When the Practice of Theorizing Meets the Theorizing of Practice. Social Knowledge Making in Organization Science Academia and Managerial Communities

The aim of the present work is to contribute to a better understanding of the relation between organization theory and management practice. It is organized as a collection of two papers, a theoretical and conceptual contribution and an ethnographic study. The first paper is concerned with systematizing different literatures inside and outside the field of organization studies that deal with the theory-practice relation. After identifying a series of positions to the theory-practice debate and unfolding some of their implicit assumptions and limitations, a new position called entwinement is developed in order to overcome status quo through reconciliation and integration. Accordingly, the paper proposes to reconceptualize theory and practice as a circular iterative process of action and cognition, science and common-sense enacted in the real world both by organization scholars and practitioners according to purposes at hand. The second paper is the ethnographic study of an encounter between two groups of expert academics and practitioners occasioned by a one-year executive business master in an international business school. The research articulates a process view of the knowledge exchange between management academics and practitioners in particular and between individuals belonging to different communities of practice, in general, and emphasizes its dynamic, relational and transformative mechanisms. Findings show that when they are given the chance to interact, academics and practitioners set up local provisional relations that enable them to act as change intermediaries vis-a-vis each other’s worlds, without tying themselves irremediably to each other and to the scenarios they conjointly projected during the master’s experience. Finally, the study shows that provisional relations were accompanied by a recursive shift in knowledge modes. While interacting, academics passed from theory to practical theorizing, practitioners passed from an involved practical mode to a reflexive and quasi-theoretical one, and then, as exchanges proceeded, the other way around.

How to explain: from theory to practice

Today we live in an age where the internet and artificial intelligence allow us to search for information through impressive amounts of data, opening up revolutionary new ways to make sense of reality and understand our world. However, it is still an area of improvement to exploit the full potential of large amounts of explainable information by distilling it automatically in an intuitive and user-centred explanation. For instance, different people (or artificial agents) may search for and request different types of information in a different order, so it is unlikely that a short explanation can suffice for all needs in the most generic case. Moreover, dumping a large portion of explainable information in a one-size-fits-all representation may also be sub-optimal, as the needed information may be scarce and dispersed across hundreds of pages. The aim of this work is to investigate how to automatically generate (user-centred) explanations from heterogeneous and large collections of data, with a focus on the concept of explanation in a broad sense, as a critical artefact for intelligence, regardless of whether it is human or robotic. Our approach builds on and extends Achinstein’s philosophical theory of explanations, where explaining is an illocutionary (i.e., broad but relevant) act of usefully answering questions. Specifically, we provide the theoretical foundations of Explanatory Artificial Intelligence (YAI), formally defining a user-centred explanatory tool and the space of all possible explanations, or explanatory space, generated by it. We present empirical results in support of our theory, showcasing the implementation of YAI tools and strategies for assessing explainability. To justify and evaluate the proposed theories and models, we considered case studies at the intersection of artificial intelligence and law, particularly European legislation. Our tools helped produce better explanations of software documentation and legal texts for humans and complex regulations for reinforcement learning agents.