Posted by Dave on October 29, 2002 at 06:33:51:

In Reply to: Re: definition of knowledge with respect to the KM posted by Mezei on October 02, 2002 at 10:09:37:

Hi,
If you are interested in defining knowledge, you might be interested in this article, The Duality of Knowledge, by Paul Hildreth and Chris Kimble

http://informationr.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html

It has been referred to recently in a couple of web logs (see below)

http://www.downes.ca/archive/02/10_21_news_OLDaily.htm
Good overview of Polanyi's and Nonaka's theories of tacit knowledge with the intent of proving (contra Nonaka) that there is some tacit knowledge that cannot be formalized. I like his employment of von Krogh's autopoiesis theory, the idea that knowledge is creational and based on distinction making in observation, that knowledge is history dependent and thus is context sensitive, and therefore that knowledge is directly transferable. This is true to Polanyi: knowledge is a process, not a thing.

http://eyepopping.manilasites.com/
Knowledge cannot be extricated or abstracted from our interactions with the world. There is no knowledge as we commonly conceive of it, as separate, as encoded, as explicit. Transfer does not happen by writing down what we know (or putting it on a web page), handing it to someone and 'transferring' that knowledge. The receiving party may encode the information in impossible to predict ways. This ties into Foucault's Arhaeology of Knowledge which I'm re-reading for the first time since college. He talks about the rules that enable a particular statement to be encoded in the collective 'body of knowledge' collected by a discipline or community of practice.

---

Follow Ups:

• Re: definition of knowledge with respect to the KM jackie 13:03:55 05/07/03 (0)

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: