My Swell meeting with Nonaka-Sensei

This Saturday I had my meeting with Nonaka-sensei and was ready to argue with him about his book. Every academic program will have its weak points and the weak point of this one is the final paper and presentation that we need to give. We have to use Nonaka’s theories as a basis for our presentations about the companies that we are interning at. At first glace this may seem like a project that is there just to stroke his ego. After meeting with him and talking with him about the project my theory seems more concerned.

My first problem with his work is his methodology. He describes items and other people’s works in his work and disagrees with them. In most cases it is never described why other theories are wrong. This is nothing but bad academics. After reading his book and several papers it is also apparent that he used inductive reasoning, weak inductive reasoning to be exact. For example; he makes a claim that some Japanese companies (specifically in manufacturing) follow his theories, therefore not only doe all Japanese companies follow his theories but because America has a “western” culture no American company follows his theories. Another problem with his theory is that he leaves out information that may run contrary to his theory. This is common and usually not a problem. Where the problem occurs here is that there are outright claims that are false. The entire way he presents this shows that there is some problems because leaving out information and criticisms is one thing, but making false claims is another. The root of this problem is the heavy reliance on few sources, many of which are secondary sources. This is a little perplexing because the primary sources are readily available. A certain history of philosophy book is used instead of going directly to the source and as a result there is an interpretation of some philosophy used instead of the philosophy itself (especially when he criticizes Western philosophy).

The second problem with his theories is that he claims to have created a catch all theory that can be placed in every situation. If there is such a theory this is not it. His examples in the book are limited to a handful of companies, each with an example. He continues to use these examples to the point where they are repeated several times in the books. During his lectures there are new examples that he used (which is a good idea because the book was written ten years ago). Even these new examples are limited and are usually only partial examples of an overriding theory.

Those are just the basic problems; I can outline more specific problems. Intellectual traditions are different between countries, and often even between disciplines. I have an academic background and have discovered methodology problems in other works as well. The basic ideas of these works are sound, and Nonaka-sensei has a good idea, but the idea isn’t new (knowledge based society). In the “west” Peter Drucker is well known for these ideas, and he presents it much better.

My mandatory meeting with Nonaka-sensei may have gone better than I thought. To be honest I was ready for a fight after probing him in previous discussions and how he reacted to questions during his lectures. I presented my thoughts about his works and immediately he was shocked not because I questioned him (he had not got that far yet) but because I discussed some philosophical traditions he neglected in his book. Then he got upset when he got to the point where I dismissed his theory and presented my own. Dr. Odo had to stop us and give us a break. My boss came and gave me some back up. In the end he was excited because I was introducing something new, or that is how he is taking it. I guess this may be healthy overall because he was forced to acknowledge that in my company his theories do not work. He ended up impressed and gave some additional material that he wrote. I have not gone over that material so I don’t know if it is an attempt to be helpful or an attempt to reinforce his point. At the end of it all he was really excited. After talking with Dr. Odo it seems I may have bee one of the first to question him but I think this may be more because it is easy to write something supporting his theories and we all just want this program finished. I personally am having a grand time working on this paper because it is interesting and I love research; most everyone else is dreading having to write this paper. The only problem may be that I may need to go last in presentations because I have a dissenting view.