Advertisement

Inquiring into Learning as System

  • Susan Byrne
  • David Todd
  • Barbara Simpson
  • Christine Woods
  • Rainer Seidel
Chapter

Abstract

Possibly the most fundamental skill that is required in the emerging Knowledge Age is the ability to learn. This capability resides not only with individuals, but also at every other systemic level from dyads, groups and teams, to organisations, institutions and society at large. Indeed, learning is a veritable haystack of complex, interacting and inter-related elements that span the levels of the social system. Thus, research into learning that focuses on one or another level of analysis is necessarily limited in its explanatory capacity. It cannot be said that any element or isolated set of elements enables learning; to take this view is to err on the side of naiveté.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1999). Soft Systems Thinking: A Thirty Year Retrospective, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.Google Scholar
  2. Cook, S.D.N., and Brown, J.S. (1999). “Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing,” Organization Science, l0(4):38l–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crossan, M., Lane, H.W., and White, R.E. (1999). “An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution,” Academy of Management Review, 24(3):522–537.Google Scholar
  4. Forrester, J., (1961). Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Guba, E.G., and Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In Landscape of Qualitative Research. (N.K. Denzin and Y.S. Lincoln, eds.) Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.Google Scholar
  6. Hitt, M.A., Ireland, R.D., and Lee, H. (2000). “Technological learning, knowledge management, firm growth and performance: an introductory essay,” Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, l7(3–4):231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lam, A. (2000). “Tacit knowledge, organizational learning and societal institutions: An integrated framework,” Organization Studies, 21 (3 ):487–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mingers, J., and Brocklesby, J. (1997). “Multimethodology: Towards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies,” Omega: International Journal of Management Science 25(5):489–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  10. Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and Narrative Volume 1, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Simpson, B., McGregor, J., Seidel, R., Kolb, D., Henley-King, J., and Tweed, D. (2000). “Learning in the Manufacturing Sector”. University of Auckland Business Review, 2( 1):38–50.Google Scholar
  12. Simpson, B., Seidel, R., Byrne, S., and Woods, C. (2001). “Technological learning: Towards an integrated model,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Organizational Learning & Knowledge Management - New Directions, London Ontario, 1–4 June 2001. Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario.Google Scholar
  13. Spender, J. C. (1996). “Making knowledge the basis of dynamic theory of the firm,” Strategic Management Journal, l7( Winter Special Issue):45–62.Google Scholar
  14. Sterman, J. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World, Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Byrne
    • 1
  • David Todd
    • 1
  • Barbara Simpson
    • 1
  • Christine Woods
    • 1
  • Rainer Seidel
    • 1
  1. 1.The University of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations