The fuzzy boundary between scientific pluralism and 'science denialism' in management and organization studies

Science denialism poses unique challenges to the field of organization studies, a discipline marked by methodological plurality and internal tensions rather than adherence to a single scientific canon. Unlike the natural sciences, which build on a cohesive body of knowledge and methods to establish what is considered ‘scientific’, organization studies must navigate its diverse approaches while facing external pressures that demand clearer boundaries between legitimate and illegitimate knowledge. These pressures include practitioners seeking managerial solutions, radical conservatives opposing perceived ‘woke agendas’, and radical progressives challenging capitalistic and canonical assumptions. By reconstructing the emergence of this field in the US and in Europe, this chapter argues that the root of these tensions lies in the incommensurability of different approaches within the field, which complicates the construction of a unified body of knowledge. The chapter advocates for defining a shared goal that can unite this diverse body of knowledge, instead of addressing science denialism by strictly delineating what is ‘true’ and dismissing ‘unorthodox’ theories. Such an approach would preserve the field’s pluralism while effectively responding to the varied demands for impact, conservative values, and radical solutions to grand challenges.