Search results

This paper seeks to outline the central role of concepts in the knowledge universe, and the intertwining roles of works, instantiations, and documents. In particular the authors are interested in ontological and epistemological aspects of concepts and in the question to which extent there is a need for natural languages to link concepts to create meaningful patterns.

The authors describe the quest for the smallest elements of knowledge from a historical perspective. They focus on the metaphor of the universe of knowledge and its impact on classification and retrieval of concepts. They outline the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction.

The paper outlines the major components of an elementary theory of knowledge interaction that is based on the structure of knowledge rather than on the content of documents, in which semantics becomes not a matter of synonymous concepts, but rather of coordinating knowledge structures. The evidence is derived from existing empirical research.

The paper shifts the bases for knowledge organization from a search for a universal order to an understanding of a universal structure within which many context‐dependent orders are possible.

Pluralities of personality schemas reside across different Maruyama universes suggesting incommensurability and isolation. Schemas may migrate across Maruyama universes given appropriate means. As illustration, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) schema for personality temperament is migrated into a sociocognitive schema through the intermediary of knowledge cybernetics (KC). MBTI is a type approach that operates with polar opposites; however, conceptually there is no reason for it not to be associated with a trait space. Supposing that MBTI has traits at some horizon of meaning, then since traits are responsible for the creation of enduring states, sociocognitive explanations should be able to explain the stable states consistent with a variation of the McCrae and Costa proposition. As a result this paper aims to formulate for the first time a link between the MBTI type schema, a trait space, and a capacity for sociocultural descriptions.

The paper uses the meta‐framework of KC, part of the relevantial universe identified by Maruyama, to formulate a representation of MBTI. This also appears to be the first serious use of the Maruyama universe concept, and the first time that MBTI has been explored from a relevantial perspective. A consequence is the possible development of a more sophisticated trait theory that is capable of providing more complex information about personality.

The findings indicate that a more complex form of type theory is possible than has been provided by MBTI.

This paper is limited to the investigation of MBTI. However, it offers a generic approach that can be applied to other solitary theories like MBTI. It also postulates a trait basis for the MBTI type approach.

The paper leads to the possibility of improved explanatory power for a type theory than is currently possible.

The paper adopts for the first time a relevantial meta‐framework approach to explore a development of MBTI. It has value to those researchers who may wish to explore the potential of more complex forms of type personality theory than are currently available.

This paper analyses and discusses some aspects concerning the historical and social context of information science and information institutions. The starting point is a speech on the history of the librarian delivered in 1934 by the Spanish philosopher, José Ortega y Gasset. On the one hand Ortega y Gasset makes a brief analysis of the social need for books and the tasks of librarians from a historical point of view. In this aspect he is related to the classical way of studying libraries in the context of the history of civilisation and to the paradigm of the thirties which viewed the library as a social institution. On the other hand Ortega y Gasset is aware of new phenomena in the changing world of knowledge. From this starting point the article analyses how historical changes in this century may have influenced information science (and the forerunners library science and documentation) with regard to changing conceptions of the structure, foci and content of the discipline. The paradigms and frameworks analysed include: a pre‐war paradigm viewing the library as a social institution; the physical paradigm; the cognitive view; and alternative perspectives in the nineties representing a new tendency towards an integration of the social dimension of the discipline, based on, among other views, sociology of science, hermeneutics and semiotics. Among the alternative views in the nineties domain analysis gives the most promising demonstration of a historically and sociologically integrated perspective.

The purpose of this paper is to document how Paul Otlet, founding‐father of what is termed at present as “information science”, attempted to provide a complete “image of the world” (and reality in general) by establishing the scientific discipline he dubbed “documentation”. The paper also aims to focus on how Otlet represented human knowledge and reality in a systematic and unified way.

A close reading of Otlet's primary works and some of his personal archives was undertaken.

Most importantly, it is shown that Otlet's views on documentation were immersed in a cosmological, objectivist, humanitarian and ontological framework that is alien to contemporary information science. Correspondingly, his alleged affinity with positivism is reassessed.

The philosophical foundations of the origins of information science are highlighted. Indirectly, this paper is relevant to the ongoing debate on realism and anti‐realism in information science.

Studies Ghazzali’s and Kant’s metaphysical epistemologies in comparative perspectives to bring out their consequences on the central issue of unification of knowledge. Addresses the problem posed by either of these epistemologies towards unifying knowledge. Shows the central issue of reality as a universal is to be premissed in unification, which is in turn explained to be the direct function of interaction and creative evolution from lower to higher levels of certainty. Shows the unification epistemology to be uniquely premissed in the Qur’anic roots of Oneness of God. Explains this concept substantively in analytical terms. Thus the concept of unification of knowledge means the circular continuity by evolution of the interactions and integration that occur by linkages between the purely a priori and the purely a posteriori domains. This is also meant to convey the phenomenon of epistemic‐ontic continuity of the process towards comprehension and the resulting materiality of forms that subsequently reinforce newer levels of comprehensions. Unification takes place in the plane of such interlinkages, complementarity and convergence or integration. Invokes the problem of unification of knowledge in the contrasting modes of all the three cases, namely Ghazzali, Kant and the unification epistemology, to address the issues of moral market transformation taken up in the midst of human sustainability. Discusses some contemporary issues relating to globalization, economic interlinkages and evolution for world development, in light of the topic of moral market transformation and sustainability. Studies both of these analytically in the unification epistemology paradigm in contrast to the consequences implicative of Ghazzali’s and Kant’s epistemologies.

It’s been thirty years since the original articulation of “Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life” was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article – first published in Research in Organization Development and Change – generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry, as well as well as the enormous impact and continuing reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary I am presenting the article by David Cooperrider (myself) and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with new horizon insights. In particular I write with excitement and anticipation of a new OD – what my colleagues and I are calling the next “IPOD” that is, innovation-inspired positive OD that brings AI’s gift of new eyes together in common cause with several other movements in the human sciences: the strengths revolution in management; the positive pscyhology and positive organizational scholarship movements; the design thinking explosion; and the biomimicry field which is all about an appreciative eye toward billions of years of nature’s wisdom and innovation inspired by life.

This article presents a conceptual refigurationy of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline’s steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

It’s been nearly 30 years since the original articulation of Appreciative Inquiry in Organizational Life was written in collaboration with my remarkable mentor Suresh Srivastva (Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987). That article generated more experimentation in the field, more academic excitement, and more innovation than anything we had ever written. As the passage of time has enabled me to look more closely at what was written, I feel both a deep satisfaction with the seed vision and scholarly logic offered for Appreciative Inquiry (AI), as well as well as the enormous impact and reverberation. Following the tradition of authors such as Carl Rogers who have re-issued their favorite works but have also added brief reflections on key points of emphasis, clarification, or editorial commentary we have decided to issue a reprint the early article by David L. Cooperrider and the late Suresh Srivastva in its entirety, but also with contemporary comments embedded. To be sure the comments offered are brief and serve principally to add points of emphasis to ideas we may have too hurriedly introduced. My comments – placed in indented format along the way – are focused on the content and themes of furthermost relevance to this volume on organizational generativity. In many ways I’ve begun to question today whether there can even be inquiry where there is no appreciation, valuing, or amazement – what the Greeks called thaumazein – the borderline between wonderment and admiration. One learning is that AI’s generativity is not about its methods or tools, but about our cooperative capacity to reunite seeming opposites such as theory as practice, the secular as sacred, and generativity as something beyond positivity or negativity. Appreciation is about valuing the life-giving in ways that serve to inspire our co-constructed future. Inquiry is the experience of mystery, moving beyond the edge of the known to the unknown, which then changes our lives. Taken together, where appreciation and inquiry are wonderfully entangled, we experience knowledge alive and an ever-expansive inauguration of our world to new possibilities.

This article presents a conceptual refiguration of action-research based on a “sociorationalist” view of science. The position that is developed can be summarized as follows: For action-research to reach its potential as a vehicle for social innovation it needs to begin advancing theoretical knowledge of consequence; that good theory may be one of the best means human beings have for affecting change in a postindustrial world; that the discipline's steadfast commitment to a problem solving view of the world acts as a primary constraint on its imagination and contribution to knowledge; that appreciative inquiry represents a viable complement to conventional forms of action-research; and finally, that through our assumptions and choice of method we largely create the world we later discover.

This paper aims to share key ideas forwarded in the five-book series focused on the Intelligent Social Change Journey (ISCJ) reflecting the latest research in the Consciousness Series supported by the Mountain Quest Institute and collaborators. This review is based on five separate books released as Part I (Laying the Groundwork), Part II (Learning from the Past), Part III (Learning in the Present), Part IV (Co-Creating the Future) and Part V (Living the Future) of The Profundity and Bifurcation of Change.

Reflecting the consilience approach taken by this in-depth research, the review of ideas provided in this paper tap into a deep array of research in knowledge and learning, with specific reference to recent neuroscience understanding that is emerging, and looks to psychology, physics, cell biology, systems and complexity, cognitive theory, social theory and spirituality for their contributions. The five books are heavily referenced (look to the larger work for these references) and, considering the individual as an intelligent complex adaptive learning system (Bennet et al., 2015b), entangle materials from science to philosophy, facts to psychology, management to poetry and words to pictures. This much shorter review can only partially represent this approach.

At this point in the history of humanity ? in the midst of a conscious expansion of our human capacity and understanding ? the rules are changing. As we move away from predictable patterns susceptible to logic, we are increasingly reliant on our ?gut? instinct, an internal sense of knowing that can tap into the intuitional plane. Yet, this knowing can only serve us if we ?know? what to do with it, how to act. Development of our mental faculties is essential to acting. We are on a developmental journey of the body, mind and heart, moving from the heaviness of cause-and-effect linear extrapolations, to the fluidity of co-evolving with our environment, to the lightness of breathing our thought and feelings into reality. Grounded in development of our mental faculties, these are phase changes, each building on and expanding previous learning in our movement toward intelligent activity.

This review lays the groundwork for the ISCJ, exploring consciousness through the lens of the cause-and-effect logic of Phase 1 (Learning from the Past), the co-evolving of Phase 2 (Learning in the Present) and the creative leap of Phase 3 (Co-Creating the Future). This research connects the expansion of consciousness to development of the human knowledge system.

Some basic concepts of general systems theory are outlined. Some fundamental ideas of “unified concept philosophy” are presented, as a proposed new conceptual framework and metatheory for integrating knowledge in general and cybernetics and general systems in particular. It is shown how these ideas can provide unified approaches to the problems facing mankind and lead to the development of a new synthesis, bringing together into a whole the fundamental ideas of philosophy, science, religion, personal experience, ethics and the arts in a way that is relevant to the human situation and to practical living.

Asserts that the world needs to integrate economic issues with social demands and discusses ideas on the unity of knowledge (including Islamic theories). Develops a string model of the process of unification as seen by the Koran and applies it to the Islamic financing division of a Saudi Arabian bank to show how it can produce an “interactive financial index” encompassing social well‐being, economic development and financial profitability. Claims that this could not be achieved in any other way and contrasts the Islamic approach with mainstream economic ideas. Assesses how the Islamic approach works in practice by looking at the bank’s portfolio and relating it to social well‐being and policy.