Abstract:

Introduction:
We are 120 undergraduates in the College of Business at the University of Rhode Island. In groups of three, we set out to understand the meaning of Complex Adaptive Systems [1] over a period of two weeks in digital space, we called The Fishbowl [2]. We found that when constructing meaningful knowledge-content, our effectiveness increased whenever we “engaged” with text and, “expressed” our reflections to each other. As knowledge-workers constructing meaning, our underlying purpose was to add value to the group’s knowing of the subject matter. In sequential steps, our paper presents one group’s journey into their understanding of Complex Adaptive Systems and, constructing meaning for themselves about it.
1. We define ‘engagement’ as “conveying interaction with text outside the group to each other inside the group” [3]. This has two complementary components: we used the world outside the group as a resource for learning and, we used this information to make a positive impact inside the group.
2. We define ‘expressiveness’ as “the public display of symbols or enactment of symbolic action for performative effect” [4].

Methodology:
1. We present 10+1 steps as a way of linking theory and practice so that knowledge can be action based and derived from practice in the real world as opposed to being generated through abstract survey methods.
2. Our method is best described as sorting, sifting and selecting from word-pools to create and construct understandings about the subject matter.
3. Our method is one of abstracting, framing and interpreting text in a social situation; the Fishbowl.
4. Our approach to understanding the subject matter belongs to the social-constructionist school of thought. The idea under-pinning this approach is understanding how knowledge has an unfolding transformative potential and, how the images and ideas we hold of ourselves as knowledge-workers has fundamental impact on how our knowing unfolds in the group. The underlying assumption is the belief that we do make and shape our understanding of the world and have the ability to do so anew.

Outcome:
1. We are 40 groups, three individuals each. In digital space, called the Fishbowl, “we showed ourselves to ourselves” [5]. Every individual played an active role when interpreting the subject matter. As active agents (6), we selected symbols and framed interpretations in 10+1 steps from our own standpoint. Both engagement and expression became performances, that is, “interpretive events.”
2. Organizations have learnt that chasing numbers does not translate into productivity and that linear thinking is archaic. Clearly, functioning effectively as a team is far more valuable than any individual achievement. Our paper makes a difference by restructuring the experience away from individual fact acquisition towards team-building experiences.
3. We see our understanding of the subject matter not as radically new but as recognizing kinship within the group, as well as differences between groups.

References:
[1] Bartlett and Ghoshal, “Managing Across Borders,” (1989).
[2] Howard Rheingold, “Net Smart,” (2014)
[3] Mark Allen Peterson, “Anthropology and Mass Communication,” (2005).
[4] William O. Beeman, “Culture, Performance and Communication in Iran,” (1982).
[5] Clifford Geertz, “The Interpretation of Cultures,” (1973).
[6] John Dewey, “How We Think,” (1933).

Keywords:

Action Research, Knowledge-Content, Creativity, Social Constructivism.