Dear Estaban, You might be interested in the following excerpt from a
chapter in "Debating Organizations:..." (Blackwell).
Kim
In terms of the first argument, linguistic relativism maintains that the
language of culture determines reality that its members see. As Hunt
(1993) notes, "if the thesis of linguistic relativism were true, objective
inquiry across cultures (languages) would indeed be problematic"
(81). However, Steinfatt's (1989: 63) extensive review of the literature
on linguistic relativism leads him to conclude, "the differences between
languages are not to be found in what can be said, but what it is
relatively easy to say" (italics in original).
Postmodernists (e.g., Gergen and Whitney, 1996), and our counterpoint, argue
that word meaning depends primarily on its contextual embedding or its
social use within a material context. Meanings are determined through the
historical development of specific language games (Mauws and Phillips,
1995). Only through the rules and conventions established through social
interaction is it possible to speak of the things that are in the world.
Postmodernists (and our counterpoint) argue that since languages are
representational they cannot perfectly capture the nature of that
reality. However, we argue, a language's ability to represent can itself
be improved even though it may not be perfected. This is the goal of
construct validity. Furthermore, it is one thing to point out that our
medium(s) of communication influence our perception of reality, and another
to claim (as does our counterpoint) that the "medium is the message,"
implying their is little if any correspondence between language and reality.
We accept that specific letters and words used to label reality are
arbitrary (e.g., that the English language uses the letters t, r, e, e, to
identify a particular type of plant). This arbitrariness does not mean that
there is not an object that exists in the world an object with some kind of
non-discursive existence that humans understand discursively to be a
"tree." If all humans were suddenly to vanish, a "tree," as we understand
it by any language would cease to exist (i.e., the concept of "tree" that
is a product of the imperfections of a language's system of representation
would cease to exist). However, does anyone think that "trees" as objects
would cease to exist? Could squirrels no longer run up and down them?
To avoid the trap of solipsism, our counterpoint would seem to argue that
there is a fundamental ontological difference between physical objects,
such as trees, which are "directly observable," and what the
counterpointers call "social objects," such as "organizations", which are
not. The former being real, while the latter are merely reifications
created by language. But this line of argument is incoherent because the
concept of "direct observability" seems to imply that perceptions of
physical objects are not filtered by language. Thus, physical objects can
be perceived in an unmediated (non-discursive) way. But this view would be
contrary to that held by many postmodernists (e.g., Lennon and Whitford,
1994) who argue that, "all our interactions with reality are mediated by
conceptual frameworks or discourses which themselves are historically and
socially situated" (4).
Thus, on what basis can a distinction be made between the effects of
discourse and language on our perception of physical objects (i.e., objects
with "thing like" properties) and what our counterpointers call social
objects? If our perception of everything is discursively constructed, how
can they even know that a tree is "thing like" and an organization is
not? If language constructs the social world, it would seem to construct
the physical world as well. If all reality is a "forest of signs," how can
we apprehend "thing-like" objects without the mediation of language any
more than what they call "social objects"? What is the ontological basis
for claiming trees are thing-like and organizations are not?
At 01:37 PM 1/6/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Kim
>
>I suppose that the notion of generation of new knowledge you use implies
>that knowledge exists outside the minds of beings instead of within each
>mind... For me this notion that knowledge exists outside the minds of
>beings becomes a useful abstraction, like the notion that words have
>determined meanings. Assuming that the meaning you assign to the words I
>write corresponds to the meaning I assigned to the words because the words
>'have meanings' is a useful abstraction of what is going on ...though it
>hides what is in fact going on: I assign a meaning and you assign a
>meaning and we assumed that your meaning and mine correspond to each other
>because in principle we followed an established and determined code...
>
>What is outside the mind becomes just information or stimulus that lead
>the being to the generation of knowledge (or to its regeneration)... that
>is why I stated in a previous post how most of Knowledge work that I have
>observed becomes a different name for information work...
>
>Cordially,
>
>Esteban
>
>
>------
>
>Dear Colleagues, Conna Condon, a frequent contributor to this web site,
>has
>indicated that she to, like some other non-academics on this web site feel
>like they are outsiders. As a card carrying academic, let me suggest that
>non-academics play an important role in the journey of knowledge mission
>that is part of AOM's mission.
>
>Let us put the knowledge spectrum on a four stage continuum from: 1) the
>generation of new knowledge; 2) the testing/justification of new
>knowledge;
>3) the learning & dissemination of knowledge; and 4) the application of
>knowledge. Now as a card carrying academic, I have been trained in the
>first two, I spend a great deal of time on the third (but claim no
>expertise), and very little time on the fourth. Let me assume that folks
>like Conna, and other non-academics on the web, spend most of their time
>in
>categories 3 & 4. Unlike me, who can survive by being good in categories
>1
>& 2, and passable in category 3, I assume that folks like Conna must be
>good in Category 3 &/or 4 for their consulting businesses to
>survive. While I was raised to believe that knowledge was its own
>justification, clearly professional schools, like business schools, place
>a
>high premium on preparing people for practice. Thus, I do not feel that
>folks like Conna, who spend their time with practitioners, should feel
>like
>outsiders. They simply contribute to a different part of the knowledge
>spectrum.
>
>Regards, Kim Boal
>
>
>
>Conna At 10:21 PM 12/19/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> >From: Conna Condon [mailto:
gandolf@cyberverse.com]
> >
> >
> >I share the belonging sentiment as well. Since I am adjunct academic, I
> >don't feel accepted by the academics all that much either. :) However,
> >I
> >am also a change management consultant, so I do have some ideas on your
> >topic.
> >
> >I especially appreciate Howard's paragraph on the depth and breadth of
> >impact questions asked. One approach I am certified in calls these the
> >"domains of change." What is the ripple affect, management and
> >operational
> >stakeholders, and are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater for
> >impacts to: Organization, process, facilities, data, applications, or
> >technology.
> >
> >This has to be addressed concurrently with the strategic management 7S
> >question set to insure that a change (decisions are about deciding to
> >change) is in alignment with the corporate strategies.
> >
> >" My own perspective is that the type of decision isn't as important, as
> >knowing the questions to consider, or having a good model which shows
> >different considerations to explore. E.g., "What's the impact on
> >people?"
> >What's the impact on process? Impact on Technology? Impact on the
> >marketplace? Impact on the business? etc. -- this will then drive some
> >of
> >the acumen you need to develop in your people, or at least give them
> >resources (e.g., impact on people = HR/OD, impact on technology= IT,
> >impact
> >on business/marketplace = biz acumen, etc.)"
>
>--------------------------------
>Kim Boal
>College of Business Administration
>Texas Tech University
>Lubbock, TX 79409
>(806) 742-2150
>
KimBoal@ttu.edu
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>For your protection, this e-mail message has been scanned for viruses.
>Visit us at
http://www.neoris.com/
--------------------------------
Kim Boal
College of Business Administration
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, TX 79409
(806) 742-2150
KimBoal@ttu.edu