Excerpt: The genuine purpose and objective of this work is to develop a clear-cut distinction between (1) individuals and organizations, and between (2) individual and organizational knowledge, learning, and memory. individuals and organizations lend themselves to theoretical scrutiny as two ontologically distinct entities despite being one perceptual phenomenon in practice. the distinction yields insights into knowledge, learning, and memory of both individuals and organizations as if the positions and movements that constitute a dance are observed devoid of the dancer, and vice versa. it provides the initial backdrop against which old and new questions in management science and organization theory are put, for example, “what is the effect of organizational structure on the knowledge of organizations?”, “how does personnel turnover and layoff affect organizational learning?”, and “under which conditions are communities of practice beneficial to organizational memory?”

How is the field of systems science different from other scientific fields, and how can we distinguish the various traditions within systems science? We propose that there is a set of underlying assumptions which are generally shared within systems science but are less common in other scientific fields. Furthermore, the various traditions within systems science have adopted different combinations of these assumptions. We examine six traditions within systems science – cybernetics, operations research, general systems theory, system dynamics, total quality management, and organizational learning. We then consider eight underlying assumptions – observation, causality, reflexivity, self-organization, determinism, environment, relationships, and holism. We then assess where each tradition stands with respect to each of the underlying

Many alternative theories about organization exist. Despite this, or perhaps because of it, adequate explanation of the relationship between macro and micro processes of organization, and organizational dynamics remains elusive. In the recent past there has been growing interest in two areas of systems science that offer a different basis for understanding the generative and dynamic qualities of organizations. These are autopoietic theory and complex adaptive systems theory. In this paper, we outline a theory of organization built on a synthesis of these two theoretical strands. It is argued that the approach provides an improved framework for understanding the nature and dynamics of organizational phenomena, and as such a more rigorous basis upon which to base future organizational research.

Key words: Organizational survival, autopoiesis, organizational learning, organizational ecology, complex systems

Knowledge and the communication of knowledge are critical for self-sustaining organizations comprised of people and the tools and machines that extend peoples’ physical and cognitive capacities. Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela proposed the concept of autopoiesis (“self” + “production”) as a definition of life in the 1970s. Niklas Luhmann extended this concept to establish a theory of social systems, where intangible human social systems were formed by recursive networks of communications. We show here that Luhmann fundamentally misunderstood Maturana and Varela’s autopoiesis by thinking that the self-observation necessary for self-maintenance formed a paradoxically vicious circle. Luhmann tried to resolve this apparent paradox by placing the communication networks on an imaginary plane orthogonal to the networked people. However, Karl Popper’s evolutionary epistemology and the theory of hierarchically complex systems turn what Luhmann thought was a vicious circle into a virtuous spiral of organizational learning and knowledge. There is no closed circle that needs to be explained via Luhmann’s extraordinarily paradoxical linguistic contortions. Relevance: This paper criticises Luhmann’s concept of social systems based in recursive networks of communications and shows that an evolutionary constructivist unification of Maturana and Varela’s version of autopoiesis and Popperian (1972 and later) evolutionary epistemology provides a non-paradoxical understanding of the emergence of knowledge-based social systems.

The author compares the theoretical elements of her grounded theory, Protecting Self: Experiencing Organizational Change, with autopoiesis, a biological theory of living systems. Autopoiesis, meaning self-production, is a closed system that recursively generates the same organization, components, and network of processes from which they are produced. A cautious extrapolation of theoretical similarities between the two theories is presented, including self-referentiality, self-maintenance, circularity, individuality, and the maintenance of identity. The author concludes that this comparison provides a thought-provoking argument that supports the difficult process of individual and organizational learning, growth, and change.

Key words: autopoiesis, grounded theory, self, self-protection, systems theory

Purpose: In the educational field a lack of focus on the process of arriving at a level of profound understanding of a phenomenon can be observed. While classical approaches in education focus on “downloading,” repeating, or sometimes optimizing relatively stable chunks of knowledge (both facts and procedural knowledge), this paper proposes to shift the center of attention towards a more dynamic and constructivist perspective: learning as a process of individual and collective knowledge creation and knowledge construction. The goal of this process is to profoundly understand a phenomenon in its multi-dimensionality and complexity and to reflect on the processes that have lead to this understanding. The issue we want to tackle in this paper is how this profound understanding can be brought about in a technology-enhanced learning environment. Method: Part 1 of this paper explores strategies of technology-enhanced knowledge sharing/creation in the field of higher education. Part 2 presents a successful blended learning scenario that illustrates the implementation of these learning strategies in a concrete course design. In this case study students are involved in active theory construction processes by conducting virtual experiments with a virtual organism. Part 3 elaborates on the epistemological implications of this case study. Findings: A constructivist framework for modes of knowing and modes of coming to know is developed. It is shown that – in order to reach a profound understanding of a phenomenon – it is essential to take into account the multi-facetted character of knowledge and to use the strategy of double-loop learning. Conclusion: This leads to an understanding of learning/teaching as a process of socio-epistemological engineering. Furthermore, the role of the teacher changes in such a constructivist setting of learning/teaching: Their primary task is to provide a “pedagogically (and technologically) augmented environment.” They are responsible for creating an atmosphere of collective knowledge construction and reflection. Beyond the role of a coach and moderator the teacher has to act as a facilitator or “enabler” for the (individual and collective) processes of double-loop learning.

Key words: blended learning, collaborative co-construction, collective learning, double-loop learning, e-learning, individual learning, knowledge construction, knowledge creation, organizational learning, socio-epistemological engineering, university teaching

Don Schon’s ideas of reflective practice and organizational learning are connected with second order cybernetics. This connection enables a rethinking of a science center in terms of the ways that science is presented and “understood” and the organizational relationships, at all levels, that allow for and sustain the process of that rethinking. Through a conversation, emergent tensions (including the multiple hearings of a generative metaphor) are explored that point to the very frames within which a science center organizes itself. A scaffolding of an action research program for the science center is offered, emanating from questions raised in the conversation. Finally, a reformulation of some of Schon’s key ideas that motivated the project is offered – from a reflection-in-action to a reflection-in-inter-action, linked to a second order organizational