Abstract
This short essay is a reply to Geiger and Schreyögg’s reaction to the author’s article and was inspired by the editors and all authors alike. As we agree on the discursive character of (academic) knowledge, dialogue is the silver bullet to clarify meanings and thereby one’s own thinking. I thank the editors for the opportunity to respond and my colleagues for their reply (Geiger and Schreyögg, this issue). The response will be structured in three steps. First, it will delineate the ideas and concepts on which all authors seem to agree. This will be followed by the attempt to elaborate distinctly, on which concepts and/or interpretations the authors seem to disagree. In a third step some consequences of the consensus on concepts as well as on dissent for theories of knowledge and learning will be deduced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.