July 25, 2007 at 6:50 am · Filed under Berger and Luckmann, Knowledges as Social Construction
Continuing the examination of Berger and Luckmann (see References page), I’m looking for ways in which their comments support my framework of knowledges exchange. For example, there are many places in their text in which they acknowledge the diversity of knowledge sets. Early in their text, on page 3, they write:
The ‘knowledge’ of the criminal differs from the ‘knowledge’ of the criminologist.
They summarize their views (and mine) when they state:
The social stock of knowledge includes knowledge of my situation and its limits. For instance, I know that I am poor and that, therefore, I cannot expect to live in a fashionable suburb. This knowledge is, of course, shared both by those who are poor themselves and those who are in a more privileged situation. Participation in the social stock of knowledge thus permits the ‘location’ of individuals in society and the ‘handling’ of them in the appropriate manner (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 42).
What a can of worms this opens up! Apart from the concept of a social stock of knowledges, we now have to consider the proposition that there is a hierarchy of knowledges. This hierarchy, it seems, allows the privileged to marginalize those who have fewer or less valued knowledges. Plumbers are less respected than lawyers.
But we already know that. It’s misguided and foolish, but parents still direct their children away from the trades into the so-called professions. So it seems that the theories around the social stock of knowledges (note my use of the plural) support the lived reality of all of us.
July 23, 2007 at 7:48 am · Filed under Berger and Luckmann, Knowledges as Social Construction
This series of blog postings will begin to focus on some deeper thinking about the concept of knowledges. It’s time that I shared some of my readings in what can loosely be described as the sociology of knowledge. As far as I can tell at the moment, the sociologists who specialize in that branch, refer to knowledge in the singular. Perhaps we can do something about that?
There is no better place to start than with Berger and Luckmann’s 1966 classic, The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Apart from different imprints in different countries at around the same time, Berger and Luckmann do not seem to have produced a second edition, so it stands as one of the great publications on this topic. Their work can lead us in many directions…post-modernism, constructionism, the sociology of knowledge…and perhaps elsewhere.
Berger and Luckmann were not the first to discuss this. That honour resides with the German writers of the 1920s, and the exploration of those will come much later. However, it’s probably true to say that the 1966 book helped to popularize the theory that the taken-for-granted which guides how we journey through this world is actually a socially constructeed reality. Here is one of my favourite quotes from Berger and Luckmann:
A social stock of knowledge is constituted, which is transmitted from generation to generation and which is available to the individual in everyday life. I live in the commonsense world of everyday life equipped with specific bodies of knowledge. What is more, I know that others share at least part of this knowledge and they know that I know this. My interaction with others in everyday life is, therefore, constantly affected by our common participation in the available social stock of knowledge (p.41).
Surely, if they were to write their book today, Berger and Luckmann would recognize the plurality of those “specific bodies of knowledge” and hence the multiplicity of our social stock of knowledges?
July 20, 2007 at 10:30 pm · Filed under Related Concepts
I’m hearing a lot about Knowledge Transfer at the moment. It’s not a new concept, so perhaps it’s just that the people I’m associating with at present are talking about it. One manifestation of it seems rooted in the business world under the broad umbrella of Knowledge Management. The Wikipedia definition seems to place it in that context: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_transfer
My critique of this, of course, is that Knowledge Transfer suggests a one-way process. The definition in Wikipedia talks about moving one “packet” of information from one part of an entity to another, with the result that the recipient is affected in some way.
But what about reciprocity? Surely, the sender of the packet is also affected, or perhaps should be affected. And wouldn’t it be beneficial if the recipient could return the favour and send something back? What about the synergy that results from a synchronous exchange, rather than a one-at-a-time sequence of sending and receiving?
I will certainly investigate Knowledge Transfer more. For example, the Wikipedia list of barriers to Knowledge Transfer applies also to Knowledges Exchange. Challenges such as “problems with sharing beliefs, assumptions, heuristics and cultural norms” could certainly inhibit an exchange of knowledges, just as it does the transfer of information, and every other form of communication. Without digging into it more deeply though, my hypothesis is that Knowledges Exchange is a more evolved concept that Knowledge Transfer. I just have to prove that.
July 20, 2007 at 3:12 am · Filed under Random Thoughts
In spite of my good intentions, I wasn’t able to find the time or access to post messages to this blog while I was travelling in what we in the northern hemisphere call “down under”. My trip included visits to Hawaii, Sydney and Melbourne in Australia, and Auckland, New Zealand. It was a wonderful trip and my heart and mind are full. So many images, so many ideas, so many breathtaking vistas, so many unexpected encounters and fruitful exchanges.
I brought back with me a map which is now on my office wall. It is the Kiwi “Upside Down” map of the world, showing New Zealand top and centre, and the rest of the world’s countries displayed underneath. This will be a permanent reminder that there is always at least one other point of view, and that I should always look for it.
Now that I’m back in Vancouver, I can resume my discussion of the concept of Knowledges Exchange, and I want to focus particularly on the literature that I find relevant to the framework I’m suggesting. Onward
July 2, 2007 at 12:16 pm · Filed under Knowledges in the Plural
The title of my presentation at the ISSOTL Conference today was: Advancing Scholarship Through Knowledges Exchange in the SCoPE Online Community of Practice. The concepts are difficult to put across in a presentation that has to be contracted into a 25 minute time slot .The participants were relaxed and willing to engage, and we shared some laughs. However, at the end of the allotted time, most were silent, which is a common reaction. I could see in their eyes that they were processing the information, but there was little feedback. Let’s see if any of them post in SCoPE or here in the blog.
The highlight of the day for me was the panel discussion on Indigenous Perspectives on Knowledge and Epistemologies. Sue Green, an aboriginal woman from Australia and Aroha Yates-Smith, a Maori woman from New Zealand, spoke to us about the challenges facing their peoples, especially in relation to education. I was delighted to hear Sue speak of aboriginal knowledges, in the plural. She spoke repeatedly of the need for respect and dignity and there was discussion of the lack of dignity and spiritual wasteland that characterizes the western education system. All this resonated with me, and strengthened my resolve to continue my work.
July 1, 2007 at 12:21 pm · Filed under Technologies for KE
Tomorrow is the first day of the 2007 conference for ISSOTL (International Society for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning). It is being hosted by the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia. I am making a presentation about my theory of Knowledges Exchange, and suggesting that the exchanges in SFU’s online community platform, SCoPE, contribute to the development of scholarship.
I’m looking forward to hearing the responses of the participants in the workshop. Some feedback on my ideas will help me to move forward in articulating the concept of KE.
One of the questions I’m anticipating is related to evidence. How can I prove that KE results in increased scholarship? What are the benchmarks? I don’t have definitive answers yet, and in any case the answers I’m developing lean heavily towards social construction, so that everything is relative. I’m hoping that there will be a stimulating discussion using the SCoPE forum I’ve set up for that purpose.
