autopoiesis y organizacion goldspink 2009

8/17/2019 Autopoiesis y Organizacion Goldspink 2009

1/22

Goldspink, C. & Kay R. 2009, „Autopoiesis and organizations: A biologial !ie" o# organizational

$ange and %et$ods #or its study . ort$o%ing in, 'agal$aes, Rodrigo, (an$ez, Ron )eds*,‟

+Autopoiesis in rganizations and -n#or%ation (yste%s, /lse!ier (iene )Ad!aned (eries in

'anage%ent*.

Autopoiesis and organizations: a biologicalview of social system change and methodsfor their study.

Chris Goldspink & Robert ay

Abstract

!or many years we have been concerned with the role that autopoietic theory can play

in resolving what is often termed the micro"macro problem in social science. #hemicro"to"macro problem$ concerns our capacity to e%plain the relationship between

the constitutive elements of social systems people' and emergent phenomena

resulting from their interaction i.e. organizations( societies( economies'. #o this end

we have argued Goldspink and ay )**+( )**,'( for a synthesis of autopoietic and

comple%ity theory( where autopoietic theory provides a basis for understanding the

characteristics of the micro"level agents that make up social systems human

individuals'( whilst comple%ity theory provides a basis for understanding how these

characteristics influence the range and type of macro"level behaviours that arise from

their interaction. -mplicit to this view is the assumption that it is biology which

specifies the characteristics and ualities of human agents. #herefore it is also biologywhich constrains the range and type of interactions these agents can generate( and

hence the form of structure which emerges from that interaction. #his approach

differs considerably from the disembodied sociological path taken in /uhmann$s

011*' application of autopoietic systems.

#he main contribution of 2aturana and 3arela$s 014*' autopoietic theory has been to

provide a concise specification of the defining characteristics of biological agents

including humans. -t serves therefore to advance our understanding of the micro facet

of the micro"macro problem. 5efore his death( 3arela began to e%plore further the

implications of autopoiesis for understanding social macro phenomena drawing

increasingly on a comple% systems view #hompson and 3arela )**06 Rudrauf et al.

)**+'. 7e seek to e%tend this offshoot of the original contribution.

-n this chapter we attend in particular( to some of the practical implications that result

from a social e%tension of autopoiesis. 8rinciple amongst these is our understanding

of the basis for and nature of organizational change. 7e begin by giving a brief

overview of the micro"macro problem and an outline of our approach to its resolution.

7e then draw on this approach to develop a perspective on stability and change in

organizations. 7e illustrate this using two cases and in so doing also provide

e%amples of methods which can be used to map the interplay of micro and macro

behaviour in particular organizational conte%ts.

0


2/22

Introduction

2any approaches to understanding organization change approach the organization as

a relatively static entity. 8unctuated euilibrium models have also become popular

but here too the notion of unfreeze"change"refreeze suggests change as an e%ception a

break with the more normal stability upon which organizational control is predicated

#aplikis )**9'. 5y contrast #soukas and Chia )**): 9*' have argued that „C$ange

%ust not be t$oug$t o# as a property o# organization. Rat$er, organization %ust be

understood as an e%ergent property o# $ange. C$ange is ontologially prior to

organization it is t$e ondition o# possibility #or organization. ‟. -ntuitively we agree

with their position. ;owever it raises some significant uestions for practitioners(

principle among them: if change is onstituti!e of the organization rather than

something which managers can control( then how subemergence$. #he concept has however been

criticised as a cover all ? used to appear to e%plain what we cannot currently e%plain

in scientific terms Clayton and @avies )**'. -t is here then that the micro"macro

problem takes hold. Bmergence remains particularly controversial when applied to

social science awyer )**0( )**9'. #he reason is that the mechanisms of emergence

within social systems can be e%pected to be different from those present in other

natural systems( due to the presence of cognitive agents Castelfranchi 01146 Bllis

)**6 Goldspink and ay )**( )**4'. ;ow they are distinct is made clear from the

application of autopoietic theory.

7e use autopoiesis to better understand the reciprocal interplay between the micro

behaviour of agents on the one hand and the resulting pattern of behaviours at the

macro level on the other. #hese emergent macro structures are somewhat robust

patterns associated with particular groups of agents. #hey have traditionally been

referred to using terms like institutions( norms and( the focus of our interest here

organizations. #hese patterns do not result from upward causation only( as is the case

with particle interaction for e%ample( but rather they include a downward causal path:

constraining the scope of action of the very agents which give rise to them. -n other

words macro"level patterns have micro"level effects. #his has been referred to as

immergence Castelfranchi 0114'.

!uchs et al )**9: ++' takes an emergentist perspective in his classification of

alternative approaches to the micro"macro relationship within social theory as follows.

)


3/22

2ost social theory falls into one or other of the first two categories. #hese theories

work with a dichotomous view of macro and micro: focusing attention on


4/22

Autopoiesis

5efore illustrating what an autopoietic view can bring to addressing micro"macro

interplay to understand real organizational dynamics( it is worth providing a brief

overview of the key elements of the theory and its implications.

#he theory was developed to provide e%planations of the nature and characteristics of living systems biological cells and meta"cellular organisms'. #he central idea is that

living systems are characterized by their self"production: the components of the

system producing the components of the system. A key implication of this is that the

reuirements for the maintenance of self"production constrain the way in which

individuals can interact with and know$ their environments.

7ithin autopoietic theory( an individual$s behaviour is determined by particular states

of nervous system activity 2aturana and 3arela 014*'( this activity is defined by the

concept of operational losure( which presupposes that in all cases nervous system

activity results from and leads to further nervous system activity in a closed cycle

2aturana & 3arela 014*'. 8ossible and actual changes in state of the nervous systemare therefore defined by the nervous system$s structure and not e%ternal forces.

B%ternal or environmental forces may act as triggers for change but it is the nervous

system$s structure that dictates which forces can be a trigger 2ingers 0110'.

#herefore changes to the structure of one personDs nervous system( and conseuently

their behaviour( will be uniue to that person. #he environmental perturbations that

act as a change trigger in one person will not necessarily trigger a change in another(

or if they do( the change that is triggered may take a different form andEor have

different implications for the viability of that person in hisEher environment( given

hisEher history. -ndividuals may contribute to the emergence of a stable pattern( but

they do so by acting on the basis of their uniue history.

Although the nervous system is operationally closed it is plastic( its structure changes

over time and it is this uality that allows for changes in behaviour and subseuently

what we describe as learning 2ingers 0110'. #herefore as the state of the nervous

system changes( so too will the potential range of behaviours that its

structuraldeterminacy makes possible. #he term used for this history of structural

change is ontogeny 2aturana and 3arela 011)'.

5arandiaran )**9' has argued that the advent of the central nervous system in

organisms allows the them to e%ploit the rapid response times of the neural system

supporting a significantly increased set of responses to environmental perturbation.

#he responsiveness of the central nervous system may be further enhanced to thee%tent that it operates as a far"from"euilibrium system( at the edge of chaos( as has

been argued within the emerging field of neuro"dynamics elso 01196 Rocha 0116

van Gelder 01146 #hompson and 3arela )**06 Cosmelli et al. )**'. -t is the resulting

asymmetry between the state space of possible configurations and the range of

response needed to maintain immediate regulation in a given environment that gives

rise to the agency$ that is of concern to social emergentists. According to 5arandiaran(

$e $ig$er t$e agent3s apaity #or adapti!ely guided sel#restruturing )plastiity*

t$e $ig$er its be$a!ioural adapti!e autono%y and $ene its ageny$( )**9'.

Autopoietic theory therefore casts a light on the nature and origins of agency

fundamental to understanding social emergence( specifying the biological processes

that support and constrain it.

,


5/22

;e


6/22

#his( of course( represents an emergentist view( but one very different from that

involving physical systems @avies )**'. -n human social systems( including

organizations( there is an additional feedback loop made possible by the fact that

human agents can observe at a distance( distinguish pattern at the social level(

recognise themselves as contributors to that pattern( and change their behaviour

accordingly Goldspink and ay )**4'. !rom this perspective an organization$sapparent coherence is a product of self"referential cycles 01406 ;e


7/22

7hile developments in comple% systems and social simulation have advanced our

ability to map comple% dynamics( this has generally been in systems where agents

have limited cognitive capacity awyer )**+( )**9'. 7hile developments in these

techniues hold promise for the future( at the current time there are few techniues

that support our understanding of dynamics that result from the refle%ive emergence

associated with human agents Goldspink and ay )**6 )**46 )**4'. -t is thereforenecessary to use more conventional research methods to gain insights into the

operations of organizations. A range of methods have been developed for the study of

linguistic interaction. ome focus on mapping the denotative content of utterances

while others are concerned with the illocutionary or pragmatic force of language as a

basis for direct influence earle 0116 ;abermas 01'. -n the following two cases

we illustrate techniues which can be employed to surface the change dynamics from

which the organization emerges( focusing primarily on alternative methods for

linguistic analysis.

The Case studies

ormal ualitative or uantitative techniues will often provide a static snapshot of pattern at one or more levels but leave much of the generative process unclear. -n

particular( many conventional methods( founded as they are on functionalist

reductionism( fail to support any analysis of the interplay between micro and macro

levels. ;owever creative recombination of e%isting techniues sometimes makes

them more useful. -n the first case study we combine two well established methods6

narrative analysis 5runer 0110( 01106 nowden )**06 5rowning and 5oudes )**9'

and repertory grid techniue !ransella et al. )**,6 Hankowics )**,' and illustrate

how these can be used in combination to generate deep insights into factors which

influence the dynamics of an organization. -n the second case we use analysis of the

illocutionary force of language to identify influence patterns associated withgovernance of an institution.

Case Study One: Financial Services trust and innovation potential

#he research conte%t was a small business unit within a large financial services

institution. #he business unit in which the case study was conducted was lead by a

General 2anager and a si% ;eads of @epartment each with multiple direct reports in a

strongly hierarchical structure. Bach department in the business unit was responsible

for the management of different outsourcing arrangements and contracts with

suppliers. #he leadership team were concerned at the low level of collaboration

between the different @epartments and the effect this had on innovation and the

uality of decisions making. -n response they designed a small intervention to

facilitate collaboration across the 5usiness Init. #he task involved bringing together

enior 2anagers from the different @epartments to solve a set problem.

#he managers were asked to establish a ta%onomy against which the top 0** suppliers

could be categorized( according to whether they were strategic bringing new

capability'( aligned providing improved capability to an e%isting strategy' or standard

providing supply to a non"strategic function'. -t was intended that the ta%onomy

would form the basis for new relationship management models. 8articipation in the

pro


8/22

#he outcome of the pro


9/22

behavior and collective conseuences. #hese accounts play a part in the maintenance

of e%isting order andEor to reflect the basis for change in established routines by

revealing compartmentalisation in the linguistic domains.

-n this case study a very simple narrative collection was undertaken. #his involved

asking participants to recall two recent collaboration e%periences with which they had

been involved within the institution: one a positive e%perience and the other a

negative e%perience. ot all participants were able to think of two stories that they

felt were worth telling and as a result 0, stories were collected out of a possible )).

#he stories were analyzed with the participant at the time of the interview. i% key

events were selected that >stuck in their mind. #hese events were euivalent to what

@avid nowden )***' would describe as an anedote. 5reaking the stories down

into anecdotes supported analysis of the stories as a whole but also identified discrete

events for subseuent thematic analysis across narratives. Bighty four separate

anecdotes were collected and clustered according to commonalities in their content(

i.e. common words( depiction of similar events etc

Grid Interviews

8ersonal Construct #heory was developed by George elly 01+' in the 019*s.

Central to the theory is the idea of constructive alternativism 5annister and !ransella

0141'. #his simply states that any event or situation is sub


10/22

Repertory grids collect fine grained data about individuals sense"making about some

target. 7hile the data is fine grained it is also sharply focused so the challenge in

using grid as a means for data collection is to ensure that the data converges well onto

the topic of inuiry. Critical here are the choice of items of e%perience elements' that

will be used to elicit constructs and the focus uestion used during elicitation

Hankowics )**,'. Blements need to be tangible items of e%perience i.e. time boundevents( things or people'. !or this e%ercise we chose to use relational descriptors as

prompts and to have the respondents supply specific people who matched the

descriptor. #hese people then became the elements in that respondent$s grid. Bach

respondent would have different individuals( but individuals which were selected

against criteria common to all respondents. Respondents were asked to identify eight

colleagues from within the senior manager team who matched the following

descriptions:

• A colleague with whom - share information.

• A colleague with whom - don$t or seldom share information.

• A person who is senior to me whom - learnt a lot• A person who senior to me from whom - learnt a little

• A direct report with whom - share info

• A direct report with whom - don$t share. A colleague who - trust implicitly

• A colleague that - don$t trust.

• A colleague - feel comfortable asking for advice

• A colleague - don$t feel comfortable asking for advice

#hese descriptions were considered to capture ualities of relationships associated

with collaboration and also to assemble into an appro%imate continuum of relational

strength. #he minimum uality of relationship upon which any level of collaboration

could be built was taken as a willingness to share information. Above that would be arelationship in which the respondent would be comfortable asking advice6 learn from6

and trust implicitly$.

Constructs were then elicited using the triadic method !ransella 01' using the

comparison uestion 7hich two of these people is similar to one another and different

from the third in terms of how they helped or hindered collaboration=. #he answers

were captured directly on a grid and scored by the respondent in the normal way.

Analysis

All the people involved selected and described the same negative e%perience( the

e%ercise in generating collaboration discussed earlier. As might be e%pected the

narratives captured uite distinct and different accounts and interpretations of events:

uniue personal histories of the shared e%perience. #hese narratives provided

anchoring events against which the individual sense"making of the participants as

revealed by the repertory grids' could be interpreted. #hey also revealed the wider

environmental factors and historical seuence( as well as the individuals reading of

cultural rules( norms and institutional practices( which they believed influenced the

outcome.

Grids were analyzed using the software package -diogrid Grice )**)'. 8atterns in the

relationship between elements and constructs were e%amined using 8rincipal

Component Analysis. #his enabled us to identify( for each respondent( the type of person he she was likely to share information with compared to those with whom

0*


11/22

heEshe would be unlikely to share6 what type of person heEshe would trust compared to

not trust etc. -t also revealed the degree of association between the element classes6 if

likelihood to share information was closely associated with trust or based on different

factors in a relationship for e%ample.

According to elly( a person$s construct system provides them with a basis for

hypothesizing about conseuences of their and others actions. #ight construal as

indicated by a high mean correlation between constructs in the grid'( would suggest

that a respondent would have relatively unvarying predictions based on hisEher

construal of a situation. -n other words( the characteristics the respondent attributes to

individuals would( from hisEher perspective( be e%pected to provide good prediction of

the collaborative behaviour of others. /oose construal( by contrast( would suggest a

person with more fle%ible views( someone open to surprise. -nferences can therefore

be drawn about a respondent$s openness to change. -n addition an ordination score can

be used to reveal the location of a construct within the respondents construct

hierarchy( with higher scores suggesting higher ordination or more meaningful and

abstract' constructs /andfield and Cannell 0144'. -ndividuals are less likely to bewilling to change higher order constructs as they have significant implications for how

heEshe makes sense of the world elly 01+6 5annister and !ransella 0141'.

Combining the results

A comparative analysis of the results of the two data sets was undertaken on two

levels. !irstly( individual stories were mapped to individual repertory grids. #hese

two data sets revealed insight into which constructs in each individuals meaning

system primarily orientate their construal of events and guide their action. econdly(

the narrative clusters emerging from the thematic analysis of the stories were mapped

to the output from the group grid analysis.

Isually repertory grid analysis is undertaken at the individual level( however( in this

instance we conducted a thematic analysis across the constructs of the entire group

see Hankowics )**, for a systematic process for doing this'. #his analysis provided

insight into how each agent made sense of their situation and the degree to which

there were commonalities to this sense"making. 2apping these two together revealed

the areas of common construal around a distinct series of events. -t also means we

could see the depth with which that construal is held and therefore also which

dimensions of the social system$s patterns can easily change( and those that will not.

!rom the combined analysis it was possible to discern three primary distinctions that

orientated respondents toward one another and influenced their willingness to

collaborate.

Observations

Appro%imately two thirds of the respondents had one or more of these as key

characteristics in the way they distinguished collaboration between members of the

group. #hese three distinctions appeared to form the basis for the creation of

subgroups within the broader team( where people of like characteristics have a much

higher propensity to trust and collaborate with each other rather than those they

perceived as being different. #he combination of depth with which these constructs

were held and the degree to which they were shared across the group strongly drovethe eventual outcome of the particular activity we studied( i.e. the group that was

00


12/22

supposed to be collaborating split to create sub"groups closely aligned to the

constructs described above.

7hat is interesting here( is that overtly all the participants( wanted to collaborate( and

indeed initially did collaborate around the problem they had been set( thus creating a

new pattern of interaction that had not e%isted before. ;owever( over a relatively

short period( this new pattern broke down with a slightly modified version of the

pree%isting pattern of interaction re"emerging. -n the evidence collected there is a

clear e%planation for this. -ndividuals were construed through established constructs

and these influenced subseuent behaviour. As there was nothing in the design of the

intervention which was directed at challenging or disrupting the e%isting ways of

making sense of the situation( and in particular( nothing powerful enough to compel

the need to reconsider deeply held constructs( no change was achieved. Fn the

contrary( the e%isting patterns reappeared in a slightly modified form.

Conclusion on case study one

#his case selected for this research centered on an intervention designed to address a

limited capacity for innovation in a senior management team ? i.e. a perceived

inability for managers to bring new ideas( understandings and capabilities to

challenging situations. 7e have e%amined the reasons for the failure of this

intervention by seeking better to understand the way in which individuals contribute

to maintaining current patterns in the organization and how the intervention failed to

address these. #his represented a move away from approaches which treat

organizations in a reified way to a comple% systems view focusing in particular on

understanding the interplay between macro and micro levels.

#he intervention initially used to try to build collaboration in this work unit( assumed

that collaboration was not occurring due to formal structural inhibitors institutionalsilos and or physical distance' andEor lack of opportunity. -t was anticipated that

providing different people from different backgrounds with the opportunity to work

on a common pro


13/22

intervention is likely to be ineffective. 7e have shown how conventional methods( in

this case narrative and repertory grid techniue may be combined to help locate these

drivers in the linguistic domain pertaining to the particular conte%t.

Case Two – Wikipedia

#his case concerns a less conventional form of institution( an online community albeit

one which has self"organized to produce a product more commonly produced by a

command organization. #he interest here was to understand how widely dispersed and

heterogeneous in terms of having different skills( knowledge( goals and resources'

agents can come together to produce a credible encyclopaedia.

#his case is being undertaken as a part of the BI funded research pro


14/22

• #he relationship between goal( technical artefacts and social structures and the

e%ercise of individual agency within the resulting domains.

Methodology

-n 7ikipedia there are two classes of activity:

• editing activity6 and

• conversation about editing activity.

As this study was not concerned with the editing activity but with the self"organizing

and self"regulating phenomena which make it possible( the @iscussion pages of a

sample of Controversial and !eatured articles were analysed. Controversial articles

were chosen as they were more likely to involve the need to resolve conflict and

hence place greater demand on effective normative regulation6 !eatured articles by

contrast may be so rated due to the attainment of a higher level of consensus among

participants.

#he activity on the @iscussion pages comprises a series of utterances or speech acts

between contributors about editing activity and the uality of product. #he only means

for editors to influence one another$s behaviour to structurally couple' is through

these utterances. Fn the face of it then( these pages should provide a fertile source to

support analysis of how self"organization was occurring and to identify the agent

characteristics and mechanisms involved.

-t was anticipated that the process may involve uite subtle use of linguistic cues.

Accordingly sampled pages were coded to a high level of resolution using the 3erbal

Response 2ode 3R2' ta%onomy tiles 011)'. 3R2 is very attractive where there

is a need as in this case' to capture many of the subtleties of natural language use that

derive from and rely on the intrinsic fle%ibility and ambiguity of natural language yet

map them to a more formal or a%iomatic system needed for computer simulation. A

range of additional codes were applied( including6 whether a listener accepted or

validated an utterance6 the e%plicit invocation of norms or rules6 the associated deontic

command6 and the style and focus sub


15/22

domains. !or the sake of simplicity we depict


16/22

phenomenal domains with the norms or rules typical of that domain. ;abermas

distinguishes between communicative acts and strategic action. #he former is action

based on consensus while the latter implies action resulting from the e%ercise of

power or compulsion. #he latter is not possible in 7ikipedia as there are very few

means for compulsion or e%ercise of formal or authoritative power. #he intrinsic

openness of 7ikipedia means that the ma


17/22

as autopoietic. !urther( the concept of autopoiesis only offers new insight into systems

that do self?produce in a physical domain: biological systems as per the genesis of the

concept. -n relation to other classes of system the concept of operational closure and

self?organization are sufficient and euivalent

#o revisit some fundamentals( the criteria 2aturana and 3arela 014*' used to

distinguish autopoietic systems are:

0. their principle output is themselves ( i.e. they are first and foremost self?producing6

). they bring forth their own boundary as a result of their ongoing process of self

production6

+. they are operationally closed and are therefore autonomousLtheir response to

perturbation being entirely determined by their structure6

,. in the case of composite unities there is mutual dependence between the levels of autopoiesis( the continued autopoiesis of the components of a composite unity isdependent on the maintenance of the autopoiesis of the composite unity and viceversa.

Criterion ) refers to the necessary e%istence of a boundary$. #his is ine%tricably linked

to self?production as it is the boundary( amongst other things( which is to be self?

produced. #he key issue concerns the reuired tangibility or materiality of such a

boundary. #he e%istence of a physical boundary was an important attribute of

autopoietic systems identified in the earlier work of 2aturana and 3arela although

there was ambiguity about whether the physicality was a necessary condition for a

system to be classed as autopoietic. Gaines 0140' identifies( for e%ample( that in

2aturana and 3arela$s 019 work( Autopoiesis and Cognition: t$e organization o# t$e

li!ing, from which the above criteria were drawn( the authors permit that an

autopoietic unity may be distinguished from its environment by a +onrete or

oneptual operation o# distintion.. #his implies that an autopoietic unity may arise

both as an ontological fact andEor as a result of an epistemological act of an observer.

-f the reuirement for tangibility is to be so rela%ed( it is still necessary to identify the

boundedness of autopoietic systems and to identify how this boundedness is self?

maintained.

2ingers 0119' notes that the boundary of a social system is not physical in the way

that a cell boundary is physical. #here has been some attempt to euate boundary with

belonging to some class or set. Meleny and ;ufford( for e%ample( adopt this approach.

#hey argue that social or categorical boundaries are readily distinguished and that

restricting the definition to tangible boundaries +ser!es no use#ul purpose 0110:

+))'. 2ingers( in addressing this point states:

A physical boundary has a spatial dimension forming a barrier between inside and

outside. #his is not the case for a membership? type boundary6 some members are

not nearer the outside than others 2ingers 0119: 0)4'.

#hus in 2ingers view( this substitution is unsatisfactory. Replacement of a physical

boundary with a categorical distinction is substitution of a different euivalence class.

A categorical distinction has no necessary operational basis or topological

characteristics. 2embers are identified as related through a shared characteristic( there

is no implied relation either spatially or through identification of functional

interdependence.

0


18/22

2ingers reference to topology is interesting and important. -t points to une%pected

areas of ambiguity in the concept of boundedness( even for physical systems. ;e


19/22

theoretical. -t helps answer a long standing controversial uestion among users of

autopoietic theory: are social systems including organizations' autopoietic=

@espite protestations to the contrary autopoiesis and comple%ity theory can provide

practical tools and guidance to real world organizational and social problems. -n

combination they offer an opportunity to move past many of the long standing

problems of alternative social and organizational theory which are largely based on

the assumption of change as the e%ception rather than the norm 5urrell and 2organ

014*'. #hey provide a means for directly theorising about and( perhaps more

importantly( researching and responding managerially to the interplay or dialectic

between micro and macro level phenomena which are constitutive of organizational

phenomena. 7hile the theory we have been developing is not yet complete or fully

articulated and while techniues which could see it applied most directly such as

multi"agent modelling' are still under"developed we have demonstrated here that it

can still be put to use.

7e have also argued that the greatest potential lies in working with the original

conception developed by 2aturana and 3arela not on the grounds that it was complete

and inviolate( but on the grounds that it offers a critical foundation otherwise lacking

in social theory: an answer to the uestion in what way is human social behaviour

derived from and constrained by our biology=$. B%cellent work is underway to

advance and consolidate this foundation without needing to violate the essential

premises upon which the original theory was based. 7e refer here to the work being

undertaken in neuro"phenomenology #hompson and 3arela )**06 Rudrauf et al.

)**+6 #hompson )**,'( Artificial /ife 2oreno and Bt%eberria 01196 2oreno et al.

0116 5arandiaran )**96 5arandiaran and 2oreno )**6 @ui


20/22

5runer( H. 0110'. Q#he arrative Construction of Reality.Q Critical Bnuiry 180': )*.

5runer( H. 0110'. Qelf"making and 7orld making.Q Hournal of Aesthetic Bducation

20': 00.

5urrell( G. and G. 2organ 014*'. ociological 8aradigms and Frganizational

Analysis. /ondon( ;einemann.

Castelfranchi( C. 0114'. imulating with Cognitive Agents: #he -mportance of cognitive emergence. 2ulti"agent ystems and Agent 5ased -mulation. H. .

ichman( R. Conte and . Gilbert. 5erlin( pringer.

Clayton( 8. and 8. @avies )**'. #he Re"Bmergence of Bmergence: #he Bmergentist;ypothesis from cience to Religion. F%ford( F%ford Iniversity 8ress.

Cosmelli( @.( et al. )**'. eurodynamics of consciousness. #he Cambridge;andbook of Consciousness. 8. @. Melazo( 2. 2oscovitch and B. #hompson.Cambridge( Cambridge Iniversity 8ress.

@autenhahn( . )**)'. Q#he Frigins of narrative: -n search of the transactional formatof narratives in human and social animals.Q -nternational Hournal of Cognitionand #echnology 10': ).

@avies( 8. )**'. #he 8hysics of @ownward Causation. #he Re"Bmergence ofBmergence: #he Bmergentist ;ypothesis from cience to Religion. 8. Claytonand 8. @avies. F%ford( F%ford Iniversity 8ress.

@e Haegher( ;. and B. A. @i 8aolo )**'. Q8articipatory ense"making: An enactiveapproach to ocial Cognition.Q 8henomenology and the ognitive ciencesforthcomming.

@i 8aolo( B. A. and ;. /izuka )**'. Q;ow not' to 2odel Autonomous 5ehaviour.Q

5iosystems.

@i 8aolo( B. A.( et al. )**'. ;orizons for #he Bnactive 2ind: 3alues( ocial-nteraction and 8lay. Bnaction: #owards a ew 8aradigm for Cognitive

cience. H. tewart( F. Gapenne and B. A. @i 8aolo. Cambridge 2A( 2-#8ress.

@ui


21/22

Goldspink( C. and R. ay )**'. ocial Bmergence: @istinguishing Refle%ive and

on"refle%ive modes. AAA- !all ymposium: Bmergent Agents and

ocialities: ocial and Frganizational Aspects of -ntelligence. 7ashington.Goldspink( C. and R. ay )**4'. Agent Cognitive Capabilities and Frders ofBmergence: critical thresholds relevant to the simulation of social behaviours$.

A-5 Convention( Communication( -nteraction and ocial -ntelligence.Aberdeen.

Goldspink( C. and R. ay )**4'. Agent Cognitive Capability and Frders ofBmergence. Agent"5ased ocieties: ocial and Cultural -nteractions. G.#ra


22/22

2aturana( ;. R. and !. H. 3arela 011)'. #he #ree of nowledge: #he 5iological Roots

of ;uman Inderstanding. 5oston( hambhala.

2ingers( H. 0110'. Q#he Cognitive #heories of 2aturana and 3arela.Q ystems

8ractice 4,': +01"++4.

2ingers( H. 0119'. elf"producing systems: implications and applications of

Autopoiesis. ew ouk( 8lenum.2oreno( A. and A. Bt%eberria 0119'. Agency in natural and artificial systems. an

abastian( pain( @epartment of /ogic and 8hilosophy of cience Iniversityof the 5asue Country.

2oreno( A.( et al. 011'. QCognition and /ife.Q 5rain and Cognition !4: 0*"0)1.

Rocha( /. 2. 011'. QBigenbehavior and ymbols.Q ystems Research 1!+':

+0+4,.

Rudrauf( @.( et al. )**+'. Q!rom Autopoiesis to europhenomenology: !rancisco

3arelaDs e%ploration of the biophysics of being.Q 5iol. Res !$: )"9.

anger( /. )**9' Q#he Barly ;istory of upedia and 7ikipedia: A 2emoir.Q lashdot

%olume( @F-:awyer( . R. )**0'. QBmergence in ociology: Contemporary 8hilosophy of 2indand ome -mplications for ociology #heory.Q American Hournal of ociology1&7+': 990"949.

awyer( . R. )**+'. QArtificial ocieties: 2ultiagent ystems and the 2icro"macro

/ink in ociological #heory.Q ociological 2ethods & Research !1: +4.

awyer( . R. )**9'. ocial Bmergence: ocieties as Comple% ystems. Cambridge(

I( Cambridge Iniversity 8ress.

earle( H. R. 011'. peech Act: An Bssay in the 8hilosophy of /anguage.

Cambridge( Cambridge Iniversity 8ress.

nowden( @. )***'. Qew 7ine in Fld 7ineskins: !rom organic to comple%

knowledge management through the use of story.Q Bmergence 2,': 0,.nowden( @. )**0'. Qarrative 8atterns.Q nowledge 2anagement AR.

tiles( 7. 5. 011)'. @escribing #alk: A #a%onomy of 3erbal Response 2odes( age.

#aplikis( #. )**9'. QAfter 2anagerialism.Q B:CF 7+&,': )"0,.

#hompson( B. )**,'. Q/ife and 2ind: !rom Autopoiesis to neurophenomenology( a#ribute to !rancisco 3arela.Q 8henomenology and the cognitive ciences !:+40"+14.

#hompson( B. and !. H. 3arela )**0'. QRadical Bmbodiment: neural dynamics and

consciousness.Q #RB@ in Cognitive ciences 0*': ,04",)9.

#hompson( B. and !. H. 3arela )**0'. QRadical embodiment: neural dynamics and

consciousness.Q #RB@ in Cognitive ciences 0*': .

#soukas( ;. and R. Chia )**)'. QFn Frganizational 5ecomming: Rethinking

Frganizational change.Q Frganization cience 1!9': 9"94).

van Gelder( #. 0114'. Q#he dynamical hypothesis in cognitive science.Q 5ehavioral

and 5rain ciences 21: 09"9.

7eik( B. )**' Q7orking Relationships( A 2eta view on tructure and Agency.Q

#heory and cience %olume( @F-:

Meleny( 2. and . @. ;ufford 0110'. QAll Autopoietic ystems must be ocialystems: An application of Autopoietic Criteria in ystems Analysis.Q Hournalof ocial and 5iological tructures( 14+'.

autopoiesis y organizacion goldspink 2009

Documents