The present paper is a response to a paper published by Ursula Schneider in Management Learning (Vol. 38, No.5) in which we try to clarify our position and illustrate how a discursive understanding of knowledge, as developed in our essay, can enrich the management learning debate. In building on Habermas’ theory of communicative action we suggest an understanding of knowledge which is based on intersubjective reasoning processes.
Alvesson, M. and Kärreman, D. ( 2001) ‘Odd Couple: Making Sense of the Curious Concept of Knowledge Management’, Journal of Management Studies38(7): 995-1018.
2.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. ( 1990) ‘Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation’, Administrative Science Quarterly35(1): 128-52.
3.
Cook, S.N. and Brown, J.S. ( 1999) ‘Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing’, Organization Science10(4): 382-400.
4.
Eco, U. ( 1996) From Internet to Gutenberg. A Lecture to the Italian Academy for Advanced Studies in America, 12 November, URL (accessed May 2009): http://www.hf.ntnu.no/anv/Finnbo/tekster/Eco/Internet.htm
5.
Habermas, J. ( 1984) Theory of Communicative Action, Vols 1 and 2 (trans. Thomas McCarthy). Cambridge: Polity Press .
6.
Lawrence, P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. ( 1967) Organization and Environment: Managing Differentiation and Integration. Boston, MA: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University .
7.
Luhmann, N. ( 1995) Social Systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
Polanyi, M. ( 1966) The Tacit Dimension. London: Routledge.
9.
Rifkin, J. ( 2000) The Age of Access. London: Putnam.
10.
Scherer, A.G. ( 1998) ‘Pluralism and Incommensurability in Strategic Management and Organization Theory: A Problem in Search of a Solution’, Organization5(2): 147-68.
11.
Schneider, U. ( 2007) ‘Coping with the Concept of Knowledge’, Management Learning38(5): 613-33.
12.
Schreyögg, G. and Geiger, D. ( 2003) ‘Wenn alles Wissen ist, ist Wissen am Ende nichts?! Vorschläge zur Neuorientierung des Wissensmanagements’, Die Betriebswirtschaft63(1): 7-22.
13.
Schreyögg, G. and Geiger, D. ( 2005) ‘Developing Organizational Narratives: A New Dimension in Knowledge Management’, in B. Renzl, K. Matzler and H. Hinterhuber (eds) The Future of Knowledge Management, pp. 82-98. London: Palgrave .
14.
Schreyögg, G. and Geiger, D. ( 2007) ‘The Significance of Distinctiveness: A Proposal for Rethinking Organizational Knowledge’, Organization14(1): 77-100.
15.
Schreyögg, G. and Kliesch-Eberl, M. ( 2007) ‘How Dynamic can Organizational Capabilities be? Towards a Dual-Process Model of Capability Dynamization’, Strategic Management Journal28: 913-33.
16.
Stehr, N. ( 1994) Knowledge Societies. London: SAGE.
17.
Toulmin, S. ( 1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
