The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future
Abstract
In this paper we attempt to map the development of organizational learning as a field of academic study by examining the rise and fall of specific debates. This does not pretend to be a comprehensive review of the field since there is now far too much material available to allow full coverage in any single publication. Rather, we have identified some of the key debates, and these have been organized along the simplistic time‐line of past, present and future. Our purpose is two‐fold: first, to note how the nature and language of the key ideas in organizational learning have changed over time; and second, to locate the papers in this Special Issue within the context of the developing field. It is perhaps no accident that we see most of the papers as closely associated with new, and emerging, issues, but we also find it interesting to note that many of these current or emergent issues actually have roots within some of the earlier debates.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Organizational Learning: From Experience to Knowledge
Argote, L., & Miron-Spektor, E. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0621 · Cited by 1,917
What are dynamic capabilities and are they a useful construct in strategic management?
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2009) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00251.x · Cited by 1,641
Van Wijk, R., Jansen, J. J. P., & Lyles, M. A. (2008) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00771.x · Cited by 1,335
Reframing Professional Development Through Understanding Authentic Professional Learning
Webster-Wright, A. (2009) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654308330970 · Cited by 1,174
Re-Embedding Situatedness: The Importance of Power Relations in Learning Theory
Contu, A., & Willmott, H. (2003) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.14.3.283.15167 · Cited by 817
Metadata
- Authors
- Easterby‐Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D.
- Venue
- Journal of Management Studies
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 783-796
- ISSN
- 0022-2380 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-6486
- OpenAlex
- W2058120279
- Cited by
- 795
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 26.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/1467-6486.00203
- The paper
- Easterby‐Smith, M., Crossan, M., & Nicolini, D. (2000). Organizational Learning: Debates Past, Present And Future. Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00203
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.