Complex Knowledge: Studies in Organizational Epistemology

The 16 chapters of this book are versions of articles and book chapters written by Tsoukas – Professor of Organisation Studies at Warwick University (UK) and of Organization and Management at ALBA (Greece) – during the late 1990s and early 2000s; and each given a greater or lesser degree of updating and modification. They are organised into three sections, entitled respectively: “towards a knowledge‐based view of organizations and their environments”; “organization as chaosmos: coping with organizational complexity”; and “meta‐knowledge – towards a complex epistemology of management research”. This shows the range of issues with which the book deals. Tsoukas denotes the “recurring themes” of the book as: creative action, incessant change, process, novelty, the complexity of organizational life, the unknowability of the future, complex management, requisite variety, theory development in organization and management studies, complex forms of understanding and theorizing, phronesis and practical reason, and the relationships between thinking/acting, theory/practice, and reason/praxis in organizations and organizational research. It immediately becomes clear that this is a much more serious text than much of the ephemera in the knowledge management arena. When the author adds that he gains inspiration and useful insights from Bergson, Dewey (John rather than Melville), Gadamer, Heidegger, James, Lakoff, Macintyre, Polanyi, Taylor, Rorty, Whitehead and Wittgenstein, and that these philosophers are therefore extensively represented in his reference lists, this impression is confirmed.

The book begins from the premise that organisations may be regarded as systems of knowledge, which they both create and use. It examines the questions of how knowledge is used in and by organizations, and what kinds of knowledge are involved, and also how practitioners, and researchers, know what it is they know. It draws deeply on the work of many academics and researchers, from philosophers to management scientists, and from critical theorists to computer scientists. Tsoukas takes a generally interpretivist/constructivist approach, while managing to anchor his arguments very much in the real world. I found his use of the thought of Gregory Bateson, and of Michael Polanyi, and his rebuttal of some of the commonly accepted views attributed to Nonaka and Takeuchi, to be particularly interesting, and arguably of most relevance to the concerns of the information specialist.

There is little direct reference to knowledge management per se, or to the wider contexts of information science or information management. Nor does Tsoukas cite the literature of these fields much, though many other disciplines are subject fields are included in his wide‐ranging literature analyses. The term “knowledge management” does not appear in the book's index, a clear indication that those hoping for some KM “quick wins” from the Tsoukas' insights will be disappointed. This does not mean that there is nothing of value in the book for those involved in this area. On the contrary, it is likely to be very useful, in setting their concerns and issues into a much wider intellectual context. They will probably find the chapters on “forms of knowledge and forms of life in organized contexts”, “what is organizational knowledge ?”, and “do we really understand tacit knowledge ?” of most direct relevance. However, anyone interested in the place of information and knowledge in organizations, or indeed in society generally, will find food for thought throughout the book.

Overall, this is a very worthwhile book, and “academic” in the best sense of the word: closely argued, well‐written, scholarly, thoroughly referenced, and providing a deep and thoughtful treatment of issues which are often treated superficially. It is by no means a primer of knowledge management, still less of information management. Nonetheless, it deserves to be read by information scientists, and should be required reading for anyone with “knowledge” in their job title, as well as for doctoral or masters students interested in these issues. Sadly, I fear that only the most reflective of practitioners will persevere with it.