Welcome to the Core Course
In
Epistemology:
The Nature and Evolution of
Organizational Knowledge
The Adizes Graduate School
Course Facilitator:
Dr. Bruce LaRue
E-Mail: bruce@brucelarue.com
Web: www.brucelarue.com
Office: 253/ 564-9248 by appointment
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 3
Why Study Epistemology? ............................................................................................. 4
Post-Positivist and Post-Modern Thought ...................................................................... 5
Epistemology, Sociocultural Systems and Human Development................................... 6
Required Readings .......................................................................................................... 6
Course Requirements ...................................................................................................... 7
Assignment Guidelines ................................................................................................... 7
The Oasis Cafe ................................................................................................................ 8
Favorite Search Engines, databases & Resources........................................................... 8
On-Line Books & Resources ...................................................................................... 8
Search Engines ............................................................................................................ 9
Bibliographic Software and Writing Manuals ............................................................ 9
Keeping a Reflective Journal .......................................................................................... 9
Things to Remember About On-Line Discourse .......................................................... 10
Working Collaboratively on Course Assignments ....................................................... 10
Grading Policy .............................................................................................................. 11
Due Dates & Times ....................................................................................................... 11
Weekly Assignments ..................................................................................................... 11
Week 1 .......................................................................................................................... 11
Week 2 .......................................................................................................................... 12
Week 3 Feedback Assignment ...................................................................................... 13
Week 4 Lead Team One Assignment ........................................................................... 13
Week 5 Feedback Assignment ...................................................................................... 13
Week 6 Lead Team Two Assignment ........................................................................... 14
Week 7 Feedback Assignment ...................................................................................... 14
Week 8 & 9 Synthesis Project Phase ............................................................................ 14
Week 9 Feedback Assignment ...................................................................................... 15
Week 10 ........................................................................................................................ 15
Week 11 ........................................................................................................................ 15
1
Bibliography and Course Resources ............................................................................. 15
2
"Achievements are measured not in the finality of answers but in the
fertility of questions."
Daniel Boorstin
"I want to beg you, as much as I can, to be patient toward all that is
unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves like
locked rooms and like books that are written in a very foreign tongue. Do
not seek the answers, which cannot be given you because you would not be
able to live them. And the point is to live everything. Live the questions
now. Perhaps you will then gradually without noticing it, live along some
distant day into the answer."
Ranier Maria Rilke
INTRODUCTION
What is the nature of knowledge and why is this question relevant for personal
development and contemporary professional practice? Is knowledge a product
of individual consciousness, or to what extent is it social in nature? Is knowledge
similar to a tangible asset that can be stored in a vault, retrieved and
disseminated at will? Are students merely the passive recipients of the “assets”
they receive in exchange for tuition, or are they also actively involved in the
generation of knowledge? What role do cultural and linguistic biases play in
shaping and constraining knowledge? Did the medieval church hold similar
assumptions as the traditional university concerning the advancement and
dissemination of truth? Is the rapid evolution of modern network technologies
compelling a social transformation similar to that accompanying Gutenberg’s
printing press, or are these technologies merely tools for storing and
disseminating knowledge more efficiently?
Turning now to the more “enlightened” corporate world, what assumptions
concerning the nature of knowledge operate behind the scenes of contemporary
so-called “knowledge management” strategies? If we exchange the metaphor of
the gothic university library for the modern electronic database in the corporate IT
department, have our assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge changed,
or have our means of preservation and dissemination merely taken on new form
and efficiency? Is there any meaningful relationship between the often guarded
domain and cryptic language of the modern IT department and the Latin
3
speaking clergy of the medieval period? To what extent do Taylorist and Fordist
assumptions concerning the role of management in the control of worker
knowledge continue to pervade the fabric of modern corporate culture? What are
the historical roots of these assumptions and to what extent do they constrain the
evolution and transformation of organizational life? How can the study of
epistemology aid in recognizing and removing these constraints?
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental
presuppositions, assumptions and structure of knowledge. It examines problems
relating to sense perception, the relation of the knower to the objects of
perception, the criteria for determining the validity of various forms of knowledge,
and the justification of inferences. The study of epistemology is transdisciplinary
in that the forms of knowledge that are fundamental to all disciplines e.g.,
psychological, sociological, economic, religious/spiritual, cultural, aesthetic,
scientific, fall under its domain.
Why Study Epistemology?
We are all familiar with the various disciplines of study (such as those mentioned
above) that serve as the basis of traditional academic curricula and major
societal institutions. Most, if not all, traditional academic disciplines together with
their fundamental presuppositions, assumptions, languages, cultures and
methodologies have their roots in philosophy. In modern times, however, these
disciplines have developed a “life of their own,” study in such “silos of knowledge”
being tantamount in many important respects to a process of socialization. What
is most often absent from this approach is a critical analysis of the fundamental
assumptions, presuppositions and systems of inference that underlie such
disciplines. Rather than being critically examined, these foundational
components of traditional academic disciplines and major societal institutions
remain transparent and as such are highly resistant to change.
The modern period has its roots perhaps most notably in the 14th – 16th century
Renaissance which gave birth to a renewed interest in classical antiquity,
scientific exploration and voyages of discovery. During the 16th-17th century,
thinkers such as Francis Bacon, Galileo Galilei, Rene Descartes, Gottfried
Leibniz, Isaac Newton, and John Locke pioneered a movement to comprehend
the natural world based on rational understanding and empirical inquiry—two
orientations to knowledge that, incidentally, are yet to be reconciled in modern
times. This contradiction notwithstanding, the 18th century Enlightenment and
early modern period (through the end of the 19th century) marks a time in history
wherein scientific methods are applied to nearly every sphere of human concern
thereby giving rise to the modern social sciences.
4
Post-Positivist and Post-Modern Thought1
The modern period was based on the twin belief that an underlying reality
existed, the aim of science (and social science) being the representation of the
fundamental principles of this reality, and the social utopias that would result with
the application of these principles to every sphere of human concern. The
period known as post-modernism arose as the fundamental assumptions
underlying this optimistic view of scientific discovery came under the light of
conscious scrutiny. This scrutiny arose from multiple quarters, perhaps most
notably beginning with postwar decolonization and accelerating with the spread
of global commerce and culture in the 1970s giving rise to voices hitherto
excluded from Western social scientific discourse. The birth of “alternative”
social movements including the hippie generation, feminism, the gay and lesbian
movements, and a widespread recognition of the shadow side of unbridled
scientific rationalism that had given rise to a mounting ecological crisis, a nuclear
arms race, two World Wars and numerous regional conflicts costing over 100
million human lives also contributed to a widespread pessimism regarding the
promise of modern scientific thought..
Important discoveries in physics also raised fundamental questions concerning
the positivist view of reality and the applicability of Newtonian and Cartesian laws
of nature in the subatomic and cosmological realms. Of critical importance , has
been the work of such seminal thinkers in quantum physics as Werner
Heisenberg and Niels Bohr, which has placed the role of the observer at center
stage in the scientific endeavor. Their work has demonstrated that we can no
longer place unquestioning faith in the reality encountered by the skilled scientific
observer and carefully controlled scientific experiments. Rather, Bohr and
Heisenberg demonstrated that the methods of the scientist, rather than
encountering and reporting on an objective reality, play a central role in creating
the reality they encounter through the orientation of the observer to the objects of
perception.
The critiques of philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn, Stephen
Toulmin, and Paul Feyerabend have also variously demonstrated that science
owes as much to shared frameworks of understanding (or paradigms) as to logic
and empirical evidence. Karl Popper’s falsification principle (a theory can never
be proven true, only false) and his emphasis on open debate has also
demonstrated the provisional nature of all knowledge.
While post-modern thought has steadily eroded our unquestioned confidence in
scientific rationality and objective empirical inquiry, post-modern critiques risk
falling into complete relativism as all perspectives of knowledge are regarded as
equally valid. Perhaps the greatest post-modern thinker continuing the pursuit of
1
My sincere thanks to Dr. Richard P. Appelbaum for his contributions to my thinking regarding postmodern and post-positivist thought in this section.
5
valid knowledge is the German sociologist Jurgen Habermas. Habermas was
unwilling to discard rationality and the Enlightenment pursuit of valid truth
altogether, and warned of the dire consequences that often follow such
abandonment which include not only relativism, but the rise of irrational belief
systems including dogmatism and even fascism. Rather, Habermas developed
an epistemology that grounded truth in communicative rationality as a necessary
complement to the instrumental (means-ends) form of rationality that has
dominated modern scientific and social thought. Habermas’ concept of the ideal
speech situation is based on the development of free and unconstrained
discourse among a community of participants—the aim (if not the ideal) of
scientific practice.
Epistemology, Sociocultural Systems and Human
Development
While the present discussion has largely been based on broad themes of social
discourse, this discussion is equally relevant to individual and organizational life.
At the organizational level, factors that constrain discourse: power, authority,
influence, irrational thought and outdated belief systems, dogmatism, etc.
pervade organizational life and constrain the possibility for alternative strategies
and courses of action. The way in which problems are initially framed, often by
those wielding the greatest levers of power and control in organizations, can and
often is the most effective means of constraining possible courses of action prior
to any decisions being made.
At the individual level, the onset of mid-life, major life crises, and even significant
accomplishments can often leave us feeling rudderless, as if the major social
currents and desires that have guided our life are somehow inadequate or are no
longer valid. Karl Jung referred to the psychological and spiritual journey
represented by the systematic re-evaluation of the major guiding principles of our
life as tantamount to a second birth. Recognizing that the belief patterns
inherited in early life are predominantly social in nature, the eminent physicist
David Bohm devoted the latter portion of his life to creating live “dialogue”
encounters among participants from nearly every walk of life. Bohm’s aim, akin
to Habermas’ ideal speech situation, was to facilitate the open and unconstrained
evaluation of the basic assumptions and presuppositions that form the otherwise
transparent currents that invisibly guide both our inner and outer lives. Such
systematic re-evaluation lies at the heart of this course in epistemology.
Required Readings
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge : studies in organizational
epistemology. New York, Oxford University Press.
6
Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a system. London ; New York, Routledge.
Tsoukas, H., C. Knudsen, et al. (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization
theory. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
Highly Recommended DVD: “What the BLEEP do we Know? Available on
Amazon.com or see more detail and trailers at: http://www.whatthebleep.com/
Course Requirements
Participants will be required to post formal papers and to respond to the work of their
colleagues during the week following posting of assignments. This feedback is a course
requirement, and will be assessed accordingly.
I will offer helpful and critical feedback on your work. In order to develop the flow of
dialogue amongst your peers, my comments will generally follow the feedback
assignments posted from your colleagues. However, you are responsible for completing
assignments by the due date, and for active participation in the course discussion. Late
papers, regardless of reason, do not receive the same consideration (that is, feedback)
as those submitted on time.
To a great extent, the quality of your own participation in this seminar will guide the
discussion of the course and help determine how much you and your colleagues learn.
We will assume that there is much we can learn from each other in a collaborative
setting as well as from published literature. You will consequently be evaluated on both
the quality of your written assignments and on the timeliness and quality of your
responses to the papers written by your peers. Adding to the content of the paper by
citing additional data or material from the reading assignments and other reading
materials will be a major consideration in the grading process.
Assignment Guidelines
I realize that we are all busy professionals who face business trips, illnesses, overload,
and computer glitches – but be aware that the responses and learning of your peers
depends upon your timely contributions. Please let us know as soon as possible – that is
sooner rather than later – if you are unable to post an assignment, feedback or
response. Nothing is more deadening than silence in this medium. Remember that
persistent late postings will negatively affect your grade as well as the overall quality of
learning that takes place in this course. Re-read The Norms of Working Online.
1. Papers are to be written in APA format (American Psychological Association
Publishing Manual) and a “page” is assumed to be approximately 500 words in
length using a legible, 12-point font. Papers are to be free of spelling errors, and
use appropriate grammar, syntax, and punctuation. The crib sheet at
http://www.psychwww.com/ is a useful reference tool for graduate-level work and
invaluable as you prepare for your master’s and doctoral research. However,
7
crib sheets may vary, and it is recommended that you acquire a copy of the APA
Manual, Fifth Edition, for graduate work.
2. E-mail me and your colleagues as soon as possible if a situation arises that will
effect a due date or your peers, and post a message to the group. Remember to
post substantive messages and feedback regularly; your colleagues will greatly
appreciate it. You also lose at least 1/3 grade point for each announced or
unannounced late posting, so PLEASE be sure to watch the due dates!
3. I will post this syllabus and the assignments as major topic areas within the group
forum. Please post your papers as the next level of response to the appropriate
topic assignment. That way, responses to the papers become the third level
(replies to the papers), and so on. Group work is best addressed in folders.
4. Please review the descriptions of the assignments while you work on them and
before you post your assignment. A common mistake is to become involved in a
wonderfully intriguing idea - and not address the assignment requirements.
The Oasis Cafe
This is your space to relax – an informal and casual conversation area where discussion
about group frustrations, successes, personal interests, and other informal conversation
may be indulged in to your soul’s delight.
Favorite Search Engines, databases & Resources
On-Line Books & Resources
Many of the classic works of philosophy are available on the Web via searchable
databases. Here are a few of my personal favorites:
The Value of Knowledge: A miniature library of classic texts tracing the
development of ideas on the relation between consciousness and matter through
the words of 120 philosophers over 400 years
http://werple.net.au/~gaffcam/phil/index.htm
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/
Project Gutenberg http://promo.net/pg/index.cgi
EpistemeLinks.com: http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/MainText.asp
The Master Works of Western Civilization (based on the Great Books series):
http://www.eskimo.com/~masonw/cgi-bin/mason.cgi?MasterWorks
Books On-Line: http://admin1.athens.tec.ga.us/authors.html#k
8
Wiretap Books: gopher://wiretap.Spies.COM/11/Books
Search Engines
Alta Vista Search Engine http://www.altavista.digital.com One of the preferred
search engines among academic researchers--well worth adding to your list of
favorites.
Northern Light Search Engine http://www.northernlight.com If you have not
already subscribed to this service, I highly recommend doing so. Northern Light
is unique among the growing number of search engines offering full-text articles
available for download at minimum cost. Offers access to thousands of journal
articles and web resources at one location.
Here are a few meta-search engines that will scan multiple engines
simultaneously:
http://www.metafind.com
http://www.askjeeves.com
http://www.dogpile.com
Bibliographic Software and Writing Manuals
Endnote Bibliographic Software
If you have not done so yet, I strongly urge you to acquire a copy of Endnote
from Niles & Associates directly from the Web at http://endnote.com . With your
student discount, it’s one of the best purchases you’ll make as a student and
scholar/practitioner. With this tool, you can search hundreds of libraries and
databases around the world, download reference materials one time, and
Endnote will take care of the tedious task of formatting your bibliographies in
dozens of standard formats. http://www.niles.com/
Purchase the American Psychological Association (APA) Publishing Manual
Or see the crib sheet at: http://www.psychwww.com/resource/apacrib.htm A
useful reference tool for graduate-level work and invaluable as you prepare for
your master’s and doctoral research.
Keeping a Reflective Journal
9
I highly recommend that you keep a reflective journal that chronicles your
thoughts, feelings, insights, questions and other musings as they arise for you
throughout this course. I have found that keeping a reflective journal can be the
key to unlocking the insights and passions that lead to the most fascinating,
relevant and rewarding intellectual and developmental odysseys. You may also
find that insights arising through your journal entries will serve as the basis for
your weekly postings. Take this journal with you wherever you go so you can
record thoughts and perceptions when and where they arise for you. Often, the
context in which these thoughts and insights arise is as important as the resulting
brilliance.
Things to Remember About On-Line Discourse
As with any professional collaboration, your remarks concerning the work of your
colleagues should be both sensitive and substantive. Our aim in this program is
to support one another in our professional and personal development rather than
to criticize. No one is quite sure why, but critical feedback delivered on line tends
to carry a much heavier impact. This is partly due to the fact that our remarks
can’t be tempered with kind gestures or tonal inflections. So, in short, words
matter. Learning how to give feedback and engage in discourse on-line is, of
course, a critical skill in an era of increasing levels of virtual teaming and crosscultural discourse, so this is your chance to develop and refine this ability.
On the other side of the coin, if you feel that you are the recipient of inappropriate
feedback, a good rule of thumb is to take a few deep breaths and perhaps wait
until the next day to respond. Either of you may be having a bad day, (or just too
much caffeine and to respond immediately may only serve to inflame the
situation. One of the beauties of the asynchronous learning environment is the
increased opportunity afforded us for reflection. Take full advantage of this
particular strength of our learning medium.
A good rule of thumb is to exercise tolerance and always assume the best of
intentions from your colleagues until proven to the contrary. Working and
learning collaboratively in an electronic medium like this is a new experience for
most of us. Maintaining a safe environment for learning while tolerating, perhaps
even embracing, the interpersonal challenges and technological glitches that
invariably arise is essential to this learning process.
Working Collaboratively on Course Assignments
Much like the real world in which we live, and unlike many traditional learning
environments, collaboration on course assignments is highly encouraged, but it is
NOT required. As an added incentive, because such collaboration may involve
10
more preparation and coordination, this extra effort will be considered favorably
during the grading process. Feel free to begin your own topic area for such
projects, and, to the greatest extent humanly possible, conduct all your
collaboration via our course forum. The goal here is to allow the group the
opportunity to learn from your collaborative process—together with all the little
glitches, miscommunications, trials and triumphs you encounter along the way.
Grading Policy
Grades will be given according to the following general criteria:


1/2 substance & timeliness of writing based on weekly assignments.
1/2 quality and timeliness of collaboration and support of colleagues.
A grade of “PASS” indicates a solid performance in the AGS program.
Obtaining this grade means that you have consistently posted on time and your
contributions have been both substantive and supportive of your colleagues. A
grade of “MARGINAL” indicates substandard performance according to the same
criteria, perhaps indicating a recurring problem with timeliness and substance. A
grade of “PASS WITH DISTINCTION,” on the other hand, means that you have
made us “think.” That is, your contributions have stimulated dialogue among
your peers and contributed substantively to our understanding of course material.
A “PASS WITH DISTINCTION” also indicates a particular penchant for
integrating course materials with personal and professional experience, actively
supporting and motivating your colleagues, and maintaining the timeliness of
your postings.
Due Dates & Times
Unless stated otherwise, all assignments are due at the end of the week
specified, Sunday 12:00 Midnight PST. Each assignment will have its own topic
area. Please post your work as a reply to this topic, rather than as a new topic
(i.e. use “add reply” button rather than “add topic.”) Feel free to start your own
topic areas around subjects of particular interest.
Weekly Assignments
Week 1
11
1) Write a reflective essay (approx. 800-1000 words) beginning with a brief
description of your major areas of interest: professional, academic, hobbies,
etc. Use the remainder of this essay to identify and reflect upon a time in your
life, perhaps following a major event, personal crisis or life transition, and
discuss how this event changed your perception of the world. How do you
see the world differently now than prior to this event, crisis or transition? How
has this event impacted your personal and professional life?
2) Begin preparatory reading for weekly assignments.
I will divide you into teams. These teams will become your primary work groups
throughout the course. As you will see, this does NOT mean that you will be required to
perform collaborative group projects in this course. Rather, it means that while Team A
posts formal assignments based on required reading materials, Team B will be required
to post follow-up feedback assignments to Team A based on the same readings. Of
course, should all or part of any team decide to collaborate on these assignments, they
are free to do so.
Week 2
All participants are to write a 1200-1500 word reflective essay addressing the
following thematic question. You can draw from the required texts or from
electronic sources (provided above) to inform your thinking.
“What are the major forces shaping the emerging knowledge society, how are
these forces different from those shaping earlier periods such as the industrial
era, and what are the implications of this shift for our personal and professional
lives?”
Alternate Assignment: Watch the DVD, “What the Bleep do we Know?” and
write a reflective commentary on what you learn, using the same guidelines
as the above assignment.
This should be a reflective essay based largely on your own understanding of
what knowledge is, how it is generated, the forces that shape it, the difference
between “knowledge” and “knowing,” the limits of thought in comprehending and
communicating our experience of the world, etc. While many of these questions
will be taken up in more detail as we proceed, this essay will introduce us to
many of the most relevant issues in epistemology. As with all reflective essays in
this course, you should draw from external sources where appropriate while
maintaining a focus throughout the essay on your own understanding and
perspective on this question.
12
Week 3 Feedback Assignment
Provide feedback to at least two other colleagues on their reflections on Week Two
readings at least 500-700 words each in length. Your comments should be both
supportive and substantive, drawing from the assigned readings as well as your
personal and professional experience.
These essays should have a dual focus on both the work of your colleagues
while drawing from your own reflections on required texts. Questions you might
explore include:




How does your conception of knowledge differ from that of your colleagues?
What areas of synergy or contradiction did you notice among the competing
views?
How did the thinking of your colleagues impact your own understanding of
knowledge?
What potential impacts do these particular ways of knowing have on your
personal life and professional practice?
Week 4 Lead Team One Assignment
Team One is to lead a discussion on the Tsoukas book, each team member
writing an essay of approximately 1500 words in length. Individual team
members may choose to collaborate on this assignment if desired, each
contributor should write a minimum of 1000 words each in such a collective
essay. You should explore the major concepts of the book and describe how they
apply to your personal and professional development.
If you choose, you can use the following questions to guide your writing:

What is the nature of organizational knowledge and how does it differ from
individual knowledge? What is the importance of assumptions and how
do these impact organizational reality? What is the difference between
tacit and explicit knowledge and why is this distinction important for
organizational learning? How is knowledge generated and transferred in
organizations? What are the implications of these questions for your
professional practice?
Week 5 Feedback Assignment
Each individual from Team Two should write a feedback response to Team One.
This response should be approximately 750-1,000 words in length, contain
references and substantive comments/critique, and draw from both your personal
and professional experience whenever possible.
13
Week 6 Lead Team Two Assignment
Team Two is to lead a discussion on the Bohm book, each team member writing
an essay of approximately 1500 words in length. Individual team members may
choose to collaborate on this assignment if desired, each contributor should write
a minimum of 1000 words each in such a collective essay. You should explore
the major concepts of the book and describe how they apply to your personal
and professional development.
Week 7 Feedback Assignment
Feedback assignment on week 6 — please respond to at least 2 group
members, approx. 500-700 words each.
Week 8 & 9 Synthesis Project Phase
This is a turning point in this course. The idea here is to make your learning in
this course “actionable.” That is, your task is to reflect about what you have
learned in terms of your professional practice. You may have a client who wants
a proposal that involves organizational learning, knowledge transfer or
knowledge management. Write your proposal to your client as your assignment
here, incorporating what you have learned in this course. Perhaps you want to
design a workshop—design it here for this assignment. Perhaps you do not have
a client in need of services in this area. In this case, perhaps you want to design
a workshop on a subject like “effective knowledge management & transfer
practices” and have it in your portfolio. If all else fails, simply punt by writing a
white paper on a theme covered in this course for your own personal enrichment.
This project has 2 components:
1. Synthesis Paper: Each participant is to write a reflective essay of
approximately 1,800-2000 words on the key elements of what you have
learned in the course and how you intend to apply this learning in practice.
If possible, draw from a real-life organizational issue or initiative and
explore how you will approach this issue differently based on what you
have learned. If the issue or initiative is significantly complex, write this
paper as a proposal for action that will be submitted to your organization.
2. Discuss or critique the Adizes model, or an aspect of it, with regard to
epistemological assumptions evident there. For example, you might
consider the Adizes process as a whole, in one particular phase, or in the
design of a component of the Adizes methodology in particular (such as
the PIP diagnostic process, the CAPI model, the eight steps of decision
14
making, the approach to mission or structure or rewards). You might ask
yourself either a very specific or a very general question. For example,
you might consider the nature of the PAEI model as compared to other
models for the analysis of individual strengths or roles, the need for
roles and the epistemological assumptions or bias with which these
models are designed, intentional or not. Specifically consider how these
assumptions, bias, or a lack of them, in the adizes method impact the
management of change in the organizational context. Compare to other
models if you wish. This is good preparation for your dissertation work.
This paper should be appropriately referenced, draw from course resources,
external sources, and from your personal and professional experience. This
Synthesis Paper is a draft, which will be submitted as your final paper in Week
Ten.
Week 9 Feedback Assignment
Each participant is to provide feedback to at least two other group members,
approximately 500-700 words each. Be specific as to how your colleagues’
Synthesis Papers can be strengthened for final submission in Week Ten.
Week 10
Final synthesis projects are due.
Week 11
Provide feedback on the course using the Course Evaluation provided by faculty.
Forward this directly by e-mail to Stephanie@Adizes.com. Grades will not be
released without this last assignment.
Bibliography and Course Resources
Allee, V. (1997). The knowledge evolution: Expanding organizational intelligence.
Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Appleby, J. O. (1996). Knowledge and postmodernism in historical perspective.
New York, Routledge.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of the mind. New York, Ballantine.
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature : a necessary unity. New York, Dutton.
15
Belenky, M. F. (1997). Women's ways of knowing : the development of self,
voice, and mind. New York, BasicBooks.
Berger, P. L. and T. Luckmann (1990). The social construction of reality : a
treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York, Anchor Books.
Bishop, M. A. and J. D. Trout (2005). Epistemology and the psychology of human
judgment. New York, Oxford University Press.
Bohm, D. (1981). Wholeness and the implicate order. London ; Boston,
Routledge & K. Paul.
Bohm, D. (1994). Thought as a system. London ; New York, Routledge.
Bohm, D. and L. Nichol (1996). On dialogue. London ; New York, Routledge.
Bohr, N. H. D. (1958). Atomic physics and human knowledge. New York,, Wiley.
Capra, F. (1996). The web of life : a new scientific understanding of living
systems. New York, Anchor Books.
Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes' error : emotion, reason, and the human brain.
New York, G.P. Putnam.
Damasio, A. R. (1999). The feeling of what happens : body and emotion in the
making of consciousness. New York, Harcourt Brace.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, Little Brown and Co.
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds : toward an understanding of
consciousness. New York, Basic Books.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York, Institute for Learning
Technologies: Columbia University. 1998.
Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Drucker, P. (1994). Knowledge work and knowledge society: The social
transformations of this century. The 1994 Edwin L. Godkin Lecture. Harvard
University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. 1998.
No century in human history has seen such radical and swift social
transformations as the twentieth century that is now drawing to its close.
In
the first decades of this century up to the first world war society in all
16
developed countries, even in the most highly industrialized ones such as
the
U.K. or Belgium, was in its structure still pretty much what it had been
since
the first humans became farmers and settlers on the land some five
thousand
years earlier.
Drucker, P. (1998). Management's new paradigms, Forbes Magazine Online.
1998.
Edelman, G. M. (1989). The remembered present : a biological theory of
consciousness. New York, Basic Books.
Feyerabend, P. K., H. Feigl, et al. (1966). Mind, matter, and method.
Minneapolis,, University of Minnesota Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds : an anatomy of creativity seen through the
lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi. New
York, BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1994). The arts and human development : a psychological study of
the artistic process. New York, BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1997). Extraordinary minds : portraits of exceptional individuals and
an examination of our extraordinariness. New York, BasicBooks.
Gardner, H., M. L. Kornhaber, et al. (1996). Intelligence : multiple perspectives.
Fort Worth, TX ; Toronto, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Gardnr, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New
York, Basic Books.
Glasersfeld, E. v. (1995). Radical constructivism : a way of knowing and learning.
London ; Washington, D.C., Falmer Press.
Goldberger, N. R. (1996). Knowledge, difference, and power : essays inspired by
Women's ways of knowing. New York, NY, BasicBooks.
Goleman, D. (1985). Vital lies, simple truths : the psychology of self-deception.
New York, Simon and Schuster.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence. New York, Bantam Books.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston,, Beacon Press.
17
Habermas, J. (1973). Theory and practice. Boston,, Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society. Boston,
Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston, Beacon
Press.
Habermas, J. (1987). The philosophical discourse of modernity : twelve lectures.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Habermas, J. (1992). Postmetaphysical thinking : philosophical essays.
Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Habermas, J. and P. Dews (1986). Autonomy and solidarity : interviews. London,
Verso.
Hall, E. T. (1989). Beyond culture. New York, Anchor Books.
Heilbroner, R. L. (1988). Behind the veil of economics : essays in the worldly
philosophy. New York, W.W. Norton.
Heilbroner, R. L. and W. S. Milberg (1998). The making of economic society.
Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.
Heilbroner, R. L. and A. Singer (1999). The economic transformation of America :
1600 to the present. Fort Worth, Harcourt Brace College Publishers.
Heisenberg, W. (1971). Physics and beyond; encounters and conversations.
New York,, Harper & Row.
Heisenberg, W. (1999). Physics and philosophy : the revolution in modern
science. Amherst, N.Y., Prometheus Books.
Herbert, N. (1985). Quantum reality : beyond the new physics. Garden City, N.Y.,
Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Honneth, A. and H. Joas (1991). Communicative action : essays on Jürgen
Habermas's The theory of communicative action. Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press.
Jung, C. G. and A. Jaffé (1989). Memories, dreams, reflections. New York,
Vintage Books.
18
Kagan, J. (1998). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University
Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: the mental demands of modern life.
Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.
Kelling, G. W. (1975). Language: mirror, tool, and weapon. Chicago,, NelsonHall.
Kornblith, H. (2002). Knowledge and its place in nature. Oxford
New York, Clarendon Press ;
Oxford University Press.
Krishnamurti, J. and D. Bohm (1985). The ending of time. San Francisco, Harper
& Row.
Krishnamurti, J. and D. Bohm (1998). The limits of thought. London ; New York,
Routledge.
Kuhn, T. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, University of
Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I., P. K. Feyerabend, et al. (1999). For and against method : including
Lakatos's lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend
correspondence. Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.
Lao, t. and D. C. Lau (1963). Tao te ching. Harmondsworth, Eng. ; New York,
Penguin Books.
Macmurray, J. (1991). The self as agent. New Jersey, Humanities Press
International.
Macmurray, J. (1996). Interpreting the universe. Atlantic Highlands, N.J.,
Humanities Press.
Nietzsche, F. W., K. Ansell-Pearson, et al. (1994). On the genealogy of morality.
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J. (1983). Search and heuristics. Amsterdam ; New York
New York, N.Y., North-Holland Pub. Co. ;
Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co.
Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics : intelligent search strategies for computer problem
solving. Reading, Mass., Addison-Wesley Pub. Co.
19
Pearl, J. (1988). Probabilistic reasoning in intelligent systems : networks of
plausible inference. San Mateo, Calif., Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality : models, reasoning, and inference. Cambridge, U.K. ;
New York, Cambridge University Press.
Pearl, J. and R. Pearl (2004). I am Jewish : personal reflections inspired by the
last words of Daniel Pearl. Woodstock, Vt., Jewish Lights Pub.
Pemberton, J. M. (1998). "Knowledge management (KM) and the epistemic
tradition." Records Management Quarterly 32(3): 58-62.
There is little doubt that a phenomenon called knowledge management is
fast becoming the hottest thing in the information sector since the computer.
Epistemics, a systematic study of the types and nature of knowledge, would be of
much greater interest and value to those attempting to work with the concepts of
knowledge management, including records managers. Epistemics can be divided
into 2 basic directions: the subjectivist approach and the objectivistic approach.
Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York, NY, W. Morrow and Co.
Polanyi, M. (1964). Science, faith and society. [Chicago], University of Chicago
Press.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London,, Routledge & K. Paul.
Polanyi, M. (1974). Scientific thought and social reality; essays. New York,,
International Universities Press.
Polanyi, M. (1998). The logic of liberty : reflections and rejoinders. Indianapolis,
Liberty Fund.
Polanyi, M. and R. T. Allen (1997). Society, economics & philosophy : selected
papers. New Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers.
Polanyi, M. and M. G. Grene (1969). Knowing and being: essays. London,,
Routledge & K. Paul.
Polanyi, M. and H. Prosch (1975). Meaning. Chicago, University of Chicago
Press.
Popper, K. R. (1966). Of clouds and clocks; an approach to the problem of
rationality and the freedom of man. St. Louis,, Washington University.
Popper, K. R. (1968). Conjectures and refutations; the growth of scientific
knowledge. New York,, Harper & Row.
20
Popper, K. R. (1968). The logic of scientific discovery. New York,, Harper & Row.
Popper, K. R. (1981). Objective knowledge : an evolutionary approach. Oxford
[Eng.]
New York, Clarendon Press ;
Oxford University Press.
Popper, K. R. (1985). Unended quest : an intellectual autobiography. La Salle,
Ill., Open Court.
Popper, K. R. and J. C. Eccles (1977). The self and its brain. New York, Springer
International.
Popper, K. R. and M. A. Notturno (1994). Knowledge and the body-mind problem
: in defence of interaction. London ; New York, Routledge.
Popper, K. R. and M. A. Notturno (1994). The myth of the framework : in defence
of science and rationality. London ; New York, Routledge.
Prigogine, I. and I. Stengers (1984). Order out of chaos : man's new dialogue
with nature. Boulder, CO, New Science Library : Distributed by Random House.
Radnitzky, G., W. W. Bartley, et al. (1987). Evolutionary epistemology, rationality,
and the sociology of knowledge. La Salle [Ill.], Open Court.
Rollins, P. C. and Popular Culture Association. (1980). Benjamin Lee Whorf : lost
generation theories of mind, language, and religion. Ann Arbor, Mich., Published
for Popular Culture Association by University Microfilms International.
Russell, B. and P. Foulkes (1959). Wisdom of the West; a historical survey of
Western philosophy in its social and political setting. [n. p.], Crescent Books Inc.
Sacks, O. W. (1996). An anthropologist on Mars : seven paradoxical tales. New
York, Vintage Books.
Schank, R. C. (1995). Tell me a story : narrative and intelligence. Evanston, Ill.,
Northwestern University Press.
Shafer, G. and J. Pearl (1990). Readings in uncertain reasoning. San Mateo,
Calif., Morgan Kaufmann.
Shafto, M. and G. M. Edelman (1985). How we know. San Francisco, Harper &
Row.
Shlain, L. (1993). Art & physics : parallel visions in space, time, and light. New
York, Quill/W. Morrow.
21
Shlain, L. (1998). The alphabet versus the goddess : the conflict between word
and image. New York, Viking.
Sorensen, R. A. (2003). A brief history of the paradox : philosophy and the
labyrinths of the mind. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S. E. (1963). Foresight and understanding; an enquiry into the aims of
science. New York,, Harper & Row.
Toulmin, S. E. (1982). The return to cosmology : postmodern science and the
theology of nature. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Tsoukas, H. (1994). New thinking in organizational behaviour : from social
engineering to reflective action. Oxford ; Boston, Butterworth-Heinemann.
Tsoukas, H. (2005). Complex knowledge : studies in organizational
epistemology. New York, Oxford University Press.
"In this book Haridimos Tsoukas examines the nature of knowledge in
organizations, and how individuals and scholars approach the concept of
knowledge"--Provided by publisher.
Tsoukas, H., C. Knudsen, et al. (2003). The Oxford handbook of organization
theory. Oxford ; New York, Oxford University Press.
Tsoukas, H. and N. Mylonopoulos (2004). Organizations as knowledge systems :
knowledge, learning, and dynamic capabilities. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
Tsoukas, H. and J. Shepherd (2004). Managing the future : foresight in the
knowledge economy. Malden, MA, USA, Blackwell Pub.
Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.
Wallerstein, I. M. (1991). Unthinking social science : the limits of nineteenthcentury paradigms. [Cambridge, MA], Polity Press in association with B.
Blackwell.
Watzlawick, P. (1984). The Invented reality : how do we know what we believe
we know? : contributions to constructivism. New York, Norton.
Whorf, B. L. (1956). Language, thought, and reality; selected writings.
[Cambridge], Technology Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Wilber, K. (1984). Quantum questions : mystical writings of the world's great
physicists. Boulder, Colo.
New York, Shambhala ;
22
Distributed in the U.S. by Random House.
Wilber, K. (1985). The Holographic paradigm and other paradoxes : exploring the
leading edge of science. Boston, Shambhala.
Zuboff, S. (1988). In the age of the smart machine: The future of work and power.
New York, Basic Books.
23