Contours of diversity management and triple loop learning

Kybernetes

Volumn 25, Issue 7-8, 1996, Pages 154-163

  Flood, Robert L ^a   Romm, Norma R A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DIVERSITY MANAGEMENTS;

EID: 0030519355     PISSN: 0368492X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1108/03684929610149747     Document Type: Article

References (11)

1. Flood, R.L. and Romm, N.R.A., Diversity Management: Triple Loop Learning, Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
2. Issues of humankind to us refer to physical, biological and social cares. That is not to say that the physical and biological worlds are there for human exploitation. For example, ecological issues may be issues to be cared about not solely in terms of human needs. No matter how these issues are seen, humankind must take some responsibility for their care.
3. Jackson, N. and Carter, P., "In defence of paradigm incommensurability", Organization Studies, Vol. 12, 1991, pp. 109-27.
4. Understanding that theorizing affects and enters the conduct of social life has a long history in (meta) theory. Radnitsky[5, p. 51], for example, argues that "it is characteristic of the human sciences that their theories have direct implications for the praxis of life". Images of people are built into our theorizing, which thus becomes linked to endorsing forms of social existence. The interconnection between theory and praxis, though more starkly evident in social scientific theorizing, can be extended to theorizing about the physical world. Norgaard[6], offers a classic example of theorizing affecting the physical world. Agroecologists recognize that traditional agricultural systems are products of the beliefs of the culture - their theories. Micro-organisms through insects have evolved characteristics in response to the selective pressures of human intervention in plant management that has come about from dominant theories[7]. All of this means, for us, that judgement on a theoretical vision is related to judgement about which actions are defensible. Knowing is related to action-commitments.
5. Radnitsky, G., "Preconceptions in research: a study", The Human Context, Vol. 6, 1974, pp. 1-63.
6. Norgaard, R.B., "The case for methodological pluralism", Ecological Economics, Vol. 1, 1989, pp. 37-57.
7. Altieri, M., Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, Westview Press, Boulder, CA, 1987.
8. Hassard, J., Sociology and Organisation Theory: Positivism, Paradigms and Postmodernity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
9. We are not the first to use this terminology. (Swieringa and Wierdsma[10], for example, refer to triple loop learning as a way of reflecting on possible principles to be adopted.) However, our particular conception of triple loop learning was developed in the light of our attendance to the kinds of issues that we have raised above. In proposing our own conception, we identify three centres of learning, showing how these all may relate to single, double and triple loop learning in ways which we explore.
10. Swieringa, J. and Wierdsma, A., Becoming a Learning Organisation: Beyond the Learning Curve, Addison-Wesley, Cambridge, 1992.
11. The complaint is that knowledge-generation processes provided by natural and/or social science are disregarded in the obsession with seeing knowledge-power relations. It therefore becomes impossible to judge the quality of any knowledge or learning. This is considered to be ideological by critics of loop 3. However, might-right contenders counter-argue that ideology arises because people fail to problematize knowledge-power connections. In terms of this definition of ideology, both design and debate interventionists ironically become embroiled in ideology.