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

 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