Noam Cook

Autonomy, Interdependence, and Moral Governance

American Behavioral Scientist, Sep 1, 1994

Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing

Studi organizzativi, Feb 1, 2009

- Much current work on organizational knowledge, intellectual capital, knowledge-creating organiz... more - Much current work on organizational knowledge, intellectual capital, knowledge-creating organizations, knowledge work, and the like rests on a single, traditional understanding of the nature of knowledge. We call this understanding the epistemology of possession. since it treats knowledge as something people possess. Yet, this epistemology cannot account for the knowing found in individual and group practice. Knowing as action calls for an epistemology of practice, Moreover, the epistemology of possession tends to privilege explicit over tacit knowledge, and knowledge possessed by individuals over that possessed by groups. Current work on organizations is limited by this privileging and by the scant attention given to knowing in its own right. Organizations are better understood if explicit, tacit, individual and group knowledge are treated as four distinct and coequal forms of knowledge (each doing work the others cannot), and if knowledge and knowing are seen as mutually enabling (not competing). We hold that knowledge Is a tool of knowing, that knowing is an aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world, and that the interplay of knowledge and knowing can generate new knowledge and new ways of knowing. We believe this generative dance between knowledge and knowing is a powerful source of organizational innovation. Harnessing this innovation calls for organizational and technological infrastructures that support the interplay of knowledge and knowing. Ultimately, these concepts make possible a more robust framing of such epistemologically-centered concerns as core competencies, the management of intellectual capital, etc. We explore these views through three brief case studies drawn from recent research.

Design and Responsibility: The Interdependence of Natural, Artifactual, and Human Systems

Springer eBooks, 2008

Download

Making the Technological Trustworthy

Knowledge, Technology & Policy, Oct 8, 2010

Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argu... more Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argument that trusting technology is actually a matter of trusting people. I agree with Pitt's conclusion but differ with him on the nature of trust. I contend, nonetheless, that my understanding of trust actually reinforces Pitt's characterization of technology as "humanity at work." Keywords Technology and trust. Responsibility. Mutual expectations For Joseph C. Pitt, the question "Can We Trust Technology?" is actually about people not technology because both technology and trust, he argues, are essentially human affairs. This view is as valuable as it is provocative. While I agree with Pitt's conclusion that "it comes down to trusting people," I do so through an understanding of trust that differs from his. Yet, I think our differences actually attest to the strength of Pitt's general characterization of technology as "humanity at work" and to the need to see trust-at least an inescapable component of it-as ultimately resting with us, not with our gadgets. In differing with Pitt on the characterize trust, my focus is not primarily on what the word "trust" means but on what I understand the word to point to in human experience. All forms of human relationships entail mutual expectations. From kin to clan, from community to culture, people have always formed relationships with one another, and a part of what constitutes those relationships are expectations people have of one another. 1 Infants come to expect particular modes of interaction with their caregivers that address underlying needs. Members of prehistoric tribes no doubt had expectations of one another associated with roles within their particular tribe. Families, communities, clubs, teams, etc. are all built, in part, on the

Download

Turing, Searle, and the Wizard of Oz

Techné, 2010

Since the middle of the 20 th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution o... more Since the middle of the 20 th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution of capacities of living systems, particularly humans, to technological artefacts, especially computers-from Turing's opening gambit, to subsequent considerations of artificial intelligence, to recent claims about artificial life. Some now argue that the capacities of future technologies will ultimately make it impossible to draw any meaningful distinctions between humans and machines. Such issues center on what sense, if any, it makes to claim that gadgets can actually think, feel, act, live, etc. I outline this debate and offer a critique of its persistent polarization. I characterize two of the debate's major camps (associated roughly with Turing and Searle); argue that the debate's structure (including key assumptions inherent to each camp) precludes resolution; and, contend that some central clashes within the debate actually stem from an inadequately drawn distinction between claims about the capacities of artifacts and claims about the proper criteria for assessing such attributions. I offer a different perspective in which I: challenge some central elements of the debate that contribute to its perennially irresolvable state; hold that the debate needs to be placed more squarely in sync with how we in fact treat the attribution of such capacities to humans themselves; and, offer (unlike the other two camps) a foothold for making moral assessments of such proposed technologies.

Download

The Structure of Technological Revolutions and the Gutenberg Myth

New Directions in the Philosophy of Technology, 1995

... The difficulties in defining literacy and establishing levels of illiteracy are well covered,... more

Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing

Organization Science, Aug 1, 1999

Much current work on organizational knowledge, intellectual capital, knowledge-creating organizat... more Much current work on organizational knowledge, intellectual capital, knowledge-creating organizations, knowledge work, and the like rests on a single, traditional understanding of the nature of knowledge. We call this understanding the "epistemology of possession," since it treats knowledge as something people possess. Yet, this epistemology cannot account for the knowing found in individual and group practice. Knowing as action calls for an "epistemology of practice." Moreover, the epistemology of possession tends to privilege explicit over tacit knowledge, and knowledge possessed by individuals over that possessed by groups. Current work on organizations is limited by this privileging and by the scant attention given to knowing in its own right. Organizations are better understood if explicit, tacit, individual and group knowledge are treated as four distinct and coequal forms of knowledge (each doing work the others cannot), and if knowledge and knowing are seen as mutually enabling (not competing). We hold that knowledge is a tool of knowing, that knowing is an aspect of our interaction with the social and physical world, and that the interplay of knowledge and knowing can generate new knowledge and new ways of knowing. We believe this generative dance between knowledge and knowing is a powerful source of organizational innovation. Harnessing this innovation calls for organizational and technological infrastructures that support the interplay of knowledge and knowing. Ultimately, these concepts make possible a more robust framing of such epistemologically-centered concerns as core competencies, the management of intellectual capital, etc. We explore these views through three brief case studies drawn from recent research.

Download

Practice, Knowing, and Innovation

Making the Technological Trustworthy

Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argu... more Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argument that trusting technology is actually a matter of trusting people. I agree with Pitt's conclusion but differ with him on the nature of trust. I contend, nonetheless, that my understanding of trust actually reinforces Pitt's characterization of technology as "humanity at work." Keywords Technology and trust. Responsibility. Mutual expectations For Joseph C. Pitt, the question "Can We Trust Technology?" is actually about people not technology because both technology and trust, he argues, are essentially human affairs. This view is as valuable as it is provocative. While I agree with Pitt's conclusion that "it comes down to trusting people," I do so through an understanding of trust that differs from his. Yet, I think our differences actually attest to the strength of Pitt's general characterization of technology as "humanity at work" and to the need to see trust-at least an inescapable component of it-as ultimately resting with us, not with our gadgets. In differing with Pitt on the characterize trust, my focus is not primarily on what the word "trust" means but on what I understand the word to point to in human experience. All forms of human relationships entail mutual expectations. From kin to clan, from community to culture, people have always formed relationships with one another, and a part of what constitutes those relationships are expectations people have of one another. 1 Infants come to expect particular modes of interaction with their caregivers that address underlying needs. Members of prehistoric tribes no doubt had expectations of one another associated with roles within their particular tribe. Families, communities, clubs, teams, etc. are all built, in part, on the

Download

Making the Technological Trustworthy: : On Pitt on Technology and Trust (Special Issue)

Knowledge Technology Policy, 2010

Autonomy, Interdependence, and Moral Governance: Pluralism in a Rocking Boat

American Behavioral Scientist, 1994

Drawing on key themes in the work of Sir Geoffrey Vickers, this article outlines the need for a m... more Drawing on key themes in the work of Sir Geoffrey Vickers, this article outlines the need for a moral perspective that can address the pluralistic social realities of the dawning 21st century. The trends of globalism and localism are traced out against the material advances that our technologies make possible and the often conflicting moral claims to a share of that wealth that our distinct but increasingly interdependent cultures make inevitable. We have come to see these moral claims as entitlements of membership in society and have designed an array of institutions that we hold responsible for their fulfilment. This status quo, however, is systemically unstable, unsustainable, and, therefore, morally unjustifiable. To achieve an acceptable form of stability (in terms of human systems, the virtuous mean between chaos and stagnation), we must, at the very least, learn to manage both conflicting moral claims and conflicting standards of morality—we must develop a system of moral gov...

Download

The push and pull of the world: how experience animates practice

Evidence &# 38; Policy: A Journal of …, 2011

A refreshed and expanded understanding of experience can contribute to a relevant reassessment of... more

Making distinctions: reflections on learning, knowing and evaluating

Kybernetes, 2014

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer some reflections on “making distinctions”, which ... more Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to offer some reflections on “making distinctions”, which in contrast to “separating”, the author views as unifying rather than dividing. The author remarks follow the theme of the conference, “Acting-Learning-Understanding”, and characterise making distinctions as inherently cybernetic both conceptually and in practice. The classic cybernetic principle of error detection and correction, for example, typically has a lopsided focus on “error”. The author treats it as the on-going single act of distinguishing between “error” and “correct”, where to determine the degree to which a system is in error is simultaneously to determine the degree to which it is correct. Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents a viewpoint though conceptual analysis, reflection, and critique, drawing on examples form the research (employing ethnography, case studies, observation, and participant observation) and consulting. Findings – In practice we detect “corr...

Understanding policy practices: action, dialectic and deliberation in policy analysis

Understanding Governance in the Network Society, 2003

... It is this nexus of language and activity that is the object of the sociolinguistic analysis ... more

Turing, Searle, and the Wizard of Oz: Life and Custom Among the Automata or How Ought We to Assess the Attribution of Capacities of Living Systems to Technological Artefacts?

Since the middle of the 20th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution of... more Since the middle of the 20th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution of capacities of living systems, particularly humans, to technological artefacts, especially computers —from Turing’s opening gambit, to subsequent considerations of artificial intelligence, to recent claims about artificial life. Some now argue that the capacities of future technologies will ultimately make it impossible to draw any meaningful distinctions between humans and machines. Such issues center on what sense, if any, it makes to claim that gadgets can actually think, feel, act, live, etc. I outline this debate and offer a critique of its persistent polarization. I characterize two of the debate’s major camps (associated roughly with Turing and Searle); argue that the debate’s structure (including key assumptions inherent to each camp) precludes resolution; and, contend that some central clashes within the debate actually stem from an inadequately drawn distinction between claims ...

Download

Turing, Searle, and the Wizard of Oz

Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2010

Since the middle of the 20th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution of... more Since the middle of the 20th century there has been a significant debate about the attribution of capacities of living systems, particularly humans, to technological artefacts, especially computers—from Turing’s opening gambit, to subsequent considerations of artificial intelligence, to recent claims about artificial life. Some now argue that the capacities of future technologies will ultimately make it impossible to draw any meaningful distinctions between humans and machines. Such issues center on what sense, if any, it makes to claim that gadgets can actually think, feel, act, live, etc. I outline this debate and offer a critique of its persistent polarization. I characterize two of the debate’s major camps (associated roughly with Turing and Searle); argue that the debate’s structure (including key assumptions inherent to each camp) precludes resolution; and, contend that some central clashes within the debate actually stem from an inadequately drawn distinction between claims a...

Download

Making the Technological Trustworthy

Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 2010

Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argu... more Joseph C. Pitt, based on his understanding of trust and of technology, makes the provocative argument that trusting technology is actually a matter of trusting people. I agree with Pitt's conclusion but differ with him on the nature of trust. I contend, nonetheless, that my understanding of trust actually reinforces Pitt's characterization of technology as "humanity at work."

Download

Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance Between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing

by John Seely Brown and Noam Cook

Download

Local Knowledge - Global Innovation: Leveraging Distributed Expertise

Reflections: The SoL Journal, 2000

Design and Responsibility: The Interdependence of Natural, Artifactual, and Human Systems

Philosophy and Design, 2008

Download

Uploads

Papers by Noam Cook

Log In