The Universal & Atomic Elements of Organization
A falsifiable scientific theory proposing that the same irreducible structures organize both thought and reality — from the quantum to the social scale.
O-Theory proposes that four irreducible structures — Distinctions, Systems, Relationships and Perspectives (DSRP) — form the universal grammar of organization. Rather than being merely useful ways of thinking, these structures are hypothesized to be the atomic elements from which every organized phenomenon emerges, whether in cognition, biology, physics, mathematics, society, or the cosmos.
| D | S | R | P |
| Distinctions | Systems | Relationships | Perspectives |
| Identity ↔ Other | Part ↔ Whole | Action ↔ Reaction | Point ↔ View |
| D := (i ↔ o) | S := (p ↔ w) | R := (a ↔ r) | P := (ṗ ↔ v) |
This is a living scientific evidence compendium: an open, continually evolving collection of independent empirical research, formal theory, mathematical proofs, cross-disciplinary analyses, applications, critiques, and proposed falsifications. Every entry is included because it supports, refines, challenges, or attempts to falsify the theory.
Scientific theories are strengthened not only by evidence that confirms their predictions, but also by surviving attempts to falsify them. This compendium brings both together: independent evidence from researchers who were not testing DSRP and proposed counterexamples evaluated against the formal theory.
One counterexample is enough to falsify O-Theory. Until then, the question remains: do the same four structures organize everything from quantum systems to human thought?
Independent convergence is one of the strongest forms of scientific evidence because researchers arrive at the same conclusion while investigating different questions for different reasons.
The number is not the point. Researchers in different fields, studying different questions with different methods, repeatedly arrived at the same structural predictions—almost always without testing DSRP or using its language.
Try a different term or clear the filters.
This compendium began as the peer-reviewed literature review “A Literature Review of the Universal and Atomic Elements of Complex Cognition,” published in the Journal of Systems Thinking with 109 studies. That paper is the peer-reviewed foundation. What you see here is its living, continuously updated version . New studies are checked before they are added, and the collection now holds and keeps growing. Open any card to see what the researchers found, why it bears on DSRP, and where the original review discusses it, the fuller account.
The collection is updated continuously, so the citation carries the date you consulted it rather than a study count — the count changes weekly, and putting it in the reference would make the same collection look like a different work to everyone who cites it. To cite a single claim or study, use its own address: every one has a permanent link.
This is the adversarial half of the compendium. Where the evidence track asks what converges on DSRP, this one asks what would end it: a single organized phenomenon whose structure needs a fifth pattern, a ninth element, or a fifth structural dynamic. It holds written up from candidates across territories, and resolutions — the general answers those cases settle against. Every case is published whether it held or failed, including the ones still open.
Cite this rather than the evidence collection when the point is what survived attack. The two are separate works with separate addresses: one asks what converges on the theory, the other asks what would end it, and a reference to the first does not support a claim about the second. Case and resolution numbers change when the record is revised, so cite a case by its own permanent link rather than by number.
This collection is meant to keep growing. Send us a study, paper, book or critique that bears on DSRP, whether it supports the theory or cuts against it, and we will read it and decide whether it belongs.
Authors Durand and Calori
Year 2006
Publisher Academy of Management Review
Discipline Sociology
Read it at the publisher 10.5465/amr.2006.19379626
Our objective is to discuss, in the organizational change literature, the recurring use of what we call the “sameness principle,” along with another principle, inspired by contemporary philosophy and somehow present in the organizational ethics literature, called “otherness.” We review four classic organizational change approaches, underscore the limitations of the sameness principle, and position otherness relative to current organizational ethics literature. We then emphasize the role of powerful agents within the organization as potential conveyors of otherness and deduce propositions that relate these agents' posture to the observable type of organizational change processes.
Explored the "sameness" and "otherness" principle.
The sameness principle has limitations which are mostly brought about by the "lack" of the other. The other was used in the form of "another me" and was used primarliy as a perspective, rather than in our use of identity and other. The otherness principle however, brought the organizations into a place of reality. Seeing the other reduced marginizalization and gives more power to the organizations to change.
The relationship between sameness and otherness is absolutely essential to the functioning of an organization. Without both principles working in tandem with each other there will always be limitations in the pursuit of organizational change.
This notion of identity and other was expanded to principles within organizational change efforts by Durand and Calori (2006). They explored the “sameness principle” and the “otherness principle” within organizational change. The Sameness principle is defined by the assumption that certain significant
traits and characteristics of an organization remain during times of change for organizations. This principle has limitations, many of which are due to the lack of an “other.” Even when the concept of an other is used, it’s used as “another me.” This is not allowing the thinker to get at the depth of what a true “other” can do. By framing the other using themselves as the point of view, they are just turning the other into another identity. This is not nearly as productive as an actual other to solving problems.
As a result, Durand and Calori introduced the otherness principle, defined as “what derives from the encounter with others and induces changes in an entity.” Working with the concept of an “other” is significant for organizations, as not recognizing the other in your organization can lead to marginalization of people and ideas. This is why Durand and Calori concluded that the relationship between sameness and otherness is absolutely essential to the functioning of an organization. Without both principles working in tandem, they warn that there will always be limitations in the pursuit of organizational change.
C.2: Distinctions are shaped by the Other Originally in Titchener, E.B. (1902), the Ebbinghaus illusion or “Titchener circles'' is an optical illusion in which the perceived size of a circle changes relative to the size and proximity of the other circles surrounding it. This means that the identity of the center circle is not only dependent on the characteristics of the central circle itself, but is intimately entwined with the other circles that surround it.
sizes.
Much like the circles, text and context have a similar relationship, as the meaning of a word or phrase is dependent on its context (or surrounding text). In other words, text gets its meaning internally from how it is defined (in a dictionary, for example) but also externally from its context. Yet, this context is not an amorphous cloud of meaning generating ether. The context itself is just more text. This can be seen in the imaginary text passages below. In this example, blue is the text being defined (i.e., the identity) and the yellow is the contextualizing text (i.e., the other). Note that the text in Passage B is merely part of the context in Passage A and vice versa (shown in green). In the second row of Table 2 you see an specific example using a homonym "rose" which can have different meanings depending on its context.
Patterns it shows D
How to cite this Durand and Calori (2006). Sameness, Otherness? Enriching Organizational Change Theories with Philosophical Considerations on the Same and the Other. Academy of Management Review.