Abstract
This chapter has two main objectives. The first is to suggest that a greater emphasis on double-loop learning and implementable validity represents a next important focus of research if the field of organizational learning is to become more scientifically robust and provide greater assistance to practitioners. The second objective is to propose that the widespread ideas about theory and research methods that scholars use, when implemented correctly, will inhibit the progress to achieving this objective. I plan to focus on the defensive routines of the scholarly community of practice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Ackoff, Russell L. (1999) Re-Creating the Corporation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C. (1970) Intervention Theory and Method: A Behavioral Science View, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Argyris, C. (1996) Unrecognized defenses of scholars: impact on theory and research, Organization Science, 7(1): 79–87.
Argyris, Chris (1980) Inner Contradictions of Rigorous Research. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Argyris, Chris (1982) Reasoning, Learning, and Action: Individual and Organizational. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, Chris (1985) Strategy, Change, and Defensive Routines. Boston, MA: Putnam.
Argyris, Chris (1987) Reasoning, action strategies and defensive routines: the case of organizational dynamics practitioners, in R.N. Woodman and W.A. Passmore (eds), Research in Organizational Change and Development, Vol. 1, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 89–128.
Argyris, Chris (1990) Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning. Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Argyris, Chris (1993) Knowledge for Action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, Chris (2000) Flawed Advice and the Management Trap. New York: Academic Press.
Argyris, Chris (2002) Double loop learning, teaching and research, Academy of Management Learning and Education, 1: 206–18.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R. and Smith, D. (1985) Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skills for Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. and Schön, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. (1996) Organizational Learning 17. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley.
Barker, R., Dembo T. and Lewin, K. (1941) Frustration and regression, Studies in Child Welfare, University of Iowa Press.
Burgelman, R.A. (2002) Strategy is Destiny. New York: The Free Press.
Campbell, D.T. and Stanley, J.C. (1963) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Design for Research. Skokie, IL: Rand-McNally.
Cartwright, D. (1950) Field Theory and Social Science, ed. Kurt Lewin. New York: Harper.
Christensen, Clayton M. and Overdorf, Michael (2000) Meeting the challenge of disruptive change, Harvard Business Review, March—April, pp. 66–76.
Churchland, P.M. (2000) The Engine of Reason, the Seat of the Soul. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Coggin, William C. (1974) How the multidimensional structure works at Dow Corning, Harvard Business Review, 52 (January—February): 54–65.
Ezzamel, M., Willimott, H. and Worthington, F. (2001) Power, control and resistance in ‘the factory that time forgot’, Journal ofManagement Studies, 38(8): 1053–80.
Fromm, E. (1955) The Sane Society. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Halal, William E. (1996) The New Management: Democracy and Enterprise are Transforming Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Kochler.
Jacques, Elliot (1951) The Changing Culture of a Factory. London: Tavistock/Heinemann.
Kubie, Lawrence S. (1958) Neurotic Distortions of the Creative Process. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Lewin, Kurt (1935) A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Likert, Rensis (1961) New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nelson, Richard and Winter, S.G. (1982) An Evolutionary Theory of Change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Nielson, Peter Axel and Narjberg, Jacob (2001) Assessing software processes: low maturity or sensible practice, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 13: 51–67.
Perry, Barbara (1984) Enfield: A High Performance System. Bedford, MA: Digital Educational Services and Publishing.
Peters, Thomas J. (2001) Leadership: sad facts and silver linings, Harvard Business Review, 79(11): 121–8.
Simon, H.A. (1969) The Science of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ven, Andrew Van de and Polley, D. (1992) Learning while innovating, Organizational Science, 3(1): 93–115.
White, R.W. (1959) ‘Motivation recommended: the concept of competence’, Psychological Review, 66: 297–333.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2004 Chris Argyris
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Argyris, C. (2004). Double-Loop Learning and Implementable Validity. In: Tsoukas, H., Mylonopoulos, N. (eds) Organizations as Knowledge Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524545_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230524545_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-51065-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-52454-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Business & Management CollectionBusiness and Management (R0)