Absorptive capacity is regarded as an important factor in both corporate innovation and general competitive advantage. The concept was initially developed largely from reviews of the literature and has subsequently been extended by empirical studies, although some people suggest that progress since 1990 has been disappointing. This article argues that this limited development results from the dominance of quantitative studies which have failed to develop insights into the processes of absorptive capacity, and builds on recent qualitative studies which have successfully opened up new perspectives. Using case studies drawn from three different sectors, the article argues that a process perspective on absorptive capacity should include the role of power in the way knowledge is absorbed by organizations, and provide better understanding of the nature of boundaries within and around organizations.

Drawing on four `tales from the field', provided one each by the authors, this article examines the ethical and moral dilemmas ethnographers can face during their research. In particular, we address two key questions. First, what does being ethical actually involve? Second, is there a moral duty owed by researchers and, if so, to whom is this duty owed? The article reviews current debates over ethics in ethnographic research, specifically the responsibilities of the researcher to his/her research subjects, before turning to the four `tales from the field'. These tales form the basis for a discussion of a researcher's ethical responsibilities when confronted with wrongdoing, in different forms, in the course of their fieldwork.

Power and politics are two issues that have received great attention in numerous fields of inquiry, but as yet have been virtually ignored in the field of organizational learning. This paper briefly notes the minimal contributions made thus far and demonstrates the limitations of the approaches to the study of power in organizations currently favoured, before suggesting an alternative starting point for empirical investigation. Empirical evidence is used to suggest that learning in contemporary organizations is already influenced by ideological interventions, and that formal qualifications demonstrate the increasing attempts of the UK government to influence organizational learning.

No abstract

This article develops our understanding of external learning by drawing upon evidence of economic and industrial espionage. We draw attention to the normative assumption of authors in the field that organizational learning is necessarily an entirely legitimate activity. We demonstrate that contemporary debate could benefit from research exploring illegal forms of learning. Three vignettes capturing different aspects of economic and industrial espionage are presented to illustrate the limitations of our current conceptualizations of external learning and its ethical dimensions, and to provide a basis for a re-theorization. The article concludes with the presentation of an indicative model of external learning and some suggestions for a revised research agenda.