THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK
How to facilitate Organisational Learning
Angela Nobre
Escola Superior de Ciências Empresariais do Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal ESCE-IPS
Campus do IPS, Estefanilha, 291
4-5003 Setúbal, Portugal
Keywords: Semiotic Learning, organisation
al learning, social semiotics, information society, knowledge economy,
knowledge management, innovation, complexity and social philosophy.
Abstract: The complexity of current organisational contexts implies the need for innovative learning theories and
practices at organisational level. Organisational learning represents a critical aspect of each organisation’s
capacity to innovate, and to nurture and maintain its inner dynamism. The Semiotic Learning Framework is
presented as an approach to organisational learning and as a working methodology to be applied within
organisational contexts. It derives its rationale from social semiotics and from social philosophy and it
focuses on critical organisational issues, such as collaborative work and learning, reflexive practices and
knowledge creation and sharing. This framework is to be applied as an organisational learning initiative at
organisational level, as the content of a post-graduate programme, and as a working methodology for
interdisciplinary team works.
1 INTRODUCTION
The presentation of the Semiotic Learning
Framework (SLF) includes the following sections:
the theoretical background, the inductive
methodology, the framework’s Learning Steps, the
organisational key issues, the possible applications
of the SLF, and finally a conclusion.
The SLF’s Learning Cycle steps present the four
stages of ice-bre
ak, experiencing, action horizons
and innovative practice. The subsequent sections are
an account of the elements of the learning cycle
itself. Because of paper length restrictions only the
organisational key issues will be discussed. The
framework also includes the working concepts that
include contributions from key authors, four
philosophical categories, and three theoretical
approaches. The key authors considered are Bakhtin,
Halliday, Wittgenstein, Foucault, Heidegger, and
White, and their contributions are critical to the
promotion of what is presented as Semiotic
Learning, the notions of dialogism, grammar,
language game, discursive formations, being-in-the-
world, and master tropes. The four central categories
are action, language, knowledge and meaning. And
the theoretical approaches are social semiotics,
critical realism and action theory. The richness and
theoretical scope of the framework is also a form of
syncretism as the contributions from the authors, the
categories, and the theoretical approaches all share a
common standing and thus mutually support and
reinforce one another. The main applications for the
theoretical framework are presented and these
include three different levels: organisational learning
applications, educational applications, and applied
organisational research.
2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The present paper consists on the presentation of the
organisational learning framework that has been
derived, in an inductive way, from the analysis of
case studies and from theories from the fields of
management and organisation science and social
philosophy. The central aspect to highlight is the
importance of meaning-making for the processes of
community building and identity enhancement at
organisational level.
The Semiotic Learning Framework uses social
semio
tics theory as its main foundational theoretical
approach. Social semiotics, developed by Halliday
(1978) and Kress (1985), among others, raised out of
the Saussurean school of thought. Besides the
influence of Saussure’s theories, through social
semiotics, the SLF also draws on Peirce’s
pragmatism. The SLF, by insisting on the links
between theory and practice, the individual and the
459
Nobre A. (2005).
THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK - How to facilitate Organisational Learning.
In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - DISI, pages 459-467
Copyright
c
SciTePress
social, the internal and the external, by arguing in
favour of practice-based and action-driven
approaches, and by focusing on the spontaneous and
natural, trivial and quotidian development of
everyday organisational life uses a pragmatic
approach as developed by Peirce. Focusing on self
and agency, from social semiotics theory the SLF
takes the interest on the notion of interdependent
social practices, on the concept of social
subjectivity, and on the contributions from the social
theory of discourse. The theoretical breakthrough
work of Bakhtin, Wittgenstein, Bourdieu and
Foucault are used as foundational background
references to the particular approach developed in
the SLF, an approach that proposes a new standing
in terms of organisational theory and practice.
The Semiotic Learning Framework is a theoretical
approach to organisational learning that is to be
applied at organisational level, within research
projects and as a contribute to post-graduate
management and information systems education.
This Framework develops, in an inductive way, from
the analysis of case studies. Four knowledge-
intensive organisations have been studied: two
research centres that support policy making at
European level, one innovative national policy-
research organisation and one service providing
organisation that is running a pilot project.
The SLF is organised in a series of four steps that
represent the different stages of a learning cycle. The
contents of the Learning Cycle steps emerge from
the work developed throughout the analysis of the
fieldwork and the theoretical discussion. The present
section highlights the critical aspects of this
development. Organisational learning is a continual,
though not necessarily continuous, process, and
organisational learning design tools direct, inform
and facilitate this learning process. These steps are
to be understood as an iterative mechanism
balancing the tension between theory and practice,
between personal and organisational learning and
development, and between the formal and the
informal, the structured and the unstructured, and the
predictable and the unpredictable elements of
organisational life. The key idea is that theory and
practice are interdependent and mutually determine
each other. In similar terms, individuals and
organisations simultaneously influence one another
in a permanent interaction.
The Semiotic Learning Framework refers to an
approach to organisational learning and thus its
privileged application domain is that on
organisations as such, in particular the knowledge-
intensive ones. The use of management and
organisation theories, when combined with the
contributions of social philosophy, bring
groundbreaking perspectives to the understanding of
the complexity of organisational reality. Therefore,
the SLF has a wider range of applications’ domains
than its immediate organisational field, including the
areas of applied organisational research and the field
of postgraduate education for both managers and
information technology professionals. The SLF
assumes the locus of a community as the privileged
arena for the promotion of organisational learning
initiatives. Its practical application assume that it is
within a community that the insights of the SLF may
be learnt and fully explored.
The present paper has presented, described and
discussed the theoretical framework Semiotic
Learning: a working methodology that promotes and
facilitates learning in knowledge-intensive
organisations. The Semiotic Learning Framework is
an approach to organisational learning based on an
action perspective and supported by social semiotics
and other related theories and concepts. The current
paper presents the SLF as the integration of the
practical and theoretical works and discussions. The
SLF includes a learning cycle, key organisational
issues and central working concepts. The possible
applications of the framework are also discussed.
The SLF is a contribution to the field of
organisational learning that focuses on innovation
and creativity as critical elements within the current
organisational context of increased complexity.
Table 1 presents a summary of the critical
characteristics of the SLF.
Table 1: The inductive and multi-grounded character of the SLF.
Central elements
from the Analysis
of the Case Studies
- The quality of community life and of organisational vision
- the strength of organisational identity and strategic thinking
- the integrating role of organisational meaning-making processes
Inductive developments from
Organisation Theory
- Organisational Learning, Knowledge Management
and Communities of Practice
- the context of the Knowledge Economy
The mediation role of
Social Theory
- Social Semiotics, Critical Realism, and Action Theory
- Hermeneutical, ontological and epistemic grounding of reflexivity
Multi-grounded
Theory Building
- The Semiotic Learning Framework
- a pragmatic, non-dualist, action-driven and process-centred approach
ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION
460
3 THE INDUCTIVE
DEVELOPMENT FROM THE
EMPIRICAL WORK
The empirical analysis focused on several
organisational factors including the organisation’s
structure, culture, communication, leadership style,
degree of control, strategic vision, degree of
innovativeness and creativity, routines and
procedures and, most importantly, the quality of the
organisation’s community life.
There was a difference in the degree of work
satisfaction and in the perceived effectiveness at
organisational level among the cases analysed. In
general there was a lower quality of community life,
organisational cohesion and clarity of organisational
identity at the first two cases, which concerned two
European agencies, as compared to the two cases
related to smaller and innovative service providing
units and pilot projects. From the perspectives
expressed at the interviews and from the
observations of formal and informal meetings at the
European agencies there was a general difficulty in
communicating across the different functional areas
and often this was reported to be related to the lack
of leadership at management level. Also, there was
strong group identification within each of the
professional groups and this created a difficulty in
terms of promoting a cohesive and rewarding
community life at organisational level as a whole.
Among the problems that have been identified
are the non-alignment between organisational goals,
structure and leadership style, the low degree of
internal cohesion at organisational level, the lack of
a holistic approach, and the low degree of
sensitiveness and awareness to the complexity
organisational reality. The reports related to the two
last cases showed a high degree of work satisfaction
and perceived organisation effectiveness that may be
interpreted as a result of high quality of the
organisations’ community life.
The analysis of the four case studies enabled the
further development at theoretical level that was
conducted through a literature review of
organisation theory and of social theories. The next
section presents the Semiotic Learning Framework’s
Learning Steps that follow from the empirical and
theoretical discussions.
4 THE LEARNING CYCLE STEPS
The predictable elements of organisational
procedures may have an enabling or a restraining
influence in relation to organisational learning
initiatives. Formal organisational practices are a
medium as well as the result of the unpredictable
and informal components of organisational
dynamics, i.e. structures determine, condition and
influence processes, and these simultaneously
recreate and transform the structures, in an
interdependent way.
A crucial issue within the SLF is the
identification and acknowledgement of these
interdependencies and interactions, and the
development of alternative creative and innovative
organisational practices that enable the exploration
of each organisation’s full potential. This potential
critically depends on the degree of openness and
flexibility present in every institution and the SLF
works on these characteristics. The four learning-
steps of the SLF are the following:
(i) Ice-break - Raising key issues: The first step
of the learning process consists on an introduction to
the domain of organisational learning from the
perspective of the SLF. More important than
delivering prescriptive notions is the raising of key
issues that may enable a questioning process to
develop. Within the broad field of organisation
theory, several approaches are relevant. These
correspond to the organisational key issues
summarised in the next section: a) appreciative
inquiry; b) open complex systems; c) socio-technical
systems; d) collaborative work and learning; e)
knowledge creation and sharing; f) reflexive practice
and double-loop learning; and g) trust and social
capital.
(ii) Experiencing – Confronting reality: From
the first introductory step a general understanding is
developed that has to be confronted with the
individual and organisational reality that is specific,
situated and circumstantial. The degree of detail of
the first step depends on the
prior knowledge and
familiarity
with the areas and approaches included
as the framework’s key issues. As the SLF involves
the repetition of the learning cycle, some of the
aspects may be omitted from the first round
and/or
others added later. The central idea is to grasp one or
several notions that are able to open new grounds for
analysis and debate. From the analysis and debate of
step one, step two consists of bringing forth the key
issues raised, and confronting them with the daily
organisational life. “Experiencing” is thus a process
of attentiveness to the specific circumstances of
organisational reality. It aims at gradually making
explicit the conditions of possibility for
organisational learning to occur in a conscious and
intentional form. These conditions of possibility
involve both action-possibilities and thought-
possibilities (Karl Jaspers’ terms, Young-Bruehl,
1981), i.e. both the ability to perform and the interest
in doing so. This ground-zero field-work step
THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK – how to facilitate Organisational Learning
461
incorporates two simultaneous lines of development.
In the sense that every individual and every
organisation has an intrinsic capacity to learn, to
develop and to innovate, it is important to focus on
the issues that limit and restrain this capacity, the
barriers, blockages and dead-ends. This innovation
capacity is a raw material, a hidden potential that
needs to be fostered, promoted, encouraged and
facilitated. So there is a negative focus, of reducing
the barriers and limitations, and a positive focus, of
improving and strengthening the creative learning
capacity.
(iii) Action Horizons - Transformative
learning: The third step returns to theoretical
presentation and discussion. The broadening of
horizons and the development of new perspectives is
fundamentally rooted on the kind of mentality,
mind-set, and world-view prevalent in each
community and organisation. In order to improve the
understanding and questioning capacity, certain key
theoretical concepts have to be explored and
operationalised. This developmental process may be
characterised as consisting of both learning and un-
learning instances and it reflects a disclosing and
dialogical standing. The SLF’s working concepts
(not developed here for space restrictions) consist of
philosophical concepts from six relevant thinkers,
four philosophical categories, and three theoretical
approaches. The central concepts within this
framework are the following: a) Bakhtin’s concept
of dialogism; b) Halliday’s notion of grammar; c)
Wittgenstein’s concept of language-games; d)
Foucault’s discursive formations; e) Heidegger’s
concept of being-in-the-world; and f) White’s master
tropes.
The four philosophical categories that are
relevant are the following: g) Action; h) Language;
i) Knowledge; and j) Meaning.
And the three theoretical approaches are the
following: k) Social semiotics – pragmatism,
interdependent social practices, social theory of
discourse and social subjectivity; l) Critical realism
– social agents, social structures and human agency;
and m) Action Theory and Hermeneutics – as an
ontologically grounded epistemic transformation.
These key concepts, categories and theories may
only be operationalised gradually, in a disclosing
and dialogical way, as was referred above. They are
to be developed according to the conditions of
possibility identified in step two. The critical idea is
the transmission of the SLF rationale that is based on
the development, intensification and deepening of
communities within organisations. Working
concepts are thus a critical element within the
process of internalisation of the reflexive practice
that constitutes this learning framework.
(iv) Innovative Practice – Open dynamism:
The fourth and last step of the learning cycle focuses
on acknowledging the emergence of developmental
and innovative learning patterns, and on opening
new windows of opportunity for organisational
development and community building. It is critical
to insist on the issue that organisational learning
must first be promoted and fostered within
communities and only then may it be spread
throughout the organisation. The community level
represents both the focus of the theoretical aspects of
the framework as well as the focus of its practical
application. In this sense, and within this framework,
the notion of situated-action refers to the deepening
and intensifying of communities at organisational
level, as it is community level situated-action that
enables collective meaning-making and shared
understanding that is at the basis of knowledge
creation and sharing at organisational level. There
are specific organisational learning design initiatives
that arise from the theoretical development of step
one and step three, however, these have to be
situation-specific and cannot be generalised or
recommended and implemented in a normative and
prescriptive way. The theoretical concepts refer to
that which is possible to generalise, but the practical
application of this organisational learning
framework does not propose specific practices. On
the contrary, the SLF ascertains that the
organisational practices should be transformed and
improved according to the situated reading,
interpretation and understanding of specific
communities confronted with concrete realities.
Again, the key issues are openness and flexibility,
not in terms of functionalistic roles or job-profile,
but in terms of mentality, mind-sets and world-
views. Not as rationalistic mental-models but as
reflexive and insightful pragmatic oriented action-
centred and practice-based approaches.
Organisational learning never ends, and as each
community and organisation develops new areas are
disclosed that in turn need further understanding and
development, so that the cycle restarts with the step
one - ice-breaking and the identification of key
issues. There is not a clear cut division, either among
different steps in the cycle or among different cycles
so that it is possible, and even desirable, that there is
not a perfect, homogenous and symmetric
development in relation to different issues and
aspects of organisational life. The point that has to
be made is that this framework consists on a possible
approach to organisational learning and that it
presents an idiosyncratic theoretical perspective that
is renitent to accept a single, unique, monolithic and
standardised discourse on organisational practices.
Therefore, though there is a constant subjacent
reference to organisational practice throughout the
ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION
462
development of the SLF, it cannot subscribe specific
practices as these are themselves the result that is
delivered through the application and use of this
theoretical framework for organisational learning. If
the SLF were to list a set of specific practices to be
applied uniformly at organisational level it would be
a contradiction in its own terms.
5 ORGANISATIONAL KEY
ISSUES
The SLF acknowledges the early contributions of
social theory research to the field of organisational
studies. Current organisational approaches may be
enriched by the incorporation of key insights from
pioneer, though still active, research traditions.
Appreciative inquiry is a fundamental aspect to be
acknowledged (Cooperrider et al, 2001).
G. Vickers (1965) work on appreciative systems
developed a tradition that is still relevant in today’s
organisational settings. According to Vickers, we
perceive reality selectively according to our
judgement making, our ‘appreciation’, and this
process consists of a relationship management,
within which goal seeking represents one of its
particular cases. Vickers rejects the goal-seeking
model of human behaviour, and also the cybernetic
paradigm, where the course to be steered is available
from outside the system, whereas systems of human
activity themselves generate and regulate multiple
and mutually inconsistent courses thus being an
autopoietic system (Maturana, Varela, 1980). The
process of designing organisational learning
initiatives is itself anchored in a systematic
collaborative inquiry process into the organisation’s
learning experience and practice (Shani, Docherty,
2003). Appreciative inquiry thus has advanced
beyond being a philosophical orientation to
becoming a theory and a method for system’s
learning and development. It fundamentally seeks to
build constructive ongoing dialogue between people
in an organisation, a dialogue about past and present
learning capacities, processes, innovations, and
unexplored potentials.
The contributions from systems thinking and
from complexity theories are also critically
highlighted within the SLF. Holistic thinking refers
to the perspective of perceiving reality as a whole,
not as ‘the whole’ but as ‘wholes’. Historical
examples of holistic thinkers are Aristotle, Marx and
Husserl, however the institutionalisation of holistic
thinking only occurred in the 1950s through the
development of systems thinking and of the general
systems theory (Checkland, 1984, 1999). In the
1970s, the soft-system approach developed, and
instead of perceiving the world as systemic, it
perceived it as a complex whole that could be
explored through alternative world-views and a
systemic process of inquiry, that focused on learning
leading to action rather than on optimisation. Hard-
systems focus on problem-solving, and model
organisations as coordinated functional task systems
seeking to achieve declared goals, and thus see the
task of management as decision making in support
of goal seeking. H. Simon (1996) developed this
type of approach that proves to be extremely
effective in situations where there are clear-cut
performance measures, and goals are objectively
defined.
Soft-system methodology arises as a complement
to hard-systems perspective and it focuses on open
complex systems, systems that are in constant
interaction with their environment, and where the
social and political aspects of the system are
especially taken into account. Within the theoretical
development relevant to the present organisational
context the theories about complexity, emergence,
turbulence and chaos are critical. From a non-
mathematical perspective, chaos theory, the non-
linear, and complexity may be taken to be a single
paradigm (Urry, 2003, Prigogine, 1980). Complexity
has also been theorised beyond systems thinking,
and Stacey (2001), though acknowledging the
importance of systems thinking, and being closely
related to the aims of soft systems methodology,
focuses on organisations as complex responsive
processes of relating, where iterative processes
sustain continuity with potential transformation at
the same time. According to Stacey (2001),
analogies drawn from natural complexity sciences
are based on a Kantian and idealistic view in which
nature is assumed to unfold from already enfolded
forms. However, this perspective does not
encompass an explanation of the emergence of truly
novel forms. This strand of complexity thinking is
an extension of systems thinking about nature. An
alternative perspective is that derived from Hegel as
interpreted by Mead, in which the future is
understood to be under perpetual construction, and it
is this second strand of the complexity sciences that
consists the source domain for analogies with human
action (Stacey, 2001). Chaordic systems thinking is
a conceptual contribution for explaining human
performance management under turbulent
conditions, that is presented as a new paradigm for
working life (Eijnatten, 2003). This approach tries to
account for the emergence of real novelty in terms of
Stacey. Chaordic systems thinking recognises that
systems are complex, dynamic and non-linear, in
which chaos and order co-exist. This approach is
based on an understanding of systems as holons,
entities that are both wholes and parts, both
THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK – how to facilitate Organisational Learning
463
autonomous and dependent, and it agrees with
Stacey’s argument of the previous system
approaches as suffering from a Kantian split and
from being highly embedded in a control paradigm
(Eijnatten, 2003). The perspective of chaordic
systems thinking (Eijnatten, 2003), that uses the
chaos metaphor as an interpreting lens, and that
recognises systems as being simultaneously ordered
and chaotic, is presented as a new holinic approach
and as the next-generation framework for socio-
technical systems design. Holons are entities that are
both wholes and parts of a greater whole.
Socio-technical approaches are gaining wide
recognition. The term ‘socio-technical systems’ was
coined by E. Trist to describe his team’s work at the
Tavistock Institute on the interrelatedness of
environmental, social, and technical systems of
organisations (Emery, Trist, 1969). The origins of
socio-technical systems date from the period after
the second World War, when E. Trist and F. Emery,
two social scientists, pioneered the movement
toward experimentation with alternative work
redesigns, different forms of employee involvement,
varied degrees of autonomy and responsibility in
work teams, participative management orientations,
and the development of learning systems, all with
deep concerns regarding economic performance.
The present study acknowledges the overwhelming
importance of both systems thinking and of
structuralism in current interpretations of both
organisations and societies as a whole. Nevertheless,
this acknowledgement of systems thinking and of
structuralism aims at searching beyond them, thus
contradicting the dominant and mainstream
management approach that takes for granted a
systems perspective.
6 THE CONTEXT OF THE
KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY OF
THE INFORMATION AGE
The centrality of information and knowledge in
current economic and social processes justifies the
concept of the ‘knowledge economy’. The
knowledge economy of the information age
(Kearmally, 1999) stands for the prevalent context
of increasing levels of complexity, turbulence, and
of the pace of change that characterises the global
markets of present times. This context was set forth
by the rapid technological development of the
second half of the twentieth century. Therefore, the
last quarter of the century witnessed an increase in
the number of organisational theories directed at
enabling organisations to deal with and to profit
from the opportunities, as well as to avoid the risks,
of the new organisational reality. The Semiotic
Learning Framework, as an organisational learning
initiative, builds on these theories and highlights
some of its key concepts. Core concepts of the SLF
are: collaborative forms of work and learning,
knowledge creation and sharing, reflexive practices
and double-loop learning. The fundamental need for
collaborative practices and forms of work and
learning is intrinsic to the current context of the
knowledge economy. While in traditional neo-
classical economics knowledge was understood to
be an implicit production factor that was subject to
the rule of diminishing returns, within the present
context, knowledge represents a central factor of
production that presents the unique characteristic of
increasing returns, thus increasing its value while
being used and shared (Kearmally, 1999, Drucker,
1999).
The importance of learning arises directly from
the need to disseminate and share knowledge across
an organisation, though learning, within the context
of the SLF, refers to more than the reductive view of
formal organisational training or to the aggregation
of individual learning processes. In similar terms,
collaboration acquires an emphasis and a
connotation that surpasses previous protocol or
superficial etiquette rules within organisations to
become the main drive for, and key issue behind,
organisational growth and development. The theory
of communities of practice (Lave, Wenger, 1991,
Wenger, 1999, Wenger, McDermott, Snyder, 2002,
Brown, Duguid, 1991) incorporates a social theory
of learning and of collaboration, emphasising the
social embeddeness and embodiness of all learning
processes. Therefore, it places the social dimensions
of learning and of collaborating as the central and
decisive criteria for organisational innovation and
success. The degree and capacity that an
organisation incorporates in terms of collaboration
and learning fundamentally determine its potential to
innovate and develop.
Since late 1970s there has been a growing
interest in the notions of learning and on the creation
and management of knowledge or of intellectual
capital in organisations. From an industrial age
context, the new age of knowledge work in the
information society represents a global pattern of
change that includes new forms of organisations and
different ways of managing them. The main assets of
the industrial age were traded in markets so that the
organisations could be objectively valued. In the
new knowledge economy, knowledge is the major
asset and as it cannot be directly traded in markets
there are difficulties in valuing organisations, so that
the intellectual capital movement calls for new
forms of measuring and managing organisational
ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION
464
knowledge assets (Stewart 1997). The task of
managing knowledge assumes that knowledge is in
individual minds, mostly in a tacit form, and that it
may be converted into an explicit form, and be
stored and manipulated by the use of information
technology. The cultural reluctance to share
knowledge requires leadership, and a management
style that encourages and persuades knowledge
sharing by promoting dialogue. This mainstream
perspective on knowledge management has
benefited from the constructive criticism of
approaches that call attention to the intrinsic and
complementary processes that occur within
organisations, such as the importance of
communities of practice in the generation of
knowledge (Lave, Wenger, 1991, Brown, Duguid,
1991), and also the view of organisations as sense-
making systems (Weick, 1995, 2001). The
importance of informal forms of learning, of
conversations, and of storytelling focus on the role
of narrative forms of knowledge, and on alternative
interpretations to the process of creating, sharing and
storing knowledge.
The fields of organisational learning and of
knowledge management have been influenced by a
web of authors and of baseline theories. Argyris and
Schön (1978, Argyris, 1982) notions of individual
mental models and of single and double-loop
learning processes largely influenced P. Senge’s
work on the learning organisation (1990). The
importance of questioning one’s own assumptions
and of reflective practice, key concepts in Argyris
and Schön’s work, are critical foundations of
organisational learning theory. Senge also rested on
Bohm’s concept of dialogue (1965, 1983) and on
systems dynamics (Forrester, 1971, Meadows, 1982)
thus presenting the learning organisation as a
system. Peter Senge (1990), states that
“organisations change only when people change, and
people change only when they change from within”.
Equally critical is Nonaka’s model of knowledge
creation in organisations (Nonaka, 1991, Nonaka,
Tekeuchi, 1995). Like Senge, Nonaka also draws on
systems thinking, including some concepts from
chaos and complexity theories (Prigogine, 1980) that
he treats as extensions of systems thinking.
Bateson’s (1973) work on the ecology of the mind
influenced Nonaka’s learning theories, though the
major influence comes from Nonaka’s biased
reading of Polanyi’s (1958) work, therefore
differentiating and separating tacit from explicit
knowledge.
7 APPLICATIONS OF THE
FRAMEWORK
Organisational learning initiatives are the first
instance for the application of the framework
because it is at organisational level that the SLF is
directed. As an organisational learning framework it
includes three interrelated dimensions:
organisational design, organisational consulting and
organisational audit. Another level of analysis also
refers to a triangular relation between: (i) web-based
community building mechanisms, (ii) group
dynamics and training, (ii) and personal support
through coaching, mentoring and tutoring.
Organisational design corresponds to both the
creation and developmental organisational stages
where the SLF is applied on a continual basis as the
background work supporting the organisations’
rationale.
Organisational consulting corresponds to the
application of the framework to deal with specific
and critical situations, when strategic decisions have
to be made or when there is conflict or
organisational identity crisis. Organisational audit
corresponds to the use of the framework as an
evaluation device, as a means to determine the
potential for development and the gap between that
potential and current reality. Organisational
evaluation, self-assessment and internal consulting
are areas that the SLF helps to strengthen as key
strategic areas for organisational development.
The SLF application within an educational
setting potentially includes a postgraduate course, an
on-line course, and a vocational and professional
training initiative focusing on the relationship
between information systems and social theory. The
target public of these educational formats is
management and information technology
professionals, though they may be extended to other
organisational directed professionals. The areas of
potential development of the framework within an
educational setting are: (i) information technology
and social theory, (ii) project management and
policy formulation, (iii) strategic innovation
management, and (iv) information systems analysis
and development.
The SLF may be used within the field of applied
organisation research focusing on three interrelated
aspects: transdisciplinary action-research, social
philosophy informed research, and practice oriented
research. The framework explicitly assumes a
certain theoretical orientation and its application as a
research approach does not determine exactly the
end product of the research but rather gives a
common orientation and rationale that may be
understood as a background methodology, i.e. a set
THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK – how to facilitate Organisational Learning
465
of principles directing the theoretical perspective
that supports and grounds the research.
Organisational practices are understood as
conveying a dynamic rationale that continuously
defines the organisation’s core identity. The SLF as
a potential research approach explores this
dynamism and aims at a better understanding and
subsequent promotion of organisational innovation
and development.
8 FINAL WORDS
The central aspect to be considered is the theoretical
standing that this framework proposes: the
inquisitive, critical, boundary expanding and
creative-thinking perspective. Though reflexive
practices are widely acknowledged in organisational
learning literature as having a paramount
importance, Semiotic Learning draws on theoretical
approaches that are specialised in reflexivity per se.
Though there is a large variety of approaches that
have been integrated into the SLF, their scope points
into a single direction, that of exploring post-
cognitivist and non-mentalistic approaches to
reflexivity. The SLF calls attention to the taken for
granted assumptions of mainstream management
thinking and explicitly proposes an alternative and
complementary perspective. This perspective
includes a theory and also a praxis, i.e. it has to be
lived through and experienced in order to be fully
understood. Nietzsche, Dilthey, Heidegger, Jaspers,
Wittgenstein and Foucault also emphasised the
practical nature of their philosophical work and they
all explicitly claimed that their thought could only
be valued as making a difference in terms of how
life itself is lived.
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1992) On Organisational Learning. Oxford,
UK, Blackwell
Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1978) Organisational Learning: a
Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA, USA,
Addison-Wesley
Backström, T., Eijnatten, F., Kira, M. (2002) A
Complexity Perspective on Sustainable Work
Systems. In P. Docherty, J. Forslin, A. Shani (eds.)
Creating Sustainable Work Systems: Emerging
Perspectives. London, Routledge, 65-75
Bateson, G. (1973) Steps to an Ecology of the Mind. New
York, USA, Ballantine Books
Blacker, F. (1995) Knowledge, Knowledge Work and
Organisation: An Overview and Interpretation.
Organisational Studies,16, 6, 1021-1046
Blacker, F., Crump, N., McDonald, S. (2000) Organising
Processes in Complex Activity Network.
Organisation. 7, 2, 277-300
Board, R. (1978) The Psychoanalysis of Organisations.
London, UK, Tavistock
Brown, J. (1991) Research that Reinvents the
Corporations. Harvard Bus. Rev., Jan-Feb, 102-111
Brown, J., Duguid, P. (2000) The Social Life of
Information. USA, Harvard Business School Press
Brown, J., Duguid, P. (2001) Knowledge and
Organisation: A Social-practice perspective.
Organisational Science, 12, 2, 198-213
Checkland, P. (1984) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.
Sussex, UK, Wiley
Checkland, P. (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: a 30-
year retrospective. Sussex, UK, Wiley
Cooperrider, D., Sorensen, P., Yaeger, T., Whitney, D.
(2001) Appreciative Inquiry: An Emerging Direction
for Organisational Development. Champain, Il., USA,
Stipes Publishing
Delanty, G., Strydom, P. (2003) Philosophies of Social
Science. Berkshire, UK. McGraw-Hill
Drucker, P. (1999) Management Challenges for the 21st
Century. Oxford, UK, Butterworth-Heinemann
Eijjnatten, F. (2003) Chaordic Systems Thinking: Chaos
and Complexity to Explain Human Performance
Management. Proceeding of Business Excellence ‘03
Emery, F., Trist, E. (1969) Sociotechnical systems. In F.
Emery (ed), System Thinking. Handsworth, UK,
Penguin
Forrester, J. (1971) The counter intuitive behaviour of
social systems. Technology Review. Jan., 52-68
Heidegger, M. (1996) Being and Time. Albany, USA,
State University of New York. Original publication
[1927] Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen, Germany
Kearmally, S. (1999) When economics means business.
London, UK, Financial Times Management
Lave, J., Wenger, E. (1991) Situated Learning: Legitimate
and Peripheral Participation, USA, Cambridge
University Press
Maturana, H., Varela, F. (1980) Autopoiesis and
Cognition: The realisation of the Living. Dordrecht,
Reidel
Meadows, D. (1982) Whole earth models and systems co-
evolution. Co-evolution Quarterly. Summer, 98-108
Nonaka, I. (1991) The Knowledge-Creating Company.
Harvard Business Review, Nov/Dec, 96-104
Nonaka, I., Tekeushi, H. (1995) The Knowledge-Creating
Company: How Japanese Companies Create the
Dynamics of Innovation. New York, USA, Oxford
University Press
Prigogine, I (1980) From Being to Becoming. S.
Francisco, USA, Freeman
ICEIS 2005 - INFORMATION SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPECIFICATION
466
Pugh, D., Hickson, D. (1993) Great Writers on
Organisations: The Omnibus Edition. USA,
Dartmouth Publishing
Ricoeur, P. (1981) Hermeneutics and the Human Sciences.
Trans. ed. J. Thompson, UK, Cambridge University
Press
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline – the Art and
Practice of the Learning Organisation. USA,
Doubleday
Shani, A., Docherty, P. (2003) Learning by Design.
Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishing
Simon, H. (1996) The Sciences of the Artificial. USA,
MIT Press. First print by MIT Press in [1969]
Stacey, R. (2001) Complex Responsive Processes in
Organisations: Learning and Knowledge Creation.
London, UK, Routledge
Stewart, T. (1997) Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of
Organisations. Currency, Doubleday
Sveiby, K-E (1997) The New Organisational Wealth:
Managing and Measuring Knoweldge-Based Assets.
Berret-Koehler Publishers
Tsoukas, H. (1996) The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge
System: A Constructivist Approach. Strategic
Management Journal, 17, W. SI., 11-25
Tsoukas, H., Vladimirou, E. (2001) What is
Organisational Knowledge. Journal of Management
Strategy, 38, 973-993
Urry, J. (2003) Global Complexity. Cambridge, UK, Polity
Press
Vickers, G. (1965) The Art of Judgement: A Study of
Policy Making. London, UK, Chapman & Hall
Weick, K. (1995) Sense Making in Organisations.
Thousand Oaks, USA, Sage
Weick, K. (2001) Making Sense of the Organisation.
Oxford, UK, Blackwell Publishers
Wenger, E. (1999) Communities of Practice: learning,
meaning and identity. Cambridege, USA, Cambridge
University Press
Wenger, E., McDermott, M., Snyder, W. (2002)
Cultivating Communities of Practice. USA, Harvard
Business School Press
Wittgenstein, L. (1958)[1953] The Blue and Brown Books.
Preliminary Studies for the “Philosophical
Investigations”. G. Anscombe (trans.), London, UK,
Basil Blackwell
THE SEMIOTIC LEARNING FRAMEWORK – how to facilitate Organisational Learning
467