Yönetim Problemlerini Çözümsüz Kılmak: Epistemik Döngüsel Muhakeme

Yıl 2022, Cilt: 24 Sayı: 1, 21 - 52, 31.05.2022

Mehmet Selim Derindere

https://doi.org/10.54838/bilgisosyal.1010414

Cited By: 1

Öz

evi problemleri tespit ve teşhis ederek bunlara etkin çözümler geliştirmektir. Yönetim problemlerinin etkin olarak çözülebilmesi için problem bağlamının doğru modellenmesi, nedenlerinin isabetli teşhis edilmesi, çözümü için gereken bilgilerin edinilmesi ve bu bilgilerin sağlıklı olarak muhakeme edilmesi, uygulamaya konması ve sonuçlarının dikkatle takip edilmesi gerekir. Çözümler istenen sonuçları üretmediğinde ideal olan, problem çözme sürecinde dâhil olanların, çözüm için gereken bu adımları gözden geçirerek hataları bulmaları ve düzeltmeleridir. Örgütlerde gerçek problemlerle karşı karşıya olan yöneticilerin, problemleri hatalı tanımladıkları, tanımladıkları problemlere etkin çözümler geliştiremedikleri, geliştirilen çözümlerin uygulamaya koymada zorluklarla karşılaştıkları ve çözümlerin istenen sonuçları üretmediği görülmektedir. Bunun, birçok sebebin yanı sıra, yöneticilerin muhakeme süreçleri ile ilgili olduğu ileri sürülebilir.

Bu çalışmada, yönetim sorunlarında problemlerin çözümsüz olacak şekilde tanımlanmasına ve probleme, çözümünü neredeyse imkansız kılacak şekilde çözüm geliştirilmesine ve uygulanmasına sebep olan döngüsel bir muhakeme şekli olarak Epistemik Döngüsellik (Epistemic Circularity) önerilecektir. Epistemik Döngüselliğin yönetim problemlerinde kullanılmasının sonuçları gerçek bir problem çözme örneği ile sunulacaktır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Yönetimde Problem Çözme, Epistemik Döngüsellik, Çıkarım Merdiveni, Döngüsel Muhakeme

Making Management Problems Unsolvable: Epistemic Circular Reasoning

Öz

As the world of management that gets increasingly complex, one critical task for managers is to detect and diagnose problems and develop solutions for these problems. In order to effectively solve a problem, the problem context should be modeled correctly, causes diagnosed accurately, information required for the solution should be gathered and this information should be reasoned about in a sound way. Following a sound reasoning the information is expected to be turned into effective and persistent solutions. When the solutions fail to produce the intended results, ideally, those involved in the solution process review the problem solving process, detect their errors and fix them. What is observed in organizations is that managers facing real problems make faulty diagnoses, fail to develop effective solutions to the problems they diagnose, face difficulties in putting the solutions to action and the solutions fail to produce intended results. We claim that among many reasons, the reasoning processes of the managers is responsible for this.
In this study, Epistemic Circularity is suggested as a reasoning process responsible for the problems diagnosed in ways that make these problems unsolvable, develop and implement solutions that make resolution almost impossible. A case will be presented that demonstrates the consequences of using Epistemic Circularity in management problems.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Management problem solving, Epistemic Circularity, Ladder of Inference, Reasoning

Kaynakça

• Ackoff, R. L. (1967). Management misinformation systems. Management Science, 14(4), 147-156. doi:10.1108/eb000823
• Alston, W. P. (1986). Epistemic Circularity. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 47(1), 1-30.
• Argyris, C. (1987). Bridging economics and psychology: The case of the economic theory of the firm. American Psychologist, 42(5), 456-463.
• Argyris, C. (1992). Overcoming Organizational Defenses. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 15(2), 26.
• Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for Action A Guide to Overcoming Barriers to Organizational Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Argyris, C. (2000). Flawed Advice and Management Trap. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Argyris, C. (2004). Double-Loop Learning and Implementable Validity. H. Tsoukas ve N. Mylonopoulos (Ed.), Knowledge, Learning and Dynamic Capabilities içinde (ss. 29-45). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
• Argyris, C. (2007). Double Loop Learning in a Classroom. M. Reynolds ve R. Vince (Ed.), Handbook of Experiential Learning and Management Education içinde (ss. 21-34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Argyris, C., Putnam, R. ve Smith, D. M. (1985). Action Science. New York: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
• Argyris, C. ve Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning A Theory of Action Perspective. Massachussets: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
• Argyris, C. ve Schön, D. A. (1996). Organizational Learning II Theory Method and Practice. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publishing.
• Arieli, D., Friedman, V. J. ve Agbaria, K. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263-290. doi:10.1177/1476750309336718
• Austin, J. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Beck, J. S. (2011). Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Basics and Beyond (2nd Editio.). New York: The Guilford Press.
• Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification Without Awareness: A Defense of Epistemic Externalism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Bondy, P. ve Delaplante, K. (2011). Against epistemic circularity. OSSA Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation içinde (ss. 1-8). Windsor.
• Burns, J. C. ve Okey, J. R. (1985). Development of an integrated process skill test: TIPS II. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 22(2), 167-177.
• Ericsson, K. A. ve Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data (Revised Edition.). Cambridge, MA, USA: A Bradford Book.
• Friedman, V. J. (2001a). Action science: Creating communities of inquiry in communities of practice. Handbook of Action Research, Thousand Oaks: Sage, 131-143.
• Friedman, V. J. (2001b). Designed blindness: An action science perspective on program theory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 22(2), 161-181. doi:10.1016/S1098-2140(01)00121-7
• Hasenfeld, Y. ve Furman, W. (1994). Intervention research as an interorganizational exchange. Intervention research: Design and development for human service içinde (ss. 297-311).
• Hayakawa, S. I. ve Hayakawa, A. R. (1941). Language in Thought and Action. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.
• Heisenberg, W. (1972). Physics and beyond: Encounters and conversations. New York: Harper & Row.
• Jenkins, C. S. I. (2011). Reflective Knowledge and Epistemic Circularity. Philosophical Papers, 40(3), 305-325.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. London: Penguin Books.
• Knight, F. H. (2014). Risk, Uncertainty and Profit (2014 Repri.). Cambridge: Pantianos Classics.
• Lammenranta, M. (2006). Epistemic Circularity. Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://iep.utm.edu/ep-circ/ adresinden erişildi.
• Le Fevre, D. M., Robinson, V. M. J. ve Sinnema, C. E. L. (2015). Genuine inquiry. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(6), 883-899.
• Lederman, N. G., Schwartz, R. S., Abd-El-Khalick, F. ve Bell, R. L. (2002). Preservice teachers’ understanding and teaching of the nature of science: An intervention study. The Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 1(2), 135-160.
• Popper, K. R. (2002). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge (2nd Editio.). London: Routledge Classics.
• Razer, M. ve Friedman, V. J. (2016). From Exclusion to Excellence: Building Restorative Relationships to Create Inclusive Schools. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
• Robinson, V. ve Lai, M. K. (2006). Practitioner Research for Educators. California: Corwin Press.
• Rudolph, J. W., Taylor, S. S. ve Foldy, E. G. (2001). Collaborative Off-Line Reflection: A Way to Develop Skill in Action Science and Action Inquiry. P. Reason ve H. Bradbury (Ed.), Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice içinde (ss. 405-412). London: Sage Publications.
• Schmitt, F. F. S. (2004). What Is Wrong with Epistemic Circularity? Philosophical Issues içinde (C. 14, ss. 379-402). Schwarz, R. (2013). Smart Leaders, Smarter Teams: How you and your team get unstuck to get results. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday.
• Simon, H. A. (1971). Designing organizations for an information-rich world. Greenberger (Ed.), Computers,Communications and the Public Interest içinde . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
• Simon, H. A. (1978). Information-processing Theory of Human Problem Solving. Handbook of Learning and Cognitive Processes içinde (C. V, ss. 271-295).
• Simon, H. A. (1994). Bottleneck of Attention: Connecting Thought with Motivation. W. D. Spaulding (Ed.), Integrative Views of Motivation, Cognition and Emotion içinde (ss. 1-22). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
• Sperber, D. ve Mercier, H. (2017). The Enigma of Reason: A New Theory of Human Understanding. Penguin UK. Van Cleve, J. (2003). Is Knowledge Easy–or Impossible? Externalism as the Only Alternative to Skepticism. S. Luper (Ed.), The Skeptics: Contemporary Essays içinde . Hampshire: Ashgate.
• Vogel, J. (1987). Tracking, Closure, and Inductive Knowledge. S. Luper-Foy (Ed.), The Possibility of Knowledge: Nozick and His Critics içinde (ss. 197-215). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Watzlawick, P. (1977). How real is real?: Confusion, disinformation, communication. New York: Vintage Books. Watzlawick, P. (1984). The Invented Reality: How Do We Know What We Believe We Know. London: W.W. Norton & Company. Wolfberg, A. ve Dixon, N. M. (2000). Speaking Truth to Power: Nurturing a Reflective Culture at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency. Reflections, 7(4), 1-13. Wright, J. H., Basco, M. R. ve Thase, M. E. (2005). Learning Cognitive-Behavior Therapy: An Illustrated Guide. New York: American Psychiatric Publishing.