Knowledges Interchange
Recognizing the plurality of our knowledges, and anticipating the positive outcomes from the interchangeArchive for Relevant Literature
Nonaka & Takeuchi – The Knowledge Creating Company #1
I discovered Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 book (See References) almost by accident. I have been conducting intermittent literature searches to help me develop my model of Knowledges Interchange. A key area of research is the application of KI in the business world, and I have begun a category called Beyond Knowledge Management which has attracted more visits to my blog than any other thread.
As I explored Knowledge Management, I found Nonaka and Takeuchi. Referred to by many authorities as the originators of Knowledge Management (KM), they have written a text that is a wonderfully rich source of ideas, frameworks and explanations of the way Japanese corporations view the creation of knowledge in their organizations, as compared with western corporations. But the book is also a thorough documentation of their own research into what knowledge means, particulatly in the context of corporations.
As I read, I will capture some of their arguments in this blog. It helps me to write about it and perhaps it will help others too. My main critique, of course, is that the focus is knowledge in the singular. As I read their description of the development of ideas about knowledge creation from Plato forward, I can’t help reflecting on the numbers of truly remarkable people who have spent their lives defining “knowledge”. Isn’t it more productive siimply to recognize that the definitions of knowledges are as numerous and diverse as there are ways of knowing.?
Beyond Knowledge Management #2
Continuing my exploration of Nonaka and Takeuchi’s (1995) text, I come next to their theories about explicit and tacit knowledge. Apart from the fact that they use knowledge in the singular, I agree with many others that these concepts are very plausible. They say:
In this book, we classify human knowledge into two kinds. One is explicit knowledge, which can be articulated in formal knowledge including grammatical statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, manuals, and so forth. This kind of knowledge thus can be transmitted across individuals formally and easily. This has been the dominant mode of knowledge in the Western philosophical tradition. However, we shall argue, a more important kind of knowledge is tacit knowledge, which is hard to articulate with formal language. It is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involves intangible factors such as personal belief, perspectives, and the value system. Tacit knowledge has been overlooked as a critical component of collective human behaviour (Preface, p.viii).
This passage is an acknowledgement that there is more than one form of knowledge. In addition, the recognition that not all forms of knowledge can be quantifiable fits well with many of the arguments in this blog. Many scientists, in particular, have relied almost exclusively on what they might call “hard facts”. Data that were not quantifiable have often been dismissed by them. It is gratifying, then, to read an acknowledgement of the importance of alternative ways of knowing.
A critique of the authors is that they do not go far enough in identifying only two forms of knowledge. For example, elsewhere in this blog, I introduced the work of Tony Ward, who points to body knowledge, and this is neither explicit nor tacit, according to the definition given. Here, I am committed to continuing the search for other ways of knowing, and resisting the idea that there is only one form of knowledge which can be managed.
Beyond Knowledge Management #1
This post signals the first of a series of occasional posts that will explore Knowledges Interchange as a positive step beyond Knowledge Management (KM). I’ll explore the proposition that the theory and practice of KM are based on a weak paradigm In the first place, I’m arguing throughout this blog that the idea that there is one Knowledge makes no sense in this world of complexities. Secondly, the notion that there is one Knowledge that can be managed is a curious idea that is easily challenged.
I want to frame my challenges to KM with some of the literature of the field. Many would agree that Nonaka and Takeuchi’s 1995 book entitled The Knowledge Creating Company (See References) formed the foundation of the KM “movement”. As the authors explain in their Preface, they first began to study the Japanese product development process in 1983, and published an article about their findings in 1986. They used a rugby ball metaphor to underscore their conclusions:
o Speed and flexibility characterize the way the rugby ball is passed within the team and up the field
o The ball contains a shared understanding of the company ideals, values and emotions
o The ball does not move in a predictably, linear way, but rather in response to the direction of the game
o Intensive and labour-intensive efforts are required of team members
o Knowledge creation, dissemination and application are all a factor of human knowledge
So if I want to discuss Knowledges Interchange, I’ll have to come up with a sports metaphor of my own. I’ll go think about that for a while, and get back to you.
Tony Ward on The Body of Knowledge Post #2
I am always delighted when I discover a discussion about a form of knowledge that I had not thought about before. For that reason, I really appreciate Tony’s discussion about the knowledge of the body, or the “body of knowledge” as he cleverly describes it in his 1995 article: The Body of Knowledge: An Investigation into Indigenous Ways of Knowing, published in the Proceedings of the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education.
In Western European culture “knowing” has come to be associated with a particular kind of knowledge, specifically that which is verbal, linear, and rational. We think of knowing in the same sense that we think of thinking, and we think of thinking primarily as a kind of silent verbal behaviour. But there are many ways of knowing, and not all of them are associated with verbal or rational processes. The body has its own store of knowledge and wisdom – the accumulated flotsam and jetsam of lived experience – which is no less real, and which determines, perhaps to a greater extent, what else we can see, know and experience.
Tony Ward on The Body of Knowledge Post #1
Tony Ward posted a comment in response to one of my postings, and through that I found his website and began to find out more about him and his work. I have the site listed as a permanent link on the right hand column of this blog, and I encourage anyone who is interested in critical theory to visit it: http://www.tonywardedu.com/
The site is far more than a rich resource on critical theory, what he calls critical education, and critical theories of design drawn from Tony’s years of study and practice in the field of architecture. I will be writing a series of blog postings as I explore the elements of his site that relate to my interests, and I’d like to begin with referring to his 1995 article entitled: The Body of Knowledge: An Investigation into Indigenous Ways of Knowing, published in the Proceedings of the World Indigenous Peoples Conference on Education.
Of particular significance to me is his mention of the “ontological insecurity” of feminist writer Irene Payne, as she experienced the difference between her working class home in Northern England and the environment of the grammar school. I experienced a similar cultural shock when I, too, passed the infamous Eleven Plus exam (actually I was only 10) and began to travel from my parents’ working class in Wales to the other world that I found in a girls’ grammar school.
This experience and resulting condition has been described by many women, and I have adopted the description of myself that many others have used before me: I am an educated working class woman, who finds herself forever caught between two classes divided by perceived levels of knowing.
It is very difficult to put forward a new paradigm of education in a world which has been operating under an established paradigm for hundreds of years. Whenever I suggest to people (and believe me I suggest it daily at every opportunity) I see a little light bulb go on. Most thinking people recognize immediately that knowledges in the plural makes good sense. In this world of so-called globalization, of travel and of cultural awareness, it is obvious that referring to one knowledge is not only unenlightened but incorrect. This blog will bring references to authorities as well as day-to-day wisdom to support this position.
However, even after people agree that knowledges should be used (and spelled) in the plural, there are very few people who will change their frame of reference. The chance of them changing their spelling is even more remote! It reminds me of my reluctance to leave the “o” out of colour, or pronounce Zed as Zee. What do I mean reluctance? I’m just not going to change thos things, no matter what:-)
So if it’s difficult to gain acceptance for one concept and its related useage, imagine how difficult it is to get support for the proposition that knowledges should be exchanged. Our whole society is built around credentialism. Perelman has a lot to say about that. Perhaps he had as much difficulty getting his ideas across as I?
Considering Pinciple 1 of the Framework
The first principle that I began to consider some time ago is the that knowledge is not a singular entity. During my many years in the s0-called traditional education system, I used to speak confidently about the need to ensure that learning experiences addressed the development of Skills (in the plural) and Attitudes (in the plural) and Knowledge (in the singular!).
I didn’t think about the imbalance until I began to be more vocal in my criticism of the Industrial Age model of schooling, and to question out loud the use of the word pedagogy to describe all kinds of processes. I’ll get back to the “p” word another time. But for now I’d like to problematize the word knowledge in the singular.
In this millenium, all thoughtful people recognize the pluralism in our society. I have referenced the work of Worsley, and as this blog evolves I will refer to other authorities who raise the issue of multiple knowledges. Yet, even though we acknowledge our many ways of knowing in daily dealings, the word knowledge is invariably used in the singular. For example, if you search for knowledge in Wikipedia, we discover that many meanings are provided (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge ). On the other hand, if you search for knowledges with an “s” you’ll be told that nothing exists — but you’re welcome to create a new entry. It’s on my To Do list.
Introducing Worsley on Knowledges
Of course, I’m not the only person who thinks of knowledges in the plural. Peter Worsley’s 1997 publication is entitled simply Knowledges. I will be referring to comments in this book over time, but I wanted to introduce it here as a useful reference for people who share my interest. The full title of the work is Knowledges: Culture, counterculture, subculture, and that is a strong hint that Worsley’s area of study is anthropology. His work is based on a comparison of various characteristics of Australian Aboriginal culture with those same characteristics in various other cultures. For example, he compares forms of healing in different countries and traditions. He concludes, as do I that: “Knowledge, then, is necessarily plural: there are knowledges, not simply Knowledge with a capital K (p.10).”
