title: Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate?

authors: Dare, Tim

subjects: allocations legitimate

abstract: It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth-directed and non-truth-directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non-truth-directed, and suggest that in truth-directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted.

text: Putting the burden of proof in its place: When are differential allocations legitimate? It is widely assumed that legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof are ubiquitous: that in all cases in which opposing views are being debated, one side has the responsibility of proving their claim and if they fail, the opposing view wins by default. We argue that the cases in which one party has the burden of proof are exceptions. In general, participants in reasoned discourse are all required to provide reasons for the claims they make. We distinguish between truth-directed and non-truth-directed discourse, argue that the paradigm contexts in which there are legitimate differential allocations of the burden of proof (law and formal debate) are non-truth-directed, and suggest that in truth-directed contexts, except in certain special cases, differential allocation of the burden of proof is not warranted.

year: 2008

title: A method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization

authors: Sun, Peter Yih-Tong

subjects: learning organization

abstract: The primary objective of this thesis is to evolve  a method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization .  To fulfill this, I approached the thesis by examining several research questions and using multiple research methodologies.  The research questions were not all established at the outset.  Rather, they evolved as features of a journey down a road less traveled.  With this journey came the decision to write the thesis in the first person.

The first research question was  Q1:  What will bridge the divide between organizational learning and the learning organization?   By reviewing the extant literature on organizational learning and the learning organization, I developed a theoretical framework that linked these two streams.  The framework suggests that the extent of divide between the two streams is determined by the extent of learning transfer.  The learning transfer is affected by the learning barriers operating at the levels of learning (i.e., individuals, groups, and organizational).  This led me to my second research question Q2:  What are these barriers to learning transfer and how do they impact the levels of learning in the organization?   I cumulated the dispersed literature on learning barriers, and synthesized the learning barriers into five key dimensions: Intrapersonal, relational, cultural, structural, and societal.  I then used the Delphi technique on 17 individuals to investigate the impact of the learning barriers on the levels of learning.  This generated two additional research questions.  The third research question was Q3:  How do individuals initiate a double-loop change?   This deals with the little researched area of initiation of double-loop change whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning.  I used multiple case studies to examine this question and found that individuals transit through four distinct stages when initiating double-loop change: 'embedded', 'embedded discomfited', 'scripted', and 'unscripted'.  Once double-loop learning has been initiated at the individual level, it is important that it is transferred across the organization.  Therefore, my fourth research question was Q4:  How does a new shared understanding for a double-loop change develop across the organization?   I did an in-depth, single case based investigation of an organization.  Using Identity and Complexity theory perspectives, I tracked the evolving new shared understanding through four phases: de-identification phase, situated re-identification phase, transition phase, and identification with core ideology phase.

The key insights from examining these research questions, particularly insights from examining Q3 and Q4, enabled me to suggest nine key organizational interventions necessary to overcome the learning barriers and develop a learning organization:  Identifying, developing, and dispersing double-loop mastery; Enabling constructive contradictions; Creating a superordinate organizational identity; Building emotional intelligence (in individuals and groups); Ambidextrous leadership; Strategic support for experimentation; Promoting 'systems doing'; Accessibility of valid information; Institutionalizing scanning across industry boundaries.  When these nine organizational interventions are implemented, they produce five new learning organization orientations: genetic diversity, organizational ideology, organizational dualism, organizational coupling, and strategic play.  These five new learning organizational orientations provide the archetypes of the learning organization.  I then developed an instrument to assess these five new orientations, and did a preliminary testing of the instrument.

While aspects of my work overlaid with previous knowledge, new advances in knowledge were established by:

  Postulating a link between the streams of organizational learning and learning organization
  Synthesizing learning barriers into the five key dimensions, and investigating their impact on the levels of learning
  Understanding the stages of double-loop learning initiation by an individual, whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning
  Understanding the process of a new shared understanding evolving
  Postulating five new orientations of the learning organization

text: A method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization The primary objective of this thesis is to evolve  a method for assessing and developing features of a learning organization .  To fulfill this, I approached the thesis by examining several research questions and using multiple research methodologies.  The research questions were not all established at the outset.  Rather, they evolved as features of a journey down a road less traveled.  With this journey came the decision to write the thesis in the first person.

The first research question was  Q1:  What will bridge the divide between organizational learning and the learning organization?   By reviewing the extant literature on organizational learning and the learning organization, I developed a theoretical framework that linked these two streams.  The framework suggests that the extent of divide between the two streams is determined by the extent of learning transfer.  The learning transfer is affected by the learning barriers operating at the levels of learning (i.e., individuals, groups, and organizational).  This led me to my second research question Q2:  What are these barriers to learning transfer and how do they impact the levels of learning in the organization?   I cumulated the dispersed literature on learning barriers, and synthesized the learning barriers into five key dimensions: Intrapersonal, relational, cultural, structural, and societal.  I then used the Delphi technique on 17 individuals to investigate the impact of the learning barriers on the levels of learning.  This generated two additional research questions.  The third research question was Q3:  How do individuals initiate a double-loop change?   This deals with the little researched area of initiation of double-loop change whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning.  I used multiple case studies to examine this question and found that individuals transit through four distinct stages when initiating double-loop change: 'embedded', 'embedded discomfited', 'scripted', and 'unscripted'.  Once double-loop learning has been initiated at the individual level, it is important that it is transferred across the organization.  Therefore, my fourth research question was Q4:  How does a new shared understanding for a double-loop change develop across the organization?   I did an in-depth, single case based investigation of an organization.  Using Identity and Complexity theory perspectives, I tracked the evolving new shared understanding through four phases: de-identification phase, situated re-identification phase, transition phase, and identification with core ideology phase.

The key insights from examining these research questions, particularly insights from examining Q3 and Q4, enabled me to suggest nine key organizational interventions necessary to overcome the learning barriers and develop a learning organization:  Identifying, developing, and dispersing double-loop mastery; Enabling constructive contradictions; Creating a superordinate organizational identity; Building emotional intelligence (in individuals and groups); Ambidextrous leadership; Strategic support for experimentation; Promoting 'systems doing'; Accessibility of valid information; Institutionalizing scanning across industry boundaries.  When these nine organizational interventions are implemented, they produce five new learning organization orientations: genetic diversity, organizational ideology, organizational dualism, organizational coupling, and strategic play.  These five new learning organizational orientations provide the archetypes of the learning organization.  I then developed an instrument to assess these five new orientations, and did a preliminary testing of the instrument.

While aspects of my work overlaid with previous knowledge, new advances in knowledge were established by:

  Postulating a link between the streams of organizational learning and learning organization
  Synthesizing learning barriers into the five key dimensions, and investigating their impact on the levels of learning
  Understanding the stages of double-loop learning initiation by an individual, whilst engaging with the interfaces at the levels of learning
  Understanding the process of a new shared understanding evolving
  Postulating five new orientations of the learning organization

year: 2006

title: The concept of partnership and The Treaty of Waitangi: Three case studies

authors: Morrison, Sandy

subjects: Te Tiriti o Waitangi

abstract: There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate about the meaning and intent of different versions of the Treaty of Waitangi and about the extent of its relevance to contemporary New Zealand. It is in this context that a number of organisations and institutions in New Zealand, anxious to demonstrate their positive support for the creation of a just society, have attempted to restructure in ways that allow for a 'partnership' between Māori and Pākehā. With reference to three different case studies, I argue here that such restructuring, although generally very well intentioned and very welcome, should not be seen - as it frequently is - as an expression of the fulfilment of partnership obligations arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi. To treat organisational restructuring in this way, particularly where it does not provide both 'partners' with an equal right to determine the operational parameters and future direction of the organisation, is to misrepresent (often wholly unintentionally) the nature of the Treaty. Nevertheless, one way of resolving some of the debates concerning the meaning and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi might be to establish a principle of equal partnership in the governance and management of state institutions.

text: The concept of partnership and The Treaty of Waitangi: Three case studies There has been, and continues to be, considerable debate about the meaning and intent of different versions of the Treaty of Waitangi and about the extent of its relevance to contemporary New Zealand. It is in this context that a number of organisations and institutions in New Zealand, anxious to demonstrate their positive support for the creation of a just society, have attempted to restructure in ways that allow for a 'partnership' between Māori and Pākehā. With reference to three different case studies, I argue here that such restructuring, although generally very well intentioned and very welcome, should not be seen - as it frequently is - as an expression of the fulfilment of partnership obligations arising out of the Treaty of Waitangi. To treat organisational restructuring in this way, particularly where it does not provide both 'partners' with an equal right to determine the operational parameters and future direction of the organisation, is to misrepresent (often wholly unintentionally) the nature of the Treaty. Nevertheless, one way of resolving some of the debates concerning the meaning and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi might be to establish a principle of equal partnership in the governance and management of state institutions.

year: 2005