First, to answer the WHY question.  It’s not really complicated.  I have ideas that I don’t see reflected elsewhere in the popular or scholarly literature.  If you Google “Knowledges Interchange” this site is just about the only listing you’ll get.  This blog allows me to share ideas with anyone who might be interested.  It also serves as a kind of journal for me, so that my thoughts don’t disappear somewhere and fade away.  Through this blog I have been in touch with some people who share my perspective, or have related thoughts.  Yes, it’s a self-publishing exercise, but I hope it will inform the publishing of others, and perhaps lead to some transformations.

So WHAT is my message.  Above all things, it emphasizes the plurality of the collective knowledges of every species that inhabits the earth.  Our education system persists in referring to Knowledges in the singular, in the sense that “IT” must be acquired as evidence of intelligence. Let me point to the concept of Multiple Intelligences which, like my theory, argues for understanding of the many ways in which we own and demonstrate our intelligence. 

I also argue that a key way of moving forward with solving the worlds problems is to find ways of achieving interchanges of what we know.  I have made some comments about the concept of Knowledge Management, and will continue to blog about my proposition that Knowledges Interchange is a strategy which should be adopted by educators, business people, diplomats and all people who want to facilitate solutions to the terrifying mess we are in.

In the Educational Framework tab of this blog, I have provided some principles in the emerging framework:

I stress that is emerging because my exploration of this concept is only beginning.

I still think the main goal of all the competitors is to win. But based on all the interviews I’ve watched, there are a lot of them, particularly the younger folk, who go for the experience and truly want to pick up ideas from the mature, successful athletes.  Many of them say so to the camera, and the commentators point out that they will be back in 2012 when they’ve grown a little more in the standings.  As for unintended learnings, the camera shows that the intercultural interchanges are quite remarkable. 

The big question that is being hotly debated in Canada’s popular press whether the cost of sending athletes to the Olympics can be justified if they are not at the point in their careers where they have learned enough to win.  Is the price of admission worth it to taxpayers, when we need to pay for learning in so many other areas–literacy, English as a Second Language, trades and technology?  How does it help us to solve the world’s problems if we dedicate resources to sports? Yes, the athletes I’ve seen being interviewed are very bright, articulate people, but will they repay the investment in them by assisting to increase global harmony, or will they continue to focus on their own aims to achieve stronger, higher, further?   

I don’t pretend to have answers, but just a lot of questions, and perhaps I’ll wait until 2010 to resume this Olympic thread.

Myself, I like the Olympic Games because of the vision they can reflect if our eyes aren’t clouded by cynicism–or Beijing fog/smog.  I focus on the extraordinary effort of the athletes, and consider them all winners–which is why I hate the way the TV interviewers pounce on “losers” demanding to know why they “failed”!

In particular, I like to idea that we might one day live in a world where people meet and interact, where competition is keen but nobody dies (sigh for Munich) and where the whole world participates in whatever way they can in a cultural exchange.

I’ll argue there isn’t enough of a focus on learning at the Olympics, beyond recognizing the skills that the competitors have acquired and their obvious intelligence in applying those skills.  I’m fairly sure that the athletes don’t strive to reach world class standards in their sport in order to demonstrate their knowledges. It seems to me they are there to win, not to show what they have learned.  However, there are unintended teachings and learnings about culture, communication styles, political infrastructures, ethics…and so on.  Those who criticize and ignore the games are surely overlooking the opportunities for interchanges that can educate us and serve to strengthen international ties.

I live in hope that world peace will prevail, even while I recognize the near impossibility of that.   Of course, I am not naive enough to think that all peoples can live in harmony and agree on all things. I have a fair amount of interpersonal conflict in my own life, and I know there are some people I will never like, and who will never like me.  But if we can know enough about each other to break down barriers such as race, gender and class, and if we can educate ourselves enough to find solutions to battles over land and religion, then maybe we can share the same planet without killing each other.

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.?

During the conversation about Interdisciplinarity/Interprofessionalism this week, I shared with the group my concern that I was mis-representing Interdisciplinarity as a principle underpinning the KI framework.  I am playing with the idea that it is more of a vehicle for achieving KI rather than a static pillar. I’m not entirely happy with the word vehicle, either. Synonyms include medium, means, channel, instrument, conduit, avenue…the Thesaurus has endless suggestions.  I’m still thinking about this.

On the Reference page here in this blog, I’m going to put some sources including links to websites related to Interdisciplinarity. It’s not an exhaustive list, of course, because it’s a huge topic. But rather than just file away the info in a drawer, I’d like to share it. 

I’d  also like to provide a few  links to the work of the two inspiring people who co-presented with me yesterday. Dr. Jen Marchbank is one of the moving forces behind the Explorations program for first year undergrads at Simon Fraser University, which is grounded in the aim of giving the students an interdisciplinary experience.  Dr. Isabel Jones is a senior teaching fellow at the University of Derby, and an advocate for interprofessional education, particularly in the health sector.  Isabel is also the editor of Response magazine, and invites submissions for articles. It’s nice to collaborate with kindred spirits.   

My interest in interdiciplinarity has existed for a considerable time, but I have been re-visiting the literature in preparation for a presentation at Simon Fraser University on July 17th. As I re-read some of the articles, I realized that Knowledges Interchange is a potential outcome of interdisciplinary teaching and research.  Given my belief that KI is a paradigm that may provide a solution to many global challenges, it follows that the theories and practice of interdisciplinarity bring a similar promise.

Interdisciplinarity and KI are intertwined. As interdisciplinary activities occur, it is almost inevitable that the participants engage in an exchange of knowledges. As KI occur, it is likely to be in an environment that is borderless and “undisciplined”, to borrow a term from John Robinson (See References). 

The fifth principle needs further discussion, and this post is just a starting point.

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.

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.

On the eve of the American July 4th celebrations, I’m still feeling happy about the good time I had on Canada Day, July 1st.  It occurs to me that perhaps I haven’t mentioned how much I love the exchange of knowledges when I am meeting and greeting people. 

I decided to volunteer the morning of July 1st at Granville Island in Vancouver. What a pleasure to interact with hundreds of people on a lovely sunny day.  The crowd was a sea of red and white, and I helped by giving out flags. Waving at the cars who were coming to the festivities, I was amazed at the smiles and cheers from people of all cultures and backgrounds, all ages and sizes.  Kewl looking guys in convertibles cheerfully broke out of their poses to yell “Happy Canada Day”.  Older, more grizzled men came up to me demanding flags and lapel pins…but saying “please.” Children were urged to say “Thank You”. I was also thanked with smiles and nods and waves from bus loads of tourists, as well as locals on bikes.

This interchange of goodwill was infectious.  I particularly liked it when people offered up a piece of themselves. Someone was having a 70th birthday on July 1st. A couple wanted me to share the news that they had just gained Canadian citizenship.  And I really enjoyed the conversations I had with visitors from a number of different countries — the Netherlands, Australia, UK and the US.  We asked each other questions, we shared jokes, and of course we discussed the weather. What could be more fun?

I hope our American cousins enjoy July 4th as much.  They have a great deal  to celebrate as we do — even more, given the age of their country compared to ours.  I really hope that they will all find themselvers engaged in interchanges of knowledges with people from many cultures and lands.  I hope everyone enjoys the party together.