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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
At this point in our inquiry, our intention is not to enter the hotly debated question of what constitutes social reality but rather to communicate our understanding of the position taken by Lewin and Bourdieu.
- 2.
Bourdieu commonly used the word position in referring to what, strictly speaking, is a point occupied by a particular agent in a field.
- 3.
There is a striking resemblance between the idea of habitus and the idea of theory-in-action developed by Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978). Both represent mental models that guide perception, thinking, and behavior in a wide variety of situations. Both are shaped by external structures (e.g., organizational theories of action) and then, through action, shape these structures. Both function almost automatically and outside conscious awareness. Bourdieu, like Argyris and Schön, stresses that behavior cannot be understood through the explanations given by people (i.e., espoused theory) but only through observation and study of the habitus (theory-in-use). All three authors use these concepts to explain how people act in ways that are self-defeating (ineffectiveness) or reinforce their own dominance without being aware of their own agency or causal responsibility.
- 4.
These students generally come from comparatively low socioeconomic levels, new immigrant groups, ethnic minorities, and/or family situations characterized by breakdown and neglect.
References
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
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.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). Social space and the genesis of groups. Theory and Society, 14, 723–744.
Bourdieu, P. (1989). Social space and symbolic power. Sociological Theory, 7, 14–25.
Bourdieu, P. (1998). Practical reason: On the theory of action (R. Johnson, Trans.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Crossan, M. M., & Guatto, T. (1996). Organizational learning research profile. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9, 107–112.
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.
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.
Easterby-Smith, M. (1997). Disciplines of the learning organization: Contributions and critiques. Human Relations, 50, 1085–1113.
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.
Friedman, V., Lipshitz, R., & Popper, M. (2005). The mystification of organizational learning. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14, 19–30. doi:10.1177/1056492604273758.
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.
Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Gherardi, S. (1999). Learning as problem-driven or learning in the face of mystery? Organization Studies, 20, 101–124.
Gold, M. (Ed.). (1999). The complete social scientist: A Kurt Lewin reader. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Isaacs, W. (1999). Dialogue and the art of thinking together. New York: Random House.
Lant, T. (2000). Book review [of Organizational learning: Creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge, by L. Argote]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 622–624.
Lewin, K. (1937). Psychoanalysis and typological psychology. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic, 1, 202–211.
Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1951). In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.
Lewin, K. (1997). Resolving social conflicts & field theory in social science. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. (Original work published 1948)
Lipshitz, R., Friedman, V., & Popper, M. (2007). Demystifying organizational learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
Snell, R. S. (2001). Moral foundations of the learning organization. Human Relations, 54, 319–342.
Sugarman, B. (2001). A learning based approach to organizational change: Some results and guidelines. Organizational Dynamics, 30, 62–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Friedman, V.J., Sykes, I.J. (2014). Can Social Space Provide a Deep Structure for the Theory and Practice of Organizational Learning?. In: Berthoin Antal, A., Meusburger, P., Suarsana, L. (eds) Learning Organizations. Knowledge and Space, vol 6. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7220-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7220-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-7219-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-7220-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)