![](bg5.png)
transformed. This author explains that it is because society is incarnate in the
practices of its members, that it is easy to lapse into methodological individualism, in
which society disappears and only individuals exist. Of course, “society has not
disappeared, since these individuals are persons and their acts are situated, not simply
in a ‘natural’ world but in a world constituted by past and ongoing human activity, a
humanised natural and social world.” (ibid, 1998)(italics in the original). The
argument of these authors follows that because social structures are incarnate in the
practices of persons, this means that they do not exist independently of the
conceptions of the persons whose activities constitute (reproduce, transform) them. It
is because persons have beliefs, interests, goals, and practical knowledge acquired in
their epigenesis as members of a society that they do what they do and thus sustain
(and transform) the structures. Bhaskar further elucidates this point: “... all agents
have practical knowledge (not necessarily cognitively available) and some degree of
understanding of the real nature of social structure which their activities sustain,
[however] unintended consequences, unacknowledged conditions, and tacit rules limit
the individual’s understanding of his or her social world.”
There is some parallelism between the importance of social structures within the
field of social studies and specific approaches set forward by organisational literature.
Peter Senge [12] states that: “Organisations change only when people change” and
“People change only when they change from within”. To learn, to acquire, to create
knowledge, is a social process thus not an individual and isolated task. Personal
learning as any personal phenomena is intrinsically and inherently social in essence.
The notion of knowledge as values and beliefs is also constitutively socially
structured. “Knowledge, unlike information, is about beliefs and commitments” [10].
And also: “The power of Knowledge to organise, select, and judge comes from values
and beliefs as much as, and probably more than, from information and logic.” [7].
Organisations cannot be regarded as objective and neutral entities as it is critical to
recognise the powerful impact of people’s beliefs and values - people’s thoughts and
actions are inescapably linked to their value system, they are integral to knowledge,
determining what the knower sees, absorbs, and concludes from her observations.
People with different values ‘see’ different things and organise their knowledge
according to their values.
In biology, the more sophisticated the species the better chances it has of survival
in strainful and stressful situations. Similarly, organisations have a better chance of
survival the better they are able to develop their coordination and collaboration
mechanisms and practises. The knowledge economy represents a revolutionary
potential change which is linked to the information and communication technology
development, the globalisation of markets, and the increase in the pace of change and
of the level of complexity of organisational environments [8]. These changers require
new theories and practices on behalf of organisations so that they may not only
survive but also reap the benefits of the new economic reality. The knowledge
economy brings forth a new approach to traditional neo-classical economics.
Knowledge becomes a new factor of production, new in terms of not being submitted
to conventional economical laws. Instead of diminishing its value by being used as
any other resource, knowledge, within a knowledge economy, increases its value by
being used and shared. Thus the crucial importance of promoting, fostering and
facilitating knowledge sharing practices, collaborative forms of working and of
learning, and community building, sustaining and intensifying mechanisms.
107