Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2,904

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 9 of the 9 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing

Cook, Scott D. N., Brown, John Seely·1999·Organization Science
DOI 10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Much current work on organizational knowledge, intellectual capital, knowledge-creating organizations, knowledge work, and the like rests on a single, traditional understanding of the nature of knowledge. We call this understanding the “epistemology of possession,” since it treats knowledge as something people possess. Yet, this epistemology cannot account for the knowing found in individual and group practice. Knowing as action calls for an “epistemology of practice.” Moreover, the epistemology of possession tends to privilege explicit over tacit knowledge, and knowledge possessed by individuals over that possessed by groups. Current work on organizations is limited by this privileging and by the scant attention given to knowing in its own right. Organizations are better understood if explicit, tacit, individual and group knowledge are treated as four distinct and coequal forms of knowledge (each doing work the others cannot), and if knowledge and knowing are seen as mutually enabling (not competing). We hold that knowledge is a tool of knowing, that knowing is an aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world, and that the interplay of knowledge and knowing can generate new knowledge and new ways of knowing. We believe this generative dance between knowledge and knowing is a powerful source of organizational innovation. Harnessing this innovation calls for organizational and technological infrastructures that support the interplay of knowledge and knowing. Ultimately, these concepts make possible a more robust framing of such epistemologically-centered concerns as core competencies, the management of intellectual capital, etc. We explore these views through three brief case studies drawn from recent research.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/orsc.10.4.381

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 9 references

Research works printed but not linked: 38

  1. Argyris C., 1978, Organizational Learning
  2. 10.1017/CBO9780511812507 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1287/orsc.2.1.40 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1207/s15327051hci0901_2 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Clark K. B., 1992, Managing New Product and Process Development
  6. 10.1007/978-1-349-20255-3 · DOI
  7. Cook S. D. N. Part of what a judgment is. (1982) . Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (available from the author or from University Microfilms)
  8. 10.1177/0002764294038001012 · DOI
  9. 10.1177/105649269324010 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1207/s15326969eco0802_2 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1007/978-1-349-16161-4 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Hamel G., 1994, Competing for the Future
  13. Hickman L., 1990, John Dewey's Pragmatic Technology
  14. 10.1037/10096-012 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1007/978-1-349-24034-0 · DOI
  16. Leonard-Barton D., 1995, Wellsprings of Knowledge: Building and Sustaining the Sources of Innovation
  17. March J. G., 1976, Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations
  18. Nonaka I., 1995, The Knowledge Creating Company, 10.1093/oso/9780195092691.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.2307/2393771 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Orr J. E., 1996, Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job
  21. Orr J. E., 1990, Collective Remembering: Memory in Society
  22. Ortega y Gasset, 1961, History as a System
  23. Ortega y Gasset, 1961, History as a System
  24. Polanyi M., 1983, The Tacit Dimension
  25. Rorty R., 1982, Consequences of Pragmatism
  26. Ryle G., 1949, The Concept of Mind
  27. Schon D. A., 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action
  28. Sims H. P., 1986, The Thinking Organization; Dynamics of Organizational Social Cognition
  29. Sitkin S. B., 1992, Res. Organ. Behavior, 14
  30. 10.4135/9781446250228.n4 · DOI
  31. 10.1177/030631289019003001 · DOI · Paper page
  32. Stewart T. A., 1997, Intellectual Capital: The New Wealth of Organizations
  33. Turner S., 1994, The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions
  34. Watsuji T., 1961, Climate and Culture
  35. 10.1287/orsc.2.1.116 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Weick K. E., 1996, Handbook of Organization Studies
  37. 10.2307/2393372 · DOI · Paper page
  38. Wenger E., 1997, Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Cook, S. D. N., & Brown, J. S.
Venue
Organization Science
Publisher
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS)
Published
1999-08
Volume
10
Issue
4
Pages
381-400
ISSN
  • 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5455
DOI
10.1287/orsc.10.4.381
OpenAlex
W2134230545
Cited by
2,904
References
9
FWCI
234.19
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

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.