This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hammond, T. H. Articles by Maeda, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Learning in Hierarchies

An Empirical Test Using Library Catalogues

Department of Political Science, 303 South Kedzie Hall, Michigan State University, fEast Lansing, MI 48824, USA, thammond{at}msu.edu

Kyle I. Jen

House Fiscal Agency, State of Michigan, PO Box 30014, Lansing, MI 48909-7514, USA, kjen{at}house.mi.gov

Ko Maeda

Department of Political Science, 125 Wooten Hall, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA, ko{at}unt.edu

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.

Key Words: Dewey Decimal • information • intelligence agencies • learning in hierarchies • Library of Congress

References

• Betts, Richard K. (1982) Surprise Attack: Lessons for Defense Planning. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
• Chandler, Alfred (1962) Strategy and Structure: Chapters in the History of the Industrial Enterprise. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Dewey Decimal Classification (2003) Dublin, OH: OCLC Online Computer Library Center.
• Donaldson, Lex (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
• Gulick, Luther (1937) `Notes on the Theory of Organization', in Luther H. Gulick and Lyndall F. Urwick (eds) Papers on the Science of Administration. New York: Institute of Public Administration, Columbia University.
• Hammond, Thomas H. (1986) `Agenda Control, Organizational Structure, and Bureaucratic Politics', American Journal of Political Science 30: 379—420.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Hammond, Thomas H. (1993) `Toward a General Theory of Hierarchy: Books, Bureaucrats, Basketball Tournaments, and the Administrative Structure of the Nation-state ', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 3: 120—45.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Hammond, Thomas H. (1994) `Structure, Strategy, and the Agenda of the Firm ', in Richard P. Rumelt, Dan E. Schendel and David J. Teece (eds) Fundamental Issues in Strategy: A Research Agenda. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Hammond, Thomas H. (2004) `Herding Cats in University Hierarchies: The Impact of Formal Structure on Decision-making in American Research Universities', in Ronald G. Ehrenberg (ed.) Governing Academia. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Hammond, Thomas H. (forthcoming 2007) `How Can We Identify ``Smart Practices'' for Redesigning the Structure of the U.S. Intelligence Community?', Governance.
• Hammond, Thomas H. and Gray J. Miller (1985) `A Social Choice Perspective on Authority and Expertise in Bureaucracy', American Journal of Political Science 29: 611—38.
• Hammond, Thomas H. and Paul A. Thomas (1989) `The Impossibility of a Neutral Hierarchy', Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 5: 155—84.[Free Full Text]
• Hammond, Thomas H., Kyle I. Jen and Ko Maeda (2004) `Intelligence Organizations and the Organization of Intelligence: What Library Catalogues Can Tell Us About 9/11'. Paper presented at the Conference on `Innovation, Institutions and Public Policy in a Global Context', 22—4 May, Washington, DC. Revised 6 December 2004.
• Kettl, Donald F. (2002) The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for Twentyfirst Century America. Baltimore, MA: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Mintzberg, Henry (1979) The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of the Research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
• National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States (2004) Final Report. New York: Norton.
• Peters, B. Guy (2001) The Future of Governing (2nd edn). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.
• Schilling, Warner R. (1962) `The Politics of National Defense: Fiscal 1950 ', in Warner R. Schilling, Paul Y. Hammond and Glenn H. Snyder (eds) Strategy, Politics, and Defense Budgets. New York: Columbia University Press.
• Turner, Michael A. (2005) `Intelligence Reform and the Politics of Entrenchment ', International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence 18: 383—97.[CrossRef]
• Tversky, Amos (1972) `Elimination by Aspects: A Theory of Choice', Psychological Review 79: 281—99.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Tversky, Amos and Shmuel Sattath (1979) `Preference Trees', Psychological Review 86: 542—73.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
• Whitford, Andrew B. (2002) `Bureaucratic Discretion, Agency Structure, and Democratic Responsiveness: The Case of the United States Attorneys', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 12: 3—27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Whitford, Andrew B. and Richard Arnold (2005) `Organizational Dilemmas of the U.S. EPA: Why Structures Matter for Environmental Protection', Environmental Politics 14: 142—7.
• Williamson, Oliver E. (1985) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. New York: Free Press.
• Wohlstetter, Roberta (1962) Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 19, No. 4, 425-463 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0951629807080776


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Hammond, T. H. Articles by Maeda, K. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?