We're going to try something new starting today. I've added a new category called "PhD Musings" to which I'll be posting some of the assignments and papers from my doctoral coursework. These postings will be on topics that may not have a direct application, or perhaps have a more theoretical perspective, on the topics of knowledge, learning, or performance.
To begin, we'll be exploring the topic of epistemology and the practice of knowledge and learning management. Per my course’s syllabus (Walden University, 2007), we’ll focus on the history of knowledge from the early contributors, including Plato and Aristotle, to contemporary writers. We’ll review the evolution of major movements, including rationalism, empiricism, functionalism, structuralism, and behaviorism and cover contemporary authors involved with knowledge, learning, and change management, including Senge, Drucker, Deming, Nonaka, Garvin, Argyris, Knowles, and Rogers. The focus will “in particular be on one central theme: the relation between the knower and what is known. In particular, we will trace the story of how the mental world and the physical world had been split apart by the ancient Greek philosophers and how epistemologists have addressed that divide up to the present where more holistic accounts of mind and body are now being developed” (Walden University, 2007).
Today we’ll start with some learnings related to Aristotle and Plato. In approaching this topic, I thought it would be interesting to look at both Plato and Aristotle and what they each said to me as a knowledge manager.
After reading Plato, my overall take-away is that a knowledge manager needs to provide opportunities for each individual’s innate knowledge to spring forth. Plato argues that the relation between the knower and what is known is that the knower already possesses the knowledge or can acquire it through mental effort. Therefore, the role of the knowledge manager is to help individuals tap into what they know.
Aristotle, on the other hand, argues that the knower has the ability to gather knowledge through mental processes applied to information (gathered via their senses) based on the world around us. This gathered knowledge can then be used to increase what the knower knows. The implications of this for me as a knowledge manager are to encourage:
- Searching and exploration to find explanations
- Applying each person’s ability to perceive and thus learn or acquire knowledge
- Using these perceptions to then form memories which (once many) can then become experience
- Maximizing this experience to create mastery of new skills or understanding
Overall, that means as a knowledge manager it would be important to utilize methods that will help individuals to explore, remember, and then amass experiences to achieve deeper levels of skill or understanding.
Another question raised by these readings is whether Plato was describing tacit knowledge, which is knowledge that is in our heads, such as rules of thumb or experience. When I was contrasting Plato vs. Aristotle, I began to question if Plato was indeed talking about tacit knowledge. However without reading more of Plato’s work, I’m not sure if Plato’s concept of knowledge could be classified as tacit. The issue is how did the knower gain the knowledge? Consider the following passage from Plato: “…if I am right, certain professors of education must be wrong when they say that they can put a knowledge into the soul which was not there before, like sight into blind eyes” (p. 274). Plato seemed to argue for knowledge being innate and something that needs to be brought forth.
To return to the question of tacit knowledge, I believe we would need to turn to Polanyi who originally coined the phrase. I’ve not personally read Polanyi, but he is discussed at some length by Nonaka and Takeuchi who explain that Polanyi contended that “human beings acquire knowledge by creating and organizing their own experiences…[and] that human beings create knowledge by involving themselves with objects, that is, through self-involvement and commitment (1995, p.60). In addition, Davenport and Prusak (2000) discuss tacit knowledge as being something gained through personal experience over a long period of time. Contrasting these definitions versus Plato’s reveals that the definition of tacit knowledge may actually be more closely affiliated with Aristotle’s views of how knowledge is acquired. Based on the small excerpt I’ve read of Plato’s work, I’m not sure that he was discussing tacit knowledge as it has come to be understood today, but perhaps indeed he was laying some preliminary groundwork.
My professor, Dr. Folz, also encouraged me to consider “how does a knowledge manager help his colleagues tap into what they know--be it innate or be [it] acquired through the senses? And how does the knowledge manager know what is true and what is not true?” (Folz, 2007). Thus I turn my attention now to the challenges of capturing and codifying knowledge—both explicit and (in particular) tacit knowledge. Nonaka and Takeuchi argue that “knowledge is created through the interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge… [which in turn leads to] four different modes of knowledge conversion”—tacit to tacit (socialization), tacit to explicit (externalization), explicit to explicit (combination), and explicit to tacit (internalization) (1995, p. 62). As knowledge managers, we need to facilitate methods and opportunities for these different knowledge conversions to take place. This can include not only tools and processes, but also cultural conditions that encourage innovation and knowledge creation.
I was also particularly intrigued by Dr. Folz’s question of “how does the knowledge manager know what is true and what is not true?” The mechanics may be as simple as a review panel of peers or an identified expert who validates the collected knowledge. However, Dr. Folz had me wondering about the potential of that approach being flawed. For example, if the review panel or experts are from the same company, educational and/or work background, culture, etc. they may share common biases that will potentially diminish the knowledge’s truism. So perhaps the best way to ensure that we come closer to the truth is by actively seeking out others who do not share the same biases. Truth “with a capital T” is likely something one can never be 100% sure of, but that does not mean as knowledge managers we should give up on getting as close as we can.
- Robin
References:
Aristotle. (1993). Posterior analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). London: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 350 BC)
Davenport, T.H., & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge (Paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)
Folz, B. (2007, September 7). Week 1 Discussion: Robin how does a knowledge manager. Message posted to http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2730355&Survey=1&47=3584905&ClientNodeID=984646&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company. New York: Oxford University Press.
Plato. (1968). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Public Domain. (Original work published 360 BC)
Walden University. (2007). AMDS-8800-01 Epistemology and the practice of knowledge and learning management. In Online syllabus. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=2730355&Survey=1&47=3584905&ClientNodeID=984646&coursenav=1&bhcp=1
Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.
