Discussion of paradigms governing the production of knowledge in administration, whose characteristics deal with objects and concepts of high complexity, shows evidence that many of its panelists lose significant parts of the question by engaging in the defense of one particular paradigm. Taking the question - Do the limitations inherent to the epistemological paradigm employed in Administration research issues permit polarized discussions, or is the problem more complex than what is sustained by isolated visions of each paradigm? - as a basis, the aim of this essay is to show that the theoretical paradigms complement each other and that none of these can be abandoned because of their incompleteness. The focus differs from the positivist paradigm superiority, as noted in Donaldson (1997) and Alvesson (1995), or from dichotomous contrasts and exclusive oppositions, as in the work of Tadajewski (2009). The positivist, interpretative, and critical paradigms are explained and contrasted with analogies with Physics, the limitations imposed by the knowledge provided by the latest Linguistics studies, Hypercubes that mark the Data Mining technique, and studies of emerging phenomena in complex systems. The general approach is the exploration of an ontological gap created by exclusionary debates concerning paradigms.
multiparadigmatism; paradigmatic incompleteness; positivist paradigm; interpretative paradigm; critical paradigm