to do with how the powers and privileges of society, as well as within the companies themselves, are affected by large organizations . These three, Clegg, Hinings and Greenwood feel that this sociological perspective is required in order that companies can find for themselves the most suitable ways to solve their problems, ways that are both efficient an defective. .
Clegg in 2002 ( p 430) drew a parallel with the planning of the Holocaust in World War II. He describes an organization then which worked at optimum efficiency, and achieved its aims effectively, but as far as moral values and ethics were concerned was totally abhorrent. He also stresses that researchers seeking both funding and access to organisations, must focus their research on real problems faced by the businesses concerned. ( page 436)
Grey (2010, p 686) and Clegg (2002, 434) point out how between Europe and America there are differences in the way universities operate with Europeans generally being more open to alternative points of view. Grey talks about the ways in which systems of ranking make the positivist/functionalist viewpoint dominant in North American academic circles. He concludes that this ranking system enables the American universities and the academic journals from that part of the world to prevail when it comes to proving the knowledge creation agenda which therefore tends to fit in with their preference for the positivist/functionalist trend.
Knowledge creation cannot be allowed to remain as the select domain of an elite group of American scholars and those academic journals which are overly concerned with their own rankings. There are other ways to create knowledge as our DBA programme reveals when it shows how Critical Action Learning when used by scholars who are also practitioners will also generate knowledge. Whether or not it then goes on to publication in a high ranking American journal, it can still be used within our own organisations to