This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Duguid, P. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

What Talking About Machines Tells Us

University of California, USA

Orr’s work falls on one side of a marked divide separating rule-based theories from practice-focused research. From within the tradition of workplace studies (which show themselves intermittently susceptible to rule-based assumptions), Orr argues that his pre-decessors failed to see the sort of improvisation and bricolage central to his analysis, for want of looking. I claim, by contrast, that it was more for want of seeing. Early work-place studies could barely conceive of workplace autonomy or improvisation as anything but counterproductive. By attacking the theoretical demarcation between mental and manual labour implicit in this presupposition, Orr’s analysis presents both management and theorists with the surprisingly uncomfortable challenge of the knowledgeable worker. A brief analysis of the EUREKA project’s support of workplace learning suggests how Orr’s work challenged and still challenges more complacent views of knowledge in organization and ‘knowledge management’.

Key Words: workplace studies • organizational learning • knowledge • knowledge management

Organization Studies, Vol. 27, No. 12, 1794-1804 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0170840606071896


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?