Weitere Kapitel dieses Buchs durch Wischen aufrufen
Examining the application of organizational knowledge in Chap. 3 we asked the question: how is knowledge applied to organizational practice? How is propositional and narrative knowledge related to the heterogenous particulars of the concrete organizational field? Answering that question revealed a gap between knowledge and practice as we saw that organizational knowledge (both as propositions and narratives) underdetermines its utilization, i.e. the way how some knowledge is applied cannot be determined by that knowledge alone. Propositional knowledge (e.g. as rules or routines) leaves “loopholes” open and its application is contingent to the heterogenous social context. Any organizational actor needs to get to grips with the gap between generalized concepts and the particularities of practice in which those concepts have to be applied. Narrative knowledge, on the other side, does not close that gap but embraces it. It “takes the bull by the horns” because it—contrary to propositional knowledge—is non-abstract and contextualized in the first place. Its content does not subsume particulars under general categories, but is particular itself. Hence, it is open-ended and ambiguous in its very nature. Narrative knowledge contains plots related to concrete and singular events taken from practice. But of course it is not practice; it has to be applied to practice; narratives are “templates” and part of the available stock of organizational knowledge. As such it “helps to conserve and mediate individual experiences and can be used as background knowledge when experiencing novel situations.” (Rögnvaldur, 2006, p. 348). Hence, narrative knowledge, just as propositional knowledge, is intended to be a reusable concept which ought to enable actors to cope with future situations. From this point of view also narratives are (“dynamically”) generalized concepts counter-parting heterogenous practice. Thus, it does not eliminate underdetermination, but instead offers an alternative way for dealing with it.
Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten
Sie möchten Zugang zu diesem Inhalt erhalten? Dann informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:
Adams, F. (2004). Knowledge. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of information (Vol. 14, pp. 228–236). Oxford [u.a.]: Blackwell.
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1969). Die gesellschaftliche Konstruktion der Wirklichkeit: Eine Theorie der Wissenssoziologie. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
Fuller, S. (2002). Knowledge management foundations. Boston [u.a.]: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Geiger, D. (2006). Wissen und Narration: Der Kern des Wissensmanagements: Zugl.: Berlin, Freie Univ., Diss., 2005. Berlin: Erich Schmidt.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon.
Kant, I. (1785/2005). Groundwork for the metaphysic of morals (J. F. Bennet, Trans.). Earlymoderntexts.com.
Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Longino, H. E. (2002). The fate of knowledge. Princeton, NJ [u.a.]: Princeton University Press.
Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding (1st ed.). Boston: New Science Library: Distributed in the United State by Random House.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Hirata, T. (2008). Managing flow: A process theory of the knowledge-based firm. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Plato, & Cooper, J. M. (2001). Plato. Complete works. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Quine, W. O. (1969). Epistemology naturalized. In W. O. van Quine (Ed.), Ontological relativity and other essays (Vol. 1, pp. 69–90). New York [u.a.]: Columbia University Press.
Rögnvaldur, S. J. (2006). Review of complex knowledge: Studies in organizational epistemology by Haridimos Tsoukas. Journal of Management and Governance, 10, 347–350. CrossRef
Schreyögg, G., & Geiger, D. (1997). The significance of distinctiveness: A proposal for rethinking organizational knowledge. Organization, 14(1), 77–100. CrossRef
Schreyögg, G., & Geiger, D. (2005). Reconsidering organizational knowledge, skills and narrations. In G. Schreyögg & J. Koch (Eds.), Knowledge management and narratives. Berlin: Schmidt, Erich, Verlag GmbH & Co.
Schreyögg, G., & Geiger, D. (2006). Developing organization narratives: A new dimension in knowledge management. In B. Renzl, K. Matzler, & H. H. Hinterhuber (Eds.), The future of knowledge management (pp. 82–98). Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Seirafi, K. (2010). Normativität des Scheiterns: Die Grundlage des Ethischen bei Judith Butler. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- From a Theory of Organizational Knowledge to an Organizational Epistemology
- Springer Berlin Heidelberg
- Chapter 5
Neuer Inhalt/© ITandMEDIA