyzing space, landscape, and artifacts. Section 2 clarifies why space has been overlooked within organizational studies. Section 3 examines the relationship between artifacts that constitute space and the humans who inhabit it. Section 4 discusses the relationship between landscapes composed of artifacts and power. Finally, the paper demonstrates that the approach developed here is effective both for reinterpreting cases addressed by conventional theories and for illuminating latent social problems in contemporary society.

By attending not only to organizational symbols but also to artifacts and technologies prior to their symbolic transformation, this paper enables organizational studies to legitimately incorporate organizational space, landscape, and soundscape as analytical objects. In doing so, it also contributes to renewing sociological theories of organizations themselves.

File： kt201409組織における物理的環境についての社会学的アプローチ.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Other Link： http://hdl.handle.net/10291/17562

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：Hakuto Shobou (Japan)  

One of the central themes in organizational research concerns the question of how organizational order is formed and how it disintegrates. How is it possible for subjectively situated individuals to generate a shared order, and why does that order at times unravel? Traditionally, concepts such as organizational goals and organizational culture have been privileged in attempts to explain these dynamics. In this paper, in addition to these established approaches, I explore organizational aesthetics as an alternative analytical framework for explaining the emergence and dissolution of organizational order.

File： kt2007組織秩序の形成と解体を説明するオルタナティブ.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Abstract
This paper focuses on organizational strategy and deals with it from the sociological perspective. The concept of organizational strategy first appeared as a military metaphor in organizational studies. Using this concept, organizational studies describe the manner in which organizations rationally compete with each other in the marketplace. However, the metaphor of organizational strategy has spawned its own discipline, and therefore, it is separated from organizational studies.
Since the concept of organizational strategy emphasizes the economic battle between organizations, economics and/or administrative sciences are the dominant perspective employed in these studies. As a result, the sociological perspective has not been employed. Nevertheless, this perspective is vital for analyzing the organizational strategy in contemporary society. Therefore, we must reconsider the concept of organizational strategy.
This paper aims to explore substitutes for this strategy and the following are the two candidates : business ethics and accountability. In this paper, I support the latter candidate and attempt to prove the effectiveness of the analysis by using criterion not in terms of its “rationality” but its “comprehensibility.” To develop this theory, I refer to new ideas such as organizational identity and expressive organization.
The utilization of these ideas will enable us to deconstruct the myth of the organization as a rational system and construct a new myth and theory to analyze organizations in contemporary society.

File： kt2006組織戦略を社会学的見地から検討する.pdf

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Abstract
In this article, I refer to two schools of organizational culture theory : organizational cultural theory and organizational symbolism. Both schools have a common object, namely, “Organizational Culture.” However, they approach it from very different perspectives. Organizational symbolists analyze “Organizational Culture” as the symbols which are interpreted (or re-interpreted) by members of an organization, while organizational cultural theorists analyze it as the basic assumptions shared by members of an organization. The former theoretical approach is examined with reference to the works of Edgar H. Schein, the latter Mary Jo Hatch.
In conclusion, my stand comes very close to that of organizational symbolism. As regards the level of “Culture, ” I place more importance on the level of artifacts than that of basic assumptions. As for participation in “Culture, ” I emphasize that the viewpoint of the unprivileged follower is more important than that of the privileged leader.
Furthermore, while organizational cultural theorists differentiate “Organizational Culture” from organization itself according to the criterion of what is rational (or irrational), organizational symbolists consider organization as an nonrational symbol. I share the same perspectives as the organizational symbolists, for they are useful not only for new fields of research such as OI (Organizational Identity and/or Image) and CI (Corporate Identity and/or Image), but for also traditional themes of organizational theory such as leadership theory, dysfunction of bureaucracy, and the difficulty in changing organizational culture.
By utilizing those perspectives, organizational studies will become more theoretically refined.

File： kt2002組織文化論から組織シンボリズムへ.pdf

DOI： 10.4057/jsr.53.2_36

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

In this paper, I reconsider well-established ideas in the sociology of organization, "organizational sub-concepts" (organizational goals, organizational structures, organizational strategies, and organizational cultures) as well as a concept "organization" itself.
Because they are concerned so centrally in traditional theories of organization, scientists tend to reify "organizational sub-concepts" by artificial process of find-andname. They conceive "concept" as though it were objective "thing." Accordingly, their studies of organization overemphasize a static aspect of organization and see little interest in its dynamic aspect.
To criticize their proclivity, I introduce a fresh theory that emphasizes the importance of communication made by participants in organization. Since communication is fundamentally a dynamic process, my theory is perceptive to not only the participants' viewpoint, but also to "organizing," that is, an ongoing process of making organization.
In conclusion, I propose that "organizational sub-concepts" should be reconfigured as non-objective "symbolic communicational media" utilized by the participants. These media, functioning as an operational principle, enable the participants to cooperate each other effectively. Furthermore, for their function is principally pragmatic tool for communication, any of the "organizational sub-concepts" is exchangeable, as one "sub-concept" can substitute for another. Therefore, it is erroneous to suppose that an organization should require all the "sub-concepts " for its existence. Nevertheless, discerning the differing extent of symbolization, I also identify the differences among the "sub-concepts."
With this new perspective, my theory shall provide a better insight of the organizational phenomena that traditional theories have been inadequate to explain.

File： kt2001不断に再生産される組織.pdf

DOI： 10.14959/soshioroji.46.2_57

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

This paper analyzes the pathologies generated by schools as organizations, drawing on deschooling theory as a critical perspective while situating the discussion within organizational theory.

What, then, characterizes the school as an organization? Compared with other organizational forms, its most distinctive feature is that its service recipients are “children”—that is, “pupils and students” who are presumed to be innocent and who are in the very midst of the socialization process. Organizations such as firms primarily deal with “adults,” who have already undergone socialization: they have internalized norms such as obeying a superior’s instructions and performing roles deemed appropriate for members of an organization. In contrast, schools are precisely the sites where children are being socialized—indeed, compelled to learn—why they must obey teachers, what it means to behave as pupils or students, and how they should conduct themselves.

Moreover, schools are likely the first formal organizations in which individuals spend a substantial amount of time in their lives. For this reason, schools inevitably function as apparatuses through which the authority of teachers is accepted. At the same time, schools are also places where the meaning of academic credentials—and resistance to them—becomes visible.

Chapter 1 examines why individuals obey instructions within the school organization, drawing on perspectives from management studies, sociology, and social psychology. Chapter 2 identifies “obedience to school” as the first pathology produced by schools, arguing—based on the views of deschooling theorists such as Ivan Illich and Paulo Freire—that schools possess characteristics of indoctrination apparatuses. Chapter 3 critiques deschooling theory and presents the second pathology generated by school organizations: the negative aspects of academic credentials and credential-based society. Chapter 4, under the hypothesis that “organizations generate individuals and society,” analyzes contemporary problems faced by Japanese schools, in which pupils and students are positioned as consumers within credential society. Through this analysis, the chapter identifies a newly emerging third pathology.

File： kt202209学校組織は何を生み出すのか.pdf

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese  

This paper presents an organizational sociological analysis grounded in the hypothesis that “organizations forge society and individuals, —that is, that they generate both." In particular, it seeks to elucidate the mechanisms through which prisons—as organizational forms—produce a society characterized as a surveillance society and individuals positioned as latent suspects.

In sociology, organizations have often been treated merely as intermediaries for explaining society or individuals, and their significance has tended to be underestimated. Yet organizations open the door to society for individuals, and they function as media through which society incorporates individuals. With this recognition of the importance of organizations, this paper aims to explain contemporary society and individuals by focusing on the organizational form of the prison.

File： kt202203組織をメディアとして生み出される社会と個人の様.pdf

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (bulletin of university, research institution)  

This paper elucidates the mechanism through which the “route-as-story” presented in corporate museums—specifically nuclear power exhibition facilities—produces information‑vulnerable individuals who uncritically accept the mission of the organization as self‑evident.
The Great East Japan Earthquake continues to generate profound tragedies. It reminded us that natural disasters can exceed all prior assumptions and bring about unforeseen devastation. Yet the subsequent responses of various organizations and institutions, including Tokyo Electric Power Company, also exceeded expectations in their severity and irresponsibility. I am neither a nuclear expert nor a medical specialist, nor do I possess the knowledge required to make social policy proposals for reconstruction. Rather, I have been merely a customer who “wisely” and unquestioningly consumed the electricity produced by nuclear power. As a scholar of information and communication studies—and of organizational accountability—I myself was an information‑vulnerable individual. This paper focuses solely on analyzing where the structural conditions that produce such information vulnerability were located. Within this complex structure, it examines the functions of a particular organizational form: museums and exhibition halls related to nuclear power generation.

File： kt2012組織の使命と企業博物館.pdf

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese  

File： kt2011組織が生み出す社会.pdf

researchmap

Language：Japanese  

CiNii Research

researchmap

Other Link： http://hdl.handle.net/10236/2316

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

A traditional premise in organizational theory holds that an organization is a system for the attainment of shared goals. Yet both organizational theorists and sociologists more broadly have begun to recognize that this formulation is excessively simplistic. It is therefore worthwhile to reconsider the concept of organizational purpose. In this paper, I examine how the concept of purpose has been constructed and theorized within two major sociological traditions—functionalism and interpretivism—while discussing their commonalities and differences.

Drawing on the perspectives of T. Parsons and H. Blumer, this paper explores the shared features and divergences between functionalism and interpretivism. First, focusing primarily on the work of J. H. Turner, I demonstrate that the two traditions share a reliance on the concept of symbol and that both are fundamentally order-oriented theories. I then identify a key difference in their respective processes of theory construction. Put simply, functionalists tend to “carve out” their objects of study in order to formulate theoretical propositions, whereas interpretivists emphasize analyzing their objects as ongoing, continuously unfolding processes. This distinction represents a decisive theoretical divergence.

In conclusion, I argue that a refined understanding of organizational purpose requires a more thorough elaboration of the concept of symbol—an approach exemplified in organizational symbolism. Such conceptual refinement is indispensable for grasping the nature of organizational purpose.

File： kt2006続・組織目的の学説史的（再）検討.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

There exists a field of study known as organizational theory. In Japan, the term organizational theory functions as a shared language among a wide range of scholars. However, in the Euro-American academic sphere, the labels applied to similar bodies of research vary considerably. Organizational theory and organizational science are perhaps the closest equivalents to the Japanese term. Yet in recent years, the designation organization studies has become increasingly common. This trend is evident from the titles of academic journals and handbooks published primarily in English.

For example, the first major handbook on organizations—edited by J. G. March and published in 1965—was titled Handbook of Organizations and exceeded 1,200 pages. Thirty years later, in 1996, S. R. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. R. Nord published the Handbook of Organization Studies. Of course, given the three decades separating these works, direct comparison may not be particularly meaningful.
The shift from organizational theory and organizational science to organization studies should not be treated as a superficial matter of nomenclature. Rather, it reflects a deeper reality: the destabilization of the idea that a single theory or a single science—“the best theory,” “the best science”—can serve as a universal foundation. It has become necessary to deconstruct these singular, supposedly optimal theories and sciences. At the same time, we must avoid adopting a cynical stance akin to momentary intellectual “play.” Instead, we must once again undertake the reconstruction of theory. Against this backdrop, the present paper highlights the importance of an approach indispensable for such reconstruction: the meta-theory of organizations. Yet organizational meta-theory has rarely been addressed within the development of organizational research in Japan. This paper therefore seeks to clarify its significance by tracing the trajectory of Japanese organizational sociology.
Japanese organizational sociology began as a subfield of group sociology and later became more autonomous, though it remained closely connected to adjacent areas such as industrial sociology and management sociology. Particularly during the period when so-called “Japanese management theory” was at its peak, research did not actively focus on organizations as theoretical objects nor on constructing organizational theory. Instead, empirical studies aimed at elucidating the specific characteristics of Japanese (industrial) society predominated—for example, the works of Hiroshi Aida and Masami Tsuda. Yet even within their writings, one finds insights corresponding to what are now considered subfields of organizational theory, offering theoretically important implications. Accordingly, Chapter I reexamines their discussions of Japanese management in order to extract their theoretical significance.

Within Japanese organizational sociology, there also exist a small number of works with strong theoretical orientation, most of which were influenced by American sociology and employed structural–functional analysis. Representative scholars include Tsutomu Shiohara and Yoshiyuki Satō. By actively “importing” theory, they attempted to construct universal and abstract organizational theory. However, these attempts ultimately encountered failure—a matter discussed in Chapter II. Chapter III revisits the process of revival following this initial failure, though this second attempt likewise met with similar difficulties. These two stages of failure share a common underlying cause. Chapter IV examines this shared factor: the lack of diversity within organizational meta-theory, that is, the absence of a crucial element in Japanese organizational sociology.

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

This paper examines organizational structure and several related concepts. In approaching what is commonly referred to as organizational structure, organizational theory has generally divided into two major positions. One is the structural–functional perspective, which conceptualizes organizations as systems and treats relatively stable elements among the many organizational variables as constants—these constants are then regarded as organizational structure. The other position, found largely in practical management studies, treats organizational structure as synonymous with organizational form, that is, the “shape” of the organization that can be diagrammed. Here, the central concern lies in determining what kind of organizational design is necessary to enhance organizational effectiveness, and ideal organizational forms are often presented in the form of organizational charts.

However, organizational charts tend to be undervalued in academic fields. This is due in part to an implicit assumption—visible in structural–functional analysis—that scientific inquiry should rely on the analysis of constants and variables, that is, on quasi-mathematical methods. Even within the humanities-oriented branches of the social sciences, a similar assumption persists: explanations must be rendered in textual form. As a result, diagrammatic methods have often been excluded from scientific analysis.

Yet organizational charts possess meaningfulness precisely because they are diagrams, and indeed, they may even surpass mathematical or textual explanations in certain respects. Paradoxically, however, simply presenting an organizational chart is insufficient. Once organizational charts are treated as objects of analysis and their roles are explicated, they must then be refined into analytical concepts that can be used theoretically.

Based on this problem consciousness, the strategy of this paper proceeds in three stages. First, it argues that organizational charts are academically significant objects of study and thus establishes them as the analytical focus of the paper. To do so, it begins with a constructive critique of perspectives found in organizational design theory, drawing on a broadly constructionist stance (Chapter I). Second, in order to endow organizational charts with theoretical explanatory power, the paper turns to the structural–functional analyses of organizations developed primarily within sociology and extracts several components necessary for constructing organizational charts. Communication is treated as one such component. This allows organizational charts not merely to be proposed but to be prepared for refinement as analytical concepts (Chapter II). Through this process, the final stage shifts organizational charts from analytical objects to analytical concepts, enabling research that employs organizational charts as theoretical tools (Chapter II and Chapter III).

In conclusion, based on a classification of communication concepts, the paper constructs four types of organizational charts—(1) tree-type, (2) network-type, (3) circle-type, and (4) rhizome-type—and offers new insights into traditional themes in organizational theory, including the bureaucratization of associations (Chapter IV).

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：English   Publishing type：Research paper (international conference proceedings)  

組織は舞台である、というメタファーを用い、組織のイメージなどが外部のオーディエンスに向けて発信される際に、アカウンタビリティの達成（＝新たな組織規範）がいかに成功しているかということについて、コンプリヘンジビリティ（理解可能性）という基準を設けることで解答を示している。モデルケースとして、Spring-8や原子力発電所をとりあげて説明を加えている。

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)   Publisher：Association of Sociology Kobe University  

If one were to identify two concepts that serve as key markers by which an entity is recognized as an organization—that is, concepts whose presence is taken to signify “organization”—they would be rationality and, more centrally for this paper, purpose. The connection between these two is exceptionally strong; the notion of instrumental rationality exemplifies this linkage. Purpose summons a range of possible means for its attainment, and rationality provides the criterion by which the optimal means is selected.

In earlier work, I redefined organizational purpose as a form of symbolic media constructed among organizational participants. At the same time, I reconceptualized rationality as the most widely diffused myth that legitimates organizational purpose, thereby dismantling its presumed absolute and essential characteristics (Takenaka 2001). Furthermore, in the preceding paper, “A Historical (Re)Examination of the Concept of Organizational Purpose,” I positioned organizational purpose as a symbolic monument—a commemorative marker of organizational memory (Takenaka 2003). I also suggested that deepening our understanding of organizational purpose as symbolic monument requires a more refined conceptualization of symbol. The question, then, is how such refinement should be undertaken. This paper offers one possible approach to that task.

The structure of the paper is as follows. Section 1 examines Parsons’s organizational theory—arguably grounded in functionalism—by discussing his own definitions of organization and organizational purpose, as well as those of theorists who influenced him or were influenced by him, including C. I. Barnard, M. Weber, and A. Etzioni. Section 2 revisits Barnard and Etzioni, both of whom maintained distinctive conceptions of organizational purpose while engaging in reciprocal intellectual exchange with Parsons. The conclusion demonstrates that organizational purpose is a form of symbolic media constructed through the communicative processes (organization-making) enacted among organizational participants, and that this medium serves to mediate between members inside the organization and audiences outside it.

File： kt2003組織目的の学説史的（再）検討.pdf

DOI： 10.24546/81011035

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

In recent years, the term information disclosure has become increasingly prominent. It appears frequently in newspapers, television, and various media outlets. The very fact that a particular term circulates so widely constitutes a social phenomenon worthy of analysis. It clearly indicates that some form of movement is taking place within society, and for anyone engaged in sociological inquiry, it is only natural to take interest in such developments. Moreover, because the unit in which information disclosure is most strongly demanded is the organization, organizational theorists have both the significance and the responsibility to examine this phenomenon.
Traditional organizational theory has often treated the market as the primary environment of organizations, within which the concept of strategy has been effective. However, when considering the issue of information disclosure, it is no longer adequate to limit the organizational environment to the market. Rather, one must take into account entities such as the local community. Consequently, when analyzing this new configuration of organization–environment relations, a concept other than strategy becomes necessary. This paper adopts the notion of accountability as one such alternative. The concept of accountability is closely related to the increasingly discussed idea of corporate ethics. Yet “ethics” is an elusive and abstract term. For this reason, the present paper employs the more delimited concept of accountability instead of ethics.
A brief outline of the paper is as follows. Section I reviews conventional organizational theories—particularly contingency theory and the new institutional economics—to provide an overview of how organization–environment relations have been analyzed. It argues that the environment relevant to organizations cannot be confined to the market and highlights the need to consider the local community as a new environment. It also demonstrates that accountability, rather than strategy, is the more appropriate concept for such analysis. Building on this problematization, Section II examines organizational public relations as an illustrative case. Section III presents a concrete example by analyzing the public relations activities of the scientific and technological organization SPring-8, showing the usefulness of interpreting these activities not as strategy but as accountability. Finally, Section IV offers an assessment of the extent to which SPring-8’s efforts at “explanation” have been successful.
With this structure, the paper aims to contribute a new perspective to the analysis of organization–environment relations.

File： kt2002組織ー環境の関係分析における一考察.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

This paper explores the possibilities of organizational theory in two directions. Chapter I seeks to identify potential avenues for organizational theory by examining concepts that may be understood as “post–after organizations.” Chapter II then reconsiders the implicit assumptions held by organizational theorists, proposing that scholars become more self-aware of the paradigms on which they rely when speaking about organizations, as well as the metaphors used to characterize organizations and the frames through which they are observed. By doing so, the chapter aims to uncover possibilities for analyzing aspects of organizations that modern organizational theory has largely neglected.

Chapter III introduces a somewhat provocative attempt to analyze organizations by replacing the term “organization” with “organizing,” drawing on the work of K. E. Weick to highlight the potential of this shift in perspective. Finally, in lieu of a conclusion, the paper suggests that the concept of organization remains valid and that, indeed, much work still lies ahead for organizational theorists.

File： kt2001組織はいかに語られうるか？.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Authorship：Lead author   Language：Japanese   Publishing type：Research paper (scientific journal)  

Organizational sociology has long been one of the major currents within the broader field of sociology. Yet the object of its inquiry—“organization”—has also been taken up by numerous other disciplines, including economics, management studies, and political science. In economics, organizational theory has developed by distinguishing organizations from markets; in management and political science, it has focused on concrete entities such as firms and political institutions. In contrast, what does it mean for sociology to speak of organizations?
The contributions of sociology have historically emerged from maintaining a certain distance from prevailing organizational theories. The human relations school—represented by Elton Mayo and Fritz Roethlisberger—“discovered” informal groups, while Robert Merton, Alvin Gouldner, and Peter Blau identified “dysfunctions” within organizations. These discoveries were made possible precisely because sociology did not fully assimilate itself to the organizational theories of its time. In recent years, however, organizational sociology seems to have lost this sense of distance and has become uncertain about what it ought to “discover.” One reason for this may be that sociology, in developing social systems theory and converging with other disciplines, has grown overly accustomed to the view of organizations as “systems.”
This paper seeks to interrogate the concept of organization without taking it for granted. Specifically, it aims to reconsider the proposition—often treated as self-evident—that organizations exist as systems, and to reexamine the a priori assumption that “organization” itself is an existent entity.

File： kt2000組織とは何かという問い.pdf

CiNii Research

researchmap

Total pages：220   Language：Japanese   Book type：Scholarly book

組織が先か？ コミュニケーションが先か？ 我々が組織を形成するにあたって、組織目的（文法）と組織文化（文脈）を構築していくプロセスについて言及している。

researchmap

Total pages：301   Language：Japanese   Book type：Scholarly book

担当部分は「現代組織における文化とシンボル」。既存の組織社会学研究では、その研究対象からはずれていたモノ（アーティファクト）それ自体や、雰囲気といったものを「美学＝感性学」の見地を取り込むことで、研究対象へと確立している。モノはシンボルとしてしか語られず、雰囲気は文化としてしか語りえなかった。本稿では前シンボル的（潜在的なシンボル）で前文化的（潜在的な文化）なものとしてモノと雰囲気について言及している。

researchmap

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Budapest  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：English   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

Venue：Beijing  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Language：Japanese   Presentation type：Oral presentation (general)  

researchmap

Audience： High school students

Type：Visiting lecture

researchmap

Audience： High school students

Type：Visiting lecture

researchmap