Case Study Report

Cyrusxx

L6-Epistemology.pptx

Home >English homework help >Case Study Report

Organisational Analysis

Epistemology

‹#›

Lecture Aims

Provide a rationale for understanding epistemology

Define knowledge

Discuss how to differentiate knowledge from mere claims

Relate this to the four paradigms

Next steps

RMIT University

Provide a rationale for understanding epistemology

Define knowledge

Discuss how to differentiate knowledge from mere claims

Relate this to the four paradigms

Next steps

‹#›

RMIT University

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Conflict & radical change

Order & regulation

Burrell & Morgan, 1979

‹#›

RMIT University

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Conflict & radical change

Order & regulation

Burrell & Morgan, 1979

DISTORTED IDEOLOGIES

MULTIPLE WAYS OF INTERPRETING ‘RAW FACTS’

SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED REALITIES

‹#›

RMIT University

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Conflict & radical change

Order & regulation

Burrell & Morgan, 1979

DISTORTED IDEOLOGIES

MULTIPLE WAYS OF INTERPRETING ‘RAW FACTS’

http://www.professionalsaustralia.org.au/blog/management-decision-making/

On what grounds can you claim to really know something?

As a manager or analyst, how will you know what to do?

What is your decision-making methodology?

‹#›

Epistemology

“The nature of knowledge, its possibility, scope and general basis.”

Deals with questions such as, How do we know that something is true, and trustworthy, rather than mere opinion or belief? How can we be certain? On what basis can we consider our beliefs to be justified?

RMIT University

(Hamlyn, 1995: 242, cited in Crotty,1998: 8)

‹#›

What is knowledge?

Philosophers would argue that to count as “knowledge”, a proposition or claim must be subject to some tests ….

RMIT University

Philosophers would argue that to count as “knowledge”, a proposition or claim must be subject to some tests ….

Knowledge

‹#›

What is knowledge?

Philosophers would argue that to count as “knowledge”, a proposition or claim must be subject to some tests ….

RMIT University

Philosophers would argue that to count as “knowledge”, a proposition or claim must be subject to some tests ….

Knowledge is a belief that is justified in some way

‹#›

But, there are different kinds of knowledge…

“Episteme” (facts); “techne” (skill); “phronesis” (practical wisdom)

Aristotle, Ethics (1976: 207–210)

Knowing “how” v. knowing “that” v. “understanding-why”

Ross (2020)

Tacit (embodied, uncodified, difficult to pass on to others) and explicit (codified, transmittable, storable)

The ability to “integrate … information into specific action contexts”

Seirafi (2012: n.p.)

RMIT University

‹#›

And, knowledge is socially situated…

Knowledge is situated and socially differentiated.

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966)

The knowledge of a worker is different from the knowledge of a manager. The knowledge of an engineer is different from the knowledge of an architect. The knowledge of a mason is different from the knowledge of a carpenter. The knowledge of a doctor is different from the knowledge of a nurse. The knowledge of a legal advisor is different from the knowledge of a marketer. The knowledge of a sales person is different from the knowledge of a logistics and supply chain manager. And so on, and so on ….

RMIT University

‹#›

So how do we distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge?

Knowledge:

Has some truth to its premise

Has to correspond with organisational ‘reality’ in some way (remembering that reality may be co-created by people within the organisation)

Has to be trustworthy, reliable, or verifiable

Has to check out against empirical reality (what our perception and senses tell us)

RMIT University

‹#›

So how do we distinguish knowledge from non-knowledge?

Knowledge:

Has some truth to its premise

Has to correspond with organisational ‘reality’ in some way (remembering that reality may be co-created by people within the organisation)

Has to be trustworthy, reliable, or verifiable

Has to check out against empirical reality (what our perception and senses tell us)

RMIT University

Examine how a knowledge claim has been arrived at. On what basis is this belief justified? Perception? Reasoning? Data?

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Do your due diligence.

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Triangulate your sources.

What do your senses, perception, and experience tell you? Observe closely. Is the knowledge claim consistent with what you see and hear going on around you?

“Virtue epistemology”: “the study of the cognitive character traits and attitudes that make us effective at, and responsible for, acquiring and transmitting epistemic goods”. (Baird & Calvard, 2019: 264)

“Effective and responsible inquiry” (Hookway, 2003, cited in Baird & Calvard, 2019: 264)

E.g. “Facing the truth” (Baird & Calvard, 2019: 265)

‹#›

Knowledge:

Has some truth to its premise

Has to correspond with organisational ‘reality’ in some way (remembering that reality may be co-created by people within the organisation)

Has to be trustworthy, reliable, or verifiable

Has to check out against empirical reality (what our perception and senses tell us)

RMIT University

Examine how a knowledge claim has been arrived at. On what basis is this belief justified? Perception? Reasoning? Data?

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Do your due diligence.

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Triangulate your sources.

What do your senses, perception, and experience tell you? Observe closely. Is the knowledge claim consistent with what you see and hear going on around you?

“Effective and responsible inquiry” (Hookway, 2003, cited in Baird & Calvard, 2019: 264)

E.g. “Facing the truth” (Baird & Calvard, 2019: 265)

… So we have “Epistemic Virtue”….

‹#›

Knowledge:

Has some truth to its premise

Has to correspond with organisational ‘reality’ in some way (remembering that reality may be co-created by people within the organisation)

Has to be trustworthy, reliable, or verifiable

Has to check out against empirical reality (what our perception and senses tell us)

RMIT University

Examine how a knowledge claim has been arrived at. On what basis is this belief justified? Perception? Reasoning? Data?

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Do your due diligence.

Is this consistent with other people’s perceptions of what is going on? Ask them. Listen. Observe. Triangulate your sources.

What do your senses, perception, and experience tell you? Observe closely. Is the knowledge claim consistent with what you see and hear going on around you?

“Effective and responsible inquiry” (Hookway, 2003, cited in Baird & Calvard, 2019: 264)

E.g. “Facing the truth” (Baird & Calvard, 2019: 265)

… But what about “Epistemic Vice”?

“Epistemic malevolence”: “Wilful hiding of the truth, denying people access to the truth; “spread of ignorance and confusion”

“Epistemic insouciance” (indifference): Disregarding the importance of truth, coherence, honesty, and reasoning. E.g. social media platforms

“Epistemic hubris” (unfounded over-confidence): Unfounded arrogance in the validity of one’s own beliefs

“Epistemic injustice”: Dismissing people’s experiential knowledge and lived experience (e.g. not taking seriously your employees’ experiences and knowledge)

Baird & Calvard, 2019

‹#›

A different kind of vice?

“Bulls@#t”

“Articulated without concern for the criteria of the truth” and intended to mislead

“Articulated to pursue [one’s] own purposes and interests”

(Spicer, 2013)

RMIT University

‹#›

A different kind of vice?

RMIT University

“Bulls@#t”

A way to pretend meaninglessness doesn’t exist (see neo-humanism) by inflating what one knows and does

An attempt to avoid interrogation

But, it is not benign. It can distract organisations from primary organisational tasks.

It can engender organisational cynicism

It can be an affront to what organisational members believe truly matters

(Spicer, 2013)

‹#›

RMIT University

‹#›

RMIT University

‹#›

“There are [three] things in the world you never want to let people see how you make ‘em – laws, sausages, [and knowledge].”

(Leo McGarry, White House Chief of Staff …. In the fictional series, The West Wing)

RMIT University

Epistemology allows you to do just that – see how knowledge gets made

‹#›

RMIT University

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Conflict & radical change

Order & regulation

Burrell & Morgan, 1979

‹#›

“Paradigms should be mixed to create intellectual tensions and new insights.” (Saemundsson, 2006: 350, reviewing Tsoukas)

RMIT University

‹#›

RMIT University

Objectivism

Subjectivism

Burrell & Morgan, 1979

Positivism

Anti-positivism

“Truth is truth to the end of reckoning.”

William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure

“What of a truth that is bounded by these mountains and is falsehood to the world that lives beyond?

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne

Perception and intuition lead to bias, which lead to faulty beliefs

Perception, intuition, experience lead to substantiated beliefs

“Figures often mislead people … there is no shame in that: words can mislead as well. The problem with numbers is our tendency to treat them with some degree of awe, as if they are somehow more reliable than words … this belief is wholly misplaced” (Devlin, cited in Matthews, 2008)

Can we meet somewhere in the middle?

‹#›

RMIT University

This is the process of Organisational Analysis

Process of Organisational Analysis is seldom discussed….nor documented.

What leads to the acceptance that the representations of organisations, as found in models or formalisms is correct?

Analysis

Business models as the “product” or output

‹#›

“Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does” [sic]

Jean Paul Sartre

RMIT University

‹#›

We don’t offer easy answers, we pose questions and encourage you to consider the what the answers might be….

RMIT University

‹#›

Lecture Aims

Provide a rationale for understanding epistemology

Define knowledge

Discuss how to differentiate knowledge from mere claims

Relate this to the four paradigms

Next steps

RMIT University

Provide a rationale for understanding epistemology

Define knowledge

Discuss how to differentiate knowledge from mere claims

Relate this to the four paradigms

Next steps

Provide a rationale for understanding epistemology

Define knowledge

Discuss how to differentiate knowledge from mere claims

Relate this to the four paradigms

Next steps

‹#›

Next steps

We begin to discuss how knowledge is actually used in practice in organisations

Please review your tutorial activities in Canvas for the current and coming weeks

Assignment 1 is due at the end of Week 6!

You must be in your groups at this stage; if you are not, see your Lecturer

RMIT University

‹#›

References

Baird, C., & Calvard, T.S. (2019). Epistemic vices in organizations: Knowledge, truth, and unethical conduct. Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 160: 263–276.

Berger, P. & Luckmann, T. (1066). The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. USA: Penguin Books.

Burrell, G. & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis: Elements of the Sociology of Corporate Life. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.

Greenhalgh, T., & Wieringa, S. (2011). Is it time to drop the ‘knowledge translation’ metaphor? A critical literature review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. Vol. 104: 501–509.

Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H.K. (1989). Four paradigms of information systems development. Communications of the ACM. Vol. 32(10): 1199-1216.

Matthews, D. (2008). Metadecision-making: Rehabilitating Interdisciplinarity in the Decision Sciences. Systems Research and Behavioural Science. Vol. 25: 157–179.

Ross, L.D. (2020). Is understanding reducible? Inquiry. Vol. 63(2): 117–135.

Saemundsson, R.J. (2006). Review of complex knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology by Haridimos Tsoukas. Journal of Management Governance, Vol. 10: 347-350.

Sierafi, K. (2012). Organizational Epistemology: Understanding Knowledge in Organizations. Heidelberg: Springer.

Spicer, A. (2013). Shooting the shit: The role of bullshit in organisations. M@n@agement, Vol. 16: 653–666: https://www.cairn.info/revue-management-2013-5-page-653.htm Accessed 16th August, 2020.

RMIT University

‹#›