Search results

Change is a somewhat mysterious process which has aroused the academic interest of sociologists, psychologists, political scientists, and specialists from other fields. Information scientists should also be concerned with this topic, given that change seems to be the most permanent feature in this new discipline. Typical research questions such as what is change or how does change come about can be approached from many standpoints, ranging from the concepts derived from sociological and psychological theory to the very practical description of change taking place day by day.

This introductory chapter elaborates some of the key ideas which shaped the concept of this book. The overriding idea is that autopoiesis theory has the potential to provide a unifying framework for the study of organizational phenomena in the 21st century. Although organization studies have recently had no shortage of new paradigms and approaches — such as postmodernism, phenomenology, ethnomethodology, reflexivity, and critical theory — the field seems to be expanding in ways that make it increasingly difficult to comprehend, especially for the uninitiated.

This chapter aims at setting an agenda for HRIS research from an integrative perspective. This perspective assumes that organization and information systems cannot be separated. By first elaborating on this integrated perspective in terms of a web of causes and consequences of the implementation of IT in organizations, a list of new organizational phenomena is presented. Subsequently, research on HRISs to date is summarized, resulting in the observation that HRIS research needs to be broadened and deepened. In the third section we combine the list of emerging phenomena with how HRISs are being implemented and used in mainly large global companies. We raise a number of critical questions for HRIS research per each emerging phenomena and suggest a number of appropriate research topics.

This article is a short review of the literature on organisation development (OD) carried out to support a more sophisticated study on the question of change in library and information organisations in Portugal. Special emphasis is put on the cultural dimension of organisation theory and its implications for management practices such as OD in Latin countries.

Social systems theory (Luhmann, 1984, 1995) closely embraces the concept of autopoiesis which, originally, describes the recursive (self)-production of living systems (Maturana & Varela, 1980). Following this, autopoietic organization theory (Bakken & Hernes, 2003; Seidl & Becker, 2006) establishes a more specialized understanding of autopoiesis in terms of organization studies. The transition from the biological to the social realm, however, draws frequent critique. Some scholar suspiciously regard social systems theory as antihumanistic (Blühdorn, 2000; Viskovatoff, 1999), for it neglects individuals in favor of interactions, organizations, and societies. Others deconstruct autopoietic organization theory with the argument that its definition of communication is “flawed with an unavoidable mental dimension, namely the component of understanding” (Thyssen, 2003, p. 213).

In this chapter we argue that a theoretical position derived from a combination of autopoietic theory and complexity theory provides a means for addressing two fundamental problems with the knowledge management (KM) concept. These problems are a lack of consistent epistemology — inadequate theorization about the nature of knowledge and a tendency to identify knowledge as residing primarily at the level of individuals. It represents an opportunity to move away from the reified view of knowledge that dominates most discussions of KM to one of knowledge which is deeply situated and contextualized. We argue that organizations are complex systems of a particular class; they comprise human (biological, reflexive) agents. This has important implications for the range and type of behaviors we can expect from organizations, but it also has implications for how we theorize about them.