1.2.3. Universities as rhizomatic Complex adaptive systems

Given the multi-disciplinarity of the research subject and the subsequent trans-disciplinarity of the research design, a fusion of concepts from complexity sciences[1] and the philosophy of Gille Deleuze and his co-author Felix Guattari is applied to allow for an analysis which does not fall into the reductionist trap of simplifying the model until a clear mechanistic ?cause-effect? relationship can be ?proven? with the obtained observations. Much rather the approach of treating knowledge entrepreneurship as a property within a ?rhizomatic? Complex Adaptive System (CAS), allows me to create a narrative which works with the notion of ?becoming? and ?emergence?. These seem much more appropriate to the dynamic process of knowing and entrepreneuring. Also, this approach seems better able to explain the existence of creation and innovation/invention. But allow me to introduce the concepts and their interplay as I see it in the studies setting (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1 – Knowledge entrepreneurship as raison d'etre for the university as rhizomic Compelex Adaptive System

Figure 1.2 intends to provide a visualization of the theoretical interpretative framework. The framework is used to give structure and coherence to the research through a shared frame of reference for the diverse phenomena that will be described as strange attractors (variables) to create an enabling climate and infrastructure for knowledge entrepreneurship in universities.

The system is defined through its balanced position "at the edge of chaos" between two fundamental properties of universities. The thematic nature of the universities knowledge practices and the presence of freedom or its antipode bureaucratic order on the other are used as meta- or fundamental-attractors constructing the ?gravitation? of the system. The idea is that the observable phenomena (strange attractors) that will be investigated and described in this research depend on these meta-attractors. The presence of aspects of bureaucracy, what Giddens called structure (Giddens, 1979) and Heidegger Gestell (Heidegger, 1978; , 1994) on the one side and the absence of rules and institutions that creates the chaotic and fertile environment of a jungle on the other side make up one dimension of the theoretical space. The other dimension represents the mission of the university and is bounded by two essential aims or knowledge domains. Techn?, the knowledge how to do something, on the one hand and episteme, wisdom or critical thinking and common sense on the other. This dimension mirrors the lately increasing importance of practical knowledge as demanded by the private sector (the market) leading to an education towards technological citizenship (the ability to participate in the economic system) and the education towards cultural citizenship (the ability to participate in society). Put differently, the techn? attractor represents the practical education or vocational training while the episteme attractor represents the knowledge as transformation of the self- or even knowledge as an end in itself. The result of education and research on the episteme side is critical thinking (Habermas, 1978) or reflexive capacity (Giddens, (Delanty, 2001; Harvey & Knight, 1996)) preparing arguments for knowledge discourses (in the social sciences). The results of techn? are trained workers (that know methods/have skills), technologies and knowledge about the physical reality.

As developed by Deleuze, real phenomena are never static/still but are always emerging always changing, always becoming something new. The still representation of the framework fails to express this ?living? aspect of the research matter. However an animated version of the diagram showing the temporal development as well as the rhizomatic vaporous connections forming and dissolving between fractalic actors can be imagined.

Allow me to quote Walsham to sum up the argument for the Deleuzian/complexity approach. ?The management of organizational change is not seen as a straightforward, rational process but as a jointly analytical, educational and political process. Power chance and opportunism are influential in shaping outcomes, as are design, negotiated agreements and master plans? (Walsham, 1993, p. 53). In short, knowledge entrepreneurship depends on the unique setting (structure, culture, power relations) and external context and therefore no detailed ?specialized? theory and quantitative data will allow for the explanation of real cases (not to speak of forecasting). But the in depth analysis of the processes of emergence of knowledge-entrepreneurial properties can lead to an understanding of the influential forces that determine the properties of the aspect of the system. I also feel in tune with McLaughlin (1999, p. 23) who seeks ?insight into the messy, long-drawn-out embedding of technology into the specifics of organizations?, rather then a simplistic management perspective.

1.2.3.1. Trans-disciplinarity - Best of both worlds

?No single perspective is sufficient when one is considering the development and use of an information system? (Nygaard, 2002, p. X)

Even though complexity and Deleuzian concepts are key aspects of the approach and analysis of the research, the usefulness of the methodology and perception of the traditional scientific paradigm are not neglected. After all, complex systems do follow rules and there are attractors and properties, which influence the condition and the becoming of the system effectively. Therefore it does make sense to conceptualize cause-effect constellations such as the knowledge entrepreneurship model developed by McDonald (2002), if they are embedded in a holistic understanding of the particularities of the Complex system they are immersed in[2].

As noted above the relationship between theory and practice is not uni-linear. ?Whilst the objective of critical social research is to inform conscious activity, it also derives its validity from active involvement in political struggle. From this perspective the production of knowledge is deeply embedded in the process of social transformation; both informing, and derived from, the struggle to consciously change the material world.? (Wainwright, 1997)

As will become clear in the analysis and discussion of the findings, the conditions and results of knowledge entrepreneurship depend on complex system properties on all levels. Only a holistic approach can do justice to the human experience of organizational existence which creates the university.

The following section will develop the theme and the ?originating theory? which is based on the traditional scientific paradigm.