The influence of Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline on an academic career: a research journey into the learning organization and some personal reflections
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose In this paper, the author explores his research journey into the learning organization and its impact on his academic career. This paper describes how Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of The Learning Organization (1990) was the spark that led to the author’s focus on empirical research in the field. Design/methodology/approach This paper provides author’s personal reflections on how this decision put him on a path to a variety of serendipitous experiences, exciting research areas and also enabled him to engage in productive collaborative research with many of his colleagues. Findings The findings conclude with a discussion on what the author see as new challenges and perspectives for advancing research into the learning organization. Originality/value This paper provides a unique perspective on how The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge has influenced an academic career. It presents a personal reflection of a research journey into the learning organization that spans over 30 years.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it