Can Social Space Provide a Deep Structure for the Theory and Practice of Organizational Learning?

Chapter
Part of the Knowledge and Space book series (KNAS, volume 6)

Abstract

This chapter is an exploration of the concept of social space and its potential as a deep structure for guiding theory and practice of organizational learning. Two pioneering social scientists, Kurt Lewin and Pierre Bourdieu, both conceived of the social world as social spaces, or “fields,” that link people in particular configurations and guide behavior according to their unique logic. Organizational learning can be understood as the pattern of change in a field involving boundaries, meaning-making structures, and the rules of the game. The authors identify five patterns of change in social space—knowing one’s place, migration, emigration, reformation, and transformation—and illustrate them through an analysis of organizational learning by schools that serve “socially excluded” student populations. They argue that social space offers constructs for overcoming the conceptual confusion created by multiple disciplinary approaches to organizational learning.

Keywords

Social World Organizational Learning Deep Structure Social Space Meaning Structure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  2. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Arthur, J. B., & Aiman-Smith, L. (2001). Gainsharing and organizational learning: An analysis of employee suggestions over time. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 737–754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourdieu, P. (1985). Social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action (R. Johnson, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Crossan, M. M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational learning research profile. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 107–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & Roderick, E. W. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24, 522–537.Google Scholar
  9. Doving, E. (1996). In the image of man: Organizational action, competence, and learning. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 185–199). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of the learning organization: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50, 1085–1113.Google Scholar
  11. Friedman, V., & Lipshitz, R. (1992). Teaching people to shift cognitive gears: Overcoming resistance on the road to model II. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28, 118–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friedman, V., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 19–30. doi: 10.1177/1056492604273758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedman, V., Razer, M., & Sykes, I. (2004). Towards a theory of inclusive practice: An action science approach. Action Research, 2, 167–189. doi: 10.1177/1476750304043729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gherardi, S. (1999). Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery? Organization Studies, 20, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gold, M. (Ed.). (1999). The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  17. Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  18. Lant, T. (2000). Book review [of Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge, by L. Argote]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 622–624.Google Scholar
  19. Lewin, K. (1937). Psychoanalysis and typological psychology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1, 202–211.Google Scholar
  20. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  21. Lewin, K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1948)Google Scholar
  23. Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  25. Snell, R. S. (2001). Moral foundations of the learning organization. Human Relations, 54, 319–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sugarman, B. (2001). A learning based approach to organizational change: Some results and guidelines. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 62–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology and Anthropology/Department of Behavioral SciencesMax Stern Yezreel Valley CollegeJezreel ValleyIsrael
  2. 2.Independent ConsultantJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations