Epistemic Objects, Artefacts and Organizational Change

Abstract

One of the key concepts of the neo-institutional studies of organizations has been routine—an established, rule-governed pattern of action. The concept of routine creates difficulties when used for making sense of the emergence of new practices or change in organizations and institutions. There are two reasons for this. First, routine was introduced originally to account for the continuity of organizational life. Second, it is based on theories of action and behaviour that focus exclusively on the pre-reflective and embodied aspects of human practice. This paper seeks an alternative approach by using the concepts of epistemic object and artefact mediation of human activity. It argues that representational artefacts, such as concepts and models, are instrumental in inducing change in human practices. Using the work of occupational health and safety inspectors as an example, it is shown how a practice or set of routines is made into an object of enquiry in order to generate a working hypothesis for an alternative practice. The hypothesis is further objectified by designing a set of informational tools and procedures that carry on the new practice.

The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: Productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration

“…This position situates the shared knowledge objects at the center of the interaction process, either as instruments or as objects of inquiry, not only as end outcomes. It views the knowledge objects as rather open-ended projections oriented toward something that is not known for sure and, as a consequence, as generators of new conceptions and solutions (Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005). As a result, work with these objects is a continuous process of transforming an object from its current state into a required end state.…”

A Framework for Clarifying “Participation” in Participatory Research to Prevent its Rejection for the Wrong Reasons

“…Practitioners know all too well that for participatory processes, "the devil is in the details," in the sense that outcomes largely depend on process (Beierle and http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art1/ Cayford 2002). This high sensitivity to context in participatory practice (Martin andSherington 1997, Miettinen andVirkkunen 2005) also means that it is exceedingly difficult to extrapolate from one case to another. However, people who are called to participate commonly do extrapolate from their own experiences and the accounts of others' experiences.…”

“…The academic debate typically focuses on what to do or analyze (Walker et al 2002), who to involve (Rowe andFrewer 2000, Fung 2006), or how to adapt to the local context (Kujala 2003, Miettinen and Virkkunen 2005, d'Aquino 2009. As this diversity spreads to the practice of participation, always with the same "participatory" label, the risk of confusion increases.…”

Des outils et méthodes en appui à la gestion de l'eau par bassin versant

“…Il nécessite la mise en oeuvre d'une réflexivité sur les pratiques et routines en cours, une capacité d'anticipation et de raisonnement moral [38]. Le jeu de rôles a ainsi une fonction de miroir social [39].…”