IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v19y2007i4p425-463.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Learning in Hierarchies

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas H. Hammond

    (Department of Political Science, 303 South Kedzie Hall, Michigan State University, fEast Lansing, MI 48824, USA, thammond@msu.edu)

  • Kyle I. Jen

    (House Fiscal Agency, State of Michigan, PO Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909-7514, USA, kjen@house.mi.gov)

  • Ko Maeda

    (Department of Political Science, 125 Wooten Hall, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA, ko@unt.edu)

Abstract

The formal hierarchical structures of organizations can be expected to affect the organizations' behavior in many different ways. One kind of impact is that their structures may affect how their knowledge is organized. This is important because the different ways in which knowledge can be organized may affect what the organizations' decision makers learn from the information that their organizations have gathered, stored, and processed. However, rigorous testing of this general argument would not be easy, and so it would be useful if a preliminary means of assessment could be found so that we can better judge whether a full-scale test is warranted. Hammond (1993) noted that a library catalogue is also a formal structure for hierarchically organizing knowledge, which means that different kinds of cataloguing systems represent different ways of organizing knowledge. Two different kinds of cataloguing systems — the Library of Congress classification and the Dewey Decimal classification — are widely used in US libraries, and Hammond conjectured that these two different cataloguing systems will tend to bring different sets of books to the attention of library users; this in turn should be expected to have consequences for what the library users can most easily learn from the library. This article tests Hammond's conjecture in two university libraries, focusing on 40 classic books in political science. The results provide strong empirical support for the conjecture: although the two cataloguing systems do not appear to organize knowledge in completely different ways, what differences they do have nonetheless appear to have a striking impact on what users can most easily learn. Support is thus provided, albeit indirectly, for the general argument that how organizations are structured hierarchically should be expected to affect what organizational decision makers are able to learn.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas H. Hammond & Kyle I. Jen & Ko Maeda, 2007. "Learning in Hierarchies," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(4), pages 425-463, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:19:y:2007:i:4:p:425-463
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629807080776
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629807080776
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629807080776?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hammond, Thomas H & Thomas, Paul A, 1989. "The Impossibility of a Neutral Hierarchy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 155-184, Spring.
    2. -, 1986. "Agenda = Agenda," Series Históricas 8749, Naciones Unidas Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe (CEPAL).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Andrew Whitford, 2006. "Unitary, Divisional, And Matrix Forms As Political Governance Systems," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 10(4), pages 435-454, November.
    2. Ayranci, Evren, 2010. "Family involvement in and institutionalization of family businesses: A research," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center (PRADEC), vol. 3(3), pages 1-22, October.
    3. Agarwalla, Astha, 2011. "Agglomeration Economies and Productivity Growth in India," IIMA Working Papers WP2011-01-08, Indian Institute of Management Ahmedabad, Research and Publication Department.
    4. Nelson, Edward, 2017. "Reaffirming the Influence of Milton Friedman on U.K. Economic Policy," Working Papers 2017-01, University of Sydney, School of Economics, revised Feb 2017.
    5. Raitio, Kaisa, 2013. "Discursive institutionalist approach to conflict management analysis — The case of old-growth forest conflicts on state-owned land in Finland," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 97-103.
    6. David P Carter & Christopher M Weible & Saba N Siddiki & Xavier Basurto, 2016. "Integrating core concepts from the institutional analysis and development framework for the systematic analysis of policy designs: An illustration from the US National Organic Program regulation," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(1), pages 159-185, January.
    7. Miriam Hartlapp & Julia Metz & Christian Rauh, 2010. "The agenda set by the EU Commission: the result of balanced or biased aggregation of positions?," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 21, European Institute, LSE.
    8. Buitrago R., Ricardo E. & Barbosa Camargo, María Inés, 2021. "Institutions, institutional quality, and international competitiveness: Review and examination of future research directions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 423-435.
    9. Gerritsen, Rolf & Abbott, Jacky, 1989. "Again The Lucky Country?: Australian Rural Policy in 1988 and 1989," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(01), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Flinchbaugh, Barry L., 0. "The 1985 Farm Bill And Future Commodity Policy Education," Increasing Understanding of Public Problems and Policies, Farm Foundation.
    11. Tamara R. Lave & Lester B. Lave, 1991. "Public Perception of the Risks of Floods: Implications for Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(2), pages 255-267, June.
    12. Zyglidopoulos, Stelios C. & Georgiadis, Andreas P. & Carroll, Craig E. & Siegel, Donald S., 2012. "Does media attention drive corporate social responsibility?," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(11), pages 1622-1627.
    13. Khavul, Susanna & Pérez-Nordtvedt, Liliana & Wood, Eric, 2010. "Organizational entrainment and international new ventures from emerging markets," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 104-119, January.
    14. Blind, Georg, 2015. "Behavioural rules: Veblen, Nelson-Winter, Oström and beyond," MPRA Paper 66866, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    15. Mukul G Asher, 1989. "TAX REFORMS IN EAST ASIAN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES: Motivations, directions, and implications," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 3(1), pages 37-61, March.
    16. repec:gig:joupla:v:3:y:2011:i:3:p:95-126 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Fritz W. Scharpf, 1991. "Games Real Actors Could Play: The Challenge of Complexity," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 3(3), pages 277-304, July.
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/5405 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Paul, Bénédique & Garrabé, Michel, 2011. "Le capital institutionnel dans l'analyse du développement : Prolongement théorique et premier test empirique [Institutional Capital in Economic Development Analysis: Theoretical Continuation and Fi," MPRA Paper 39016, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    21. Amanda Wuth & Magdalena Cismaru, 2021. "A Conceptual and Operational Review of the Negative Financial Health Terminology and Constructs," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 14(4), pages 1-1, April.
    22. Jacob Bower-Bir & William Bianco & Nicholas D’Amico & Christopher Kam & Itai Sened & Regina Smyth, 2015. "Predicting majority rule: Evaluating the uncovered set and the strong point," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 650-672, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:19:y:2007:i:4:p:425-463. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.