The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations
Abstract
Despite several insightful empirical studies on how new knowledge is created in organizations, there is still no satisfactory answer to the question, how is new knowledge created in organizations? The purpose of this paper is to address this question by focusing on direct social interaction, adopting a dialogical approach. The following argument is advanced. From a dialogical perspective, new knowledge in organizations originates in the individual ability to draw new distinctions concerning a task at hand. New distinctions may be developed because practitioners experience their situations in terms of already constituted distinctions, which lend themselves to further articulation. Further articulation develops when organizational members engage in dialogical exchanges. When productive, dialogue leads to self-distanciation, namely, to individuals taking distance from their customary and unreflective ways of acting as practitioners. Dialogue is productive depending on the extent to which participants engage relationally with one another. When this happens, participants are more likely to actively take responsibility for both the joint tasks in which they are involved and for the relationships they have with others. Self-distanciation leads to new distinctions through three processes of conceptual change (conceptual combination, conceptual expansion, and conceptual reframing), which, when intersubjectively accepted, constitute new knowledge. Several organizational examples, as well as findings from organizational knowledge research, are reinterpreted to illustrate the above points.
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
Cites
Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.3.3.383 · Cited by 12,939
Reconceptualizing Organizational Routines as a Source of Flexibility and Change
Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/3556620 · Cited by 4,020 · cited 1×
“Their dialogue leads them to self-distanciation insofar as, eventually , they reconsider the relevant standard operating procedure in response to a local " variation " (Feldman and Pentland 2003, p. 102).”
BackgroundWhat Firms Do? Coordination, Identity, and Learning
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1996) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.7.5.502 · Cited by 3,078
Knowing in Practice: Enacting a Collective Capability in Distributed Organizing
Orlikowski, W. J. (2002) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.13.3.249.2776 · Cited by 3,021
Introduction to the Special Issue: Communication Processes for Virtual Organizations
DeSanctis, G., & Monge, P. (1999) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.10.6.693 · Cited by 495
Coordination as Energy-in-Conversation
Quinn, R. W., & Dutton, J. E. (2005) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2005.15281422 · Cited by 381
Organizing practices in services: capturing practice-based knowledge for innovation
Dougherty, D. (2004) · Strategic Organization · doi:10.1177/1476127004040914 · Cited by 177
Cited by
Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory
Feldman, M. S., & Orlikowski, W. J. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1100.0612 · Cited by 1,753
Tsoukas, H. (2017) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/joms.12219 · Cited by 368
Self-citationToward a Meta-Theory of Creativity Forms: How Novelty and Usefulness Shape Creativity
Harvey, S., & Berry, J. W. (2023) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.2020.0110 · Cited by 125
Collective Learning in Global Diffusion: Spreading Quality Standards in a Developing Country Cluster
Perez-Aleman, P. (2011) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.1090.0514 · Cited by 120
Zhang, W., Zhang, W., Daim, T., & Yalçın, H. (2025) · Journal of Knowledge Management · doi:10.1108/jkm-02-2024-0203 · Cited by 66
Human innovation and the creative agency of the world in the age of generative AI
Peschl, M. F. (2024) · Possibility Studies & Society · doi:10.1177/27538699241238049 · Cited by 30
“…interactions with the world, linguistic conversations (such as in a dialog; Bohm, 1996; Isaacs, 1999), social interactions, or in organizational behaviors (e.g. Tsoukas, 2009), future-and potential-driven emergent innovation processes (Peschl, 2020; Peschl & Fundneider, 2017; Scharmer, 2016), etc.”
BackgroundTang, Z., Su, Y., Hansen, P., & Zhang, P. (2026) · Information Processing & Management · doi:10.1016/j.ipm.2026.104668 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Tsoukas, H.
- Venue
- Organization Science
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 941-957
- ISSN
- 1047-7039 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5455
- OpenAlex
- W2153349730
- Cited by
- 710
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 49.50
- 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.