Please check with author for revised version before citing. Address correspondence to:

Purpose: This is an attempt to define constructivism in a pluralistic way. It categorizes constructivist work within a three-dimensional space rather than along one dimension only. Practical implications: The interdisciplinary definition makes it possible to perceive the rather heterogenous constructivist community as a coherent and largely consistent scientific effort to provide answers to demanding complex problems. Furthermore it gives authors of Constructivist Foundation the opportunity to locate their own position within the community. Conclusions: I offer a catalogue of ten points that outline the constructivist program. Each of these aspects invites authors to extensively reflect on it and to approach it from their disciplinary background to do work in any of the types of investigations the journal covers. Key words: constructivist approaches, interdisciplinarity, dogmatism. W hat is constructivism? Consider the following example. Suppose that we take a piece of chalk and write on a blackboard “A = A. ” Now we point at it and ask, “What is

Abstract. It is usual when writing on research methodology in dissertations and thesis work

This paper combines ideas from disciplines ranging from physics, epistemology and philosophy of science to military affairs, to sketch a scientific framework for studying organizational learning, knowledge and memory. Threads are woven from this background into a generic analytical framework that reveals the biological nature of knowledge in learning organizations. There are many epistemological and conceptual difficulties surrounding the concept of autopoiesis, so most of the present work focuses on explaining it in generic terms, establishing an epistemological framework in which the autopoietic status of any kind of complex system can be evaluated, and then deriving generic concepts of memory, learning and knowledge within the autopoietic framework. The autopoietic status of human organizations is then tested in relation to this framework, and some of the direct implications regarding organizational learning and adaptation are highlighted.

To survive and flourish in a changing and unpredictable world, organizations and people must maintain strategic power over necessary resources- often in the face of competition. Knowledge contributes to that strategic power. Without vigilance to maintain its currency and accuracy, the value of knowledge depreciates as circumstances change over time. Karl Popper's evolutionary epistemology and Maturana and Varela's concept of autopoiesis provide a paradigmatic framework for considering the roles and importance of time in constructing knowledge and using it to maintain strategic power. Following Popper, knowledge is constructed, used and evaluated via cyclically-iterated processes. We introduce nine timebased frames of reference based in this Popperian autopoietic paradigm to explore the relationships between time and a utility-based valuation of knowledge as it is constructed and applied. We believe this framework and associated paradigmatically consistent vocabulary provide useful tools for analyzing organizational knowledge management needs.