Thinking of knowledge

Part of the problem with KM is we tend to have very different assumptions, beliefs & views on the nature and properties of knowledge that really matter, in short, we have different epistemologies.

Knowledge as object
By far the most promoted view is knowledge as representation, a thing, an asset - easily captured transferrable and amenable to rule-based symbol processing or computation. Here we are talking of storage, retrieval and manipulation in databases, codification and focus on the meta-data properties. We even speak of learning objects, content encapsulation and object libraries. Clearly this view regards knowledge as something explicit, tangible, rather static and a physical resource.

Knowledge as process
Here knowledge is seen as a process of 'knowing' where there is no separation between mind and body, when evolution is constant and 'snapshots' do not tell the entire story. Knowledge has dynamic properties, feedback loops, lifecycles, generative, evaluative and applicative phases and emerges from the struggle between subjective belief and objective truths. There is a continual interplay between the tacit and the explicit forms.

Knowledge as relationship
There is a strong relational aspect to knowledge, there is context, background, history and development. Knowledge requires social ties to flow and flourish, knowledge is constructed in social dialog, it evloves from 'being and doing' in the real world. Knowledge is tied to the construction of a social reality, it is local, pragmatic, associated with power and thrives on making connections. In this view, possesion and storage do not matter nearly as much as networking & connecting.

Knowledge as interpretation
Knowledge is 'brought forth' though interpretation, there is a strong coupling between cognition and environment, between assimilation of past experience, linguistic exchanges and situatedness in social conventions. There is an interplay between what is communicated and what is received that influences action and reaction.

It is interesting to reflect just where you stand in relation to these epistemologies before you jump into KM meta-talk, make decisions on KM tools or embark on a knowledge mapping exercise. Where you stand in the knowledge clearing, is likely to have a profound influence on what you 'see', the assumptions you bring to the table, and how you react to others in this exciting field.

I belong to the crowd that (1) recognises the primary or key role of social relationships, that (2) sees knowledge as a local construction of reality and (3) values the underlying role of tacit - unarticulated stuff. Must confess to an interest in knowledge representation, but I really do believe explicit objects require a 'community' for interpretation - they do not carry their knowledge in isolation.

Further reading:
Exploring knowledge emergence: from chaos to organizational knowledge, 2002 pdf

Comments

[Denham]

Greetings CK,

You may wish to take a tour at KmWiki where there are many links to knowledge resources

http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?kmWiki

[CK]

HI! there,

I would like to receive more and more think of in my business,pls keep send some think knowledges,

TQ! U in advance,

Rgds,
CK.
Malaysia

[Eric]

Nardi & O'Day wrote similar things in their Information Ecologies book, where "technology" could be framed as technology, tool, text, system, or ecology.