ORGANIZATIONAL EPISTEMOLOGY

Organizational Epistemology and its Philosophical Approach

Organizational Epistemology and its Philosophical Approach

Introduction

There is said to be a 'new' economy emerging. It marks a number of shifts: first, the value of a product need not only be in its material properties, but also in its design— in this sense, products are becoming 'dematerialized'; and, second, computers now ease the processing of information, thereby allowing us to create knowledge (Kenny, 2001, p. 94). Similarly, in the nascent knowledge and cultural economy, routinized labour processes are giving way to creative 'chaos' and 'self-programmable' working (Castells, 2000, p. 12). The 'creative class' in America now comprises about 30% of the workforce (Florida, 2004, p. 123). In order to be competitive, businesses must generate their own knowledge rather than merely apply someone else's. Knowledge is becoming a traded asset, and its acquisition becomes continuous, and necessary.

Knowledge and organizations

Throughout the latter half of the twentieth century, the study of formal organizations such as schools has had the intention of eliminating uncertainty and of ensuring predictable and effective action. But rational management theory of itself will not suffice (Biggart, 1989, p. 169), and there have been calls for a complementary leadership.

The management of innovation (Burns & Stalker, 1961) is now at issue for most organizations, both public and private. I turn now to the first stage of the argument: an introduction to some of the strands within the field of organizational epistemology, and, in particular, Nonaka's theory of 'knowledge creation' and Engeström's theory of 'expansive learning'.

Organizational epistemology: knowledge creation

In 1997, Ikujiro Nonaka was appointed to the first 'knowledge professorship' at the Haas School of Business at the University of California at Berkeley. Having studied organization theory, he appears to have been influenced by contingency theorists and their insights into the effects on organizational structures of the external environment. Rejecting behaviourism, Nonaka argues that the process of knowledge creation turns on 'making personal knowledge available to others' (Nonaka, 2004, p. 32). With Takeuchi, he states: 'Knowledge is not either explicit or tacit. Knowledge is both explicit and tacit. Knowledge is inherently paradoxical since it is made up of what appears to be two opposites' (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 2004, p. 4; emphasis in original). New knowledge, they argue, is created as a result of an engagement—a 'conversion process' or knowledge creation 'spiral'—between tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge.

The process is as follows. Knowledge conversion consists of four modes. The first, from tacit to tacit, is known as socialization: for example, a traditional apprenticeship with an emphasis on hands-on experience. The second mode, from tacit to explicit, is termed externalization: for example, a quality-control circle, which enables workers to pool their tacit knowledge, and thereafter to render it as explicit and formal, to be more easily made known to others. The third, from explicit to explicit, is known as combination: for example, a finance officer who collates explicit information, combining it so as to produce a synthesis in the form of a formal financial ...