Posted by Yogesh Malhotra on June 05, 1998 at 00:04:10:

In Reply to: Re: Translation, meaning and non-speak posted by Jay Reay on June 04, 1998 at 11:50:59:

Jay,

Thank you for your insightful response. You have raised a useful point about the 'insider's language' that facilitates sharing of meaning within the specific clans, groups, communities and organizations. Indeed, such 'shared meanings' can facilitate ease of communication and understanding of new information from shared contexts.

There has been quite a bit of debate about the socially constructed meaningfulness of 'information': some proponents of this theme have suggested that meanings are socially constructed. However, what many of them haven't [at least] explicitly realized is that meanings -- as they relate to specific actions by specific individuals -- within formal or informal contexts, are often formed at a very individual level. It may even be argued that such meanings -- as they relate to issues such as 'meaningfulness,' 'purposiveness,' 'goal orientation,' and 'enacting of meaning' -- may often be unique to the individuals own mind-sets. Given that each individual has a unique baggage of experience and schemas based on prior experiences and associated feelings and emotions, the same information artifact may invoke a different response from different individuals even within the same group. The sharing of meaning is shared to the extent the individuals have the shared 'lenses' that filter out the similarities in meaning and / or their willingness and capability to proactively seek multiple meanings of the same 'information.'

The above issues are of interest to me as I have been trying to understand the link between information and action (that more directly relates to individual's behavior affecting performance) within various contexts of adoption of new information technologies and creation of new knowledge from common information bases.

The disconnect between information and meaning across individuals, groups and organizations [as it relates to 'meaningfulness,' 'purposiveness of action,' etc.] has motivated my thinking toward the new paradigm of knowledge management that you see as work-in-progress on the Knowledge Management.

However, there is another interesting insight related to this dialog on 'corporate speak' which relates to 'meaning.' How often, individuals are unwilling to share their true feedback in organizations because of fear of censure or reprimand? Often 'corporate speak' seems to be used in an attempt to obfuscate 'meaning' (true feedback) into something that is more palatable to the organization's command-and- control systems. Some of the known TV series, such as the American classic M*A*S*H and the British 'Yes Minister' have attempted to create parody based on such themes.

Some related references on these issues may be found in the following bibliographies and web sits related to information systems and knowledge management residing on the @BRINT metasite:

Personal Construction Theory

http://www.brint.com/PCT.htm

Theories on Education & Learning

http://www.brint.com/Research.htm

Readings in MIS Theory and Research

http://www.kmbook.com/misbibl.htm

References on Knowledge Management

http://www.kmnetwork.com/kmrefs.htm

Selected References: Human Knowledge & Learning

http://www.kmnetwork.com/learning.htm

Selected References: Organizational Knowledge & Learning

http://www.kmnetwork.com/lrngorg.htm

Thanks for the dialog.

Regards,

Yogesh

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: