Knowledge + Learning = Performance

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.

In our journey into epistemology we now proceed to the sixteenth and seventeenth century philosophers, Rene Descartes and John Locke. Rationalism is the school of thought that gives human reasoning the primary role in knowing. A key proponent of Rationalism, Descartes was well known for the quote, “Cogito, ergo sum —I think, therefore I am”. Empiricism, in contrast, valued experience. Locke, a strong advocate of Empiricism, gave rise to the concept of the mind being a “tabula rasa” (blank slate / white paper) upon which we add and write our ideas based on experiences and reflections upon that experience. To further explore these philosophers I considered the question of if we do not use our senses, but only our intellect, how can we acquire new knowledge?

If we first look to answering this question from the empiricism perspective of Aristotle and Locke, the answer would be a simple ‘it can not be done.’ Both Aristotle and Locke contended that one can acquire new knowledge only through the senses and accumulating those experiences to form knowledge and skill. For them, knowledge is inductive by nature. Aristotle, who laid the foundation for the scientific method, argued that we use our sensory perception to take in particulars and then use reasoning powers to understand what our senses perceived. Locke argued that the only knowledge humans can have is based on experience (“a posteriori”). In Book I of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he argues against innate knowledge and the Cartesian split between mind and body—beliefs held strongly by the rationalist philosophers. In Book II, Locke then presents his theory of knowledge being one where all knowledge is acquired through either our senses or from reflecting on our experiences in the physical world. Interestingly, Locke still supports the Cartesian Dualism of the mind/body split—even though the mind gathers data from the sensory world, Locke argues that knowledge is an intellectual event still in a world separate from the physical one.

In answering the question of how we can acquire new knowledge, Plato and Descartes on the other hand are proponents of knowledge being acquired through the intellect alone—for they both believed that we are born with innate “a priori” knowledge and can deduce truths through mental reasoning. Proponents of rationalist philosophy, they believed that the intellect could be use to acquire knowledge about everything there is to know—that one merely needs to apply adequate intellectual reflection and study to a subject in order to deduce the truth. Plato argued that ideas are perfect, eternal, and found in the soul and that knowledge is innate and needs only be brought forth. Descartes argued that reason alone determines knowledge and this can be done independently of the senses. He further contends that since conscious sense experience can be the cause of illusions, therefore all sense experience should be doubted. Rather, the thinking mind can operate under its own rules of logic to come to conclusions about that “other world”—the physical world.

Contrasting Descartes and Locke also had me wondering, how one can acquire knowledge without at least one sense? Perhaps some knowledge is indeed innate and does not require the senses, while gaining other types of knowledge does require the senses. Yet again, if one has none of the five senses, how can knowledge be acquired without the “input” senses of sight, sound, taste, and touch? Similarly, how can knowledge then be articulated (output) without hearing and the ability to either speak or write, or some other method to understand language and communicate (such as Helen Keller who used her sense of touch)? Ah, but perhaps these questions and more is why there has been a move away from the either-or arguments that characterized early epistemology to the newer more holistic ideas of epistemology. Further study will reveal more insights.

-Robin

References:

Aristotle. (1993). Posterior analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). London: Clarendon Press. (Original work published 350 BC)

Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of philosophy. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/index.htm

Locke, J. (1689). In Essay concerning human understanding. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/locke_understanding.html

Plato. (1968). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Public Domain. (Original work published 360 BC)

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

Our journey into epistemology moves forward to the eighteenth century philosophers, Immanuel Kant and Jean Jacques Rousseau, who began to bring closer together the opposing ideas of the rationalists and empiricists. To explore these philosophers I considered the question of what are the pros and cons of having knowledge without experience? Interestingly, through this exploration, we’ll begin to see the roots of what modern theorists have been saying related to systems thinking, experiential learning, and the need to trigger the learner’s meta-cognition skills in order for knowledge to be retained.

The philosophers of the eighteenth century continued the debate about the nature of knowledge. Is it “a priori” and innate? Or is it “a posteriori” and gained through experience? If we look to two of the leading eighteenth century philosophers, Kant and Rousseau, we’ll see that they both lean toward the need for experiential acquisition of knowledge.

Rousseau argues that the learner should be a very active participant who learns driven by his own needs/interests and finding the answers for himself—NOT a receptacle for others’ learning, beliefs, and opinions. “It is for him to want to learn, to seek and to find it. You should put it within his reach, you should skillfully awaken the desire and supply within him the means for its satisfaction” (Rousseau, p142). The process Rousseau recommends by which the learner should acquire knowledge is very experiential. First, the learner should gain knowledge through the senses, observation, and experience. Then the learner should gradually gain the ability to focus on one thing for a long time (as driven by the learners’ interest—not an external mandate). Then the learner needs to apply these to “an honest trade” (and ensuring that he not acquire prejudices of his social or economic position). Then and only then, would the learner then proceed onto judgment and reasoning. As such, Rousseau lays out a process of knowledge acquisition that is very reliant upon experience.

In a similar vein, Kant argued for the physical training of both the mind and body. Kant recommends that body and senses should be trained through active doing (combining skill and senses), to develop a photographic memory (to be used in nature as well as in books and music), and to use childhood games to prepare children for the future and condition them to remain busy and work toward an end goal. Kant recommends that the mind also be trained, but receive both physical and moral training. Kant recommends that training of the mind should be done with consideration of the end goal—for work (scholastic culture) or play (free culture). Furthermore, Kant recommends to also train the memory early to cultivate understanding and to train rules (and their classes) alongside application/examples.

When considering these eighteenth century philosophers plus those who came before them, we can better weigh the pros and cons of having knowledge without experience. For example, to have knowledge not based upon experience may be desirable for (per Descartes) if your senses were deceived, then your knowledge would be compromised by that flawed experience. On the other hand, Rousseau teaches that not having knowledge based in experience will lack context and can be meaningless to the learner. And while Kant took a more moderate approach marrying the schools of empiricism and rationalism, he also believed that experience was a necessary component of knowledge. Kant asserts that experience (or training of the body) provides self-sufficiency, strength, skill, quickness, discipline, individuality, confidence, and the creation of a contributing/working member of society; these then provide a foundation for the training of the mind which provides understanding, judgment, reason, and morality.

Interestingly, in studying these eighteenth century philosophers we can begin to see the roots of what modern theorists have been saying related to systems thinking, experiential learning, and the need to trigger the learner’s meta-cognition skills in order for knowledge to be retained. Indeed, much can be learned from those who came before us—and I look forward to continuing this exploration and making further connections applicable to how today’s knowledge manager can maximize the acquisition of knowledge.

-Robin

References:

Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of philosophy. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/index.htm

Kant, I. (1960). Chapter 3: Instruction. In Education (pp. 58-65). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1803)

Kant, I. (1960). Chapter 4: Cultivation of the mind. In Education (pp. 66-82). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1803)

Rousseau, J.J. (1957). Book III. In B. Foxley (Translator), Emile (pp. ii-v,128-171). London: JM Dent and Sons. (Original work published 1762)

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

We continue our journey through epistemology, now moving onto Phenomenology, Existentialism, and how a human being makes something a thing. To answer this quandary of what makes a thing’s “thingness,” we’ll apply Heidegger’s proposition that revolved around his example that a jug is a thing (and then his subsequent exploration of what comprised the jug’s jugness) and apply that to the Internet. Specifically, we’ll answer what is the Internet when described philosophically? And how does the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness?

First let’s try to answer the question of what is the Internet—from a strictly philosophical viewpoint. As explained by some doctoral student colleagues of mine, Heidegger proposed that “jugness is a combination of its substance and its usage”(Simmons et al., 2007). Thus, what makes a thing a thing is both its physical existence and its function. One might be able to say, then, that the Internet is a thing or a tool just like Heidegger’s jug, and that it can be defined both by its physical substance and its use.

So picking up on Heidegger’s concept of “being,” can we define Internet-ness by the thing itself and/or the user(s)? The use or function portion of the Internet is what we all bring to it as people; so that portion is in you, me, and everyone. It is something which many of us deal with every day. The question of what makes up the Internet’s physical existence, however, is much more complicated. There's the hardware which is located far and wide. But then, some of these physical aspects of the Internet are actually shared with other technologies such as telecommunications (i.e., phone line and cable which is used to transmit the data). With so much of that infrastructure not being unique to just the Internet, there is a challenge with whether or not the physical Internet infrastructure is indeed the substance portion of "internetness." So the challenge remains as to whether or not those parts of the physical infrastructure can be claimed as part of the "thing" that defines internetness.

But let’s move on now to the question of how does technology and the Internet change our perception of nearness or farness—perhaps in some ways similar to how does the jug change our perception of fullness or emptiness. In the opening to Heidegger’s “The Thing,” he states that “all distances in time and space are shrinking” (1971, p.165). He then goes on to explain how the prevalence of travel, radio, film, and television are furthering this shrinking. Considering the time when Heidegger wrote this piece, it is easy to reflect on even how much smaller the world has become now given the advent of the Internet and the ever-present mass media. We have access to more information now than any generation before us, yet can it be said that we are any more knowledgeable?

Then reflecting on the concepts of nearness and farness, one often hears of the globalization of society and how the world has shrunk. In fact out of curiosity, I ran a search on Amazon for the term “world has shrunk” and found over 200 book references! Indeed we can physically get from one point on the globe to another very quickly. We can also access through the Internet information from anywhere around the world, or even view other locations any time night or day. In fact, from < http://www.earthcam.com/mapsearch/> one can select any country in the world from which to locate and view available web cams.

Yet while we may have quicker physical access and greater informational access than ever before, Heidegger insightfully foretold that “the frantic abolition of all distance brings no nearness” and that “short distance is not in itself nearness, nor is great distance remoteness” (1971, p.165). If we reflect on these concepts of nearness and remoteness and try to glean their meanings, we find synonyms of isolation, seclusion, detachment, and inaccessibility. And consider these questions. While we have access, does the rest of the globe? Or are there whole sectors that are indeed isolated, secluded, detached, and inaccessible because they do not benefit from the same access to technology and the Internet that many of us do? And if whole sectors of the globe are not near to us, how can we be near to them? And even for those to whom we have the ability to be near, has this access really made us understand them better? Are we really any closer to other peoples and cultures today than we were when Heidegger wrote those words over 35 years ago?

It’s important to note that with these questions, I do not focus on just the domestic “digital divide” that one hears of in the media. Instead, I think it’s important to take a more global perspective on the question of technology and the Internet’s impact on our perception of nearness or farness. One of my concerns is that the Internet has given us a false sense of nearness, when indeed we are just as far as ever. For example, there are many challenges with technology when taken to a global scale—and these are challenges that are not always resolvable and have led to “pockets” within the overall Internet community. Besides the obvious language barriers, Laudon & Laudon report that many countries “lack the communications infrastructure for extensive Internet use, … [have] high transmission costs and lack of common technology, … [and have] low penetration of PCs and widespread illiteracy” (2006, pp. 584-585). In addition, there are different computing platforms and system standards, phone and other communication networks are not consistently reliable, and most countries outside the US have much slower data transfer speeds. When looking at the percentage of Internet users by country, Germany is the only one to come close to the US, with all other countries lagging far behind (Laudon & Laudon, 2006, p. 585). And even more disturbing is the fact that many countries monitor transmissions.

With these barriers in place, what we have on the Internet may actually be a perspective skewed toward the Western philosophies and policies of the countries that have the access. Thus the impression of it being a global Internet society may actually be false. Unfortunately, while technology and the Internet may have given us the appearance of greater accessibility and nearness around the globe, it may have actually done the opposite. On the contrary, it may have furthered the global divide between those who have (the technology) and those who don’t. And without education in how to be wise consumers of information, it may have furthered cultural misperceptions that force even greater distance between peoples and cultures.

-Robin

References:

Heidegger, M. (1971). The Thing. Public Domain, pp. 165-182. Retrieved from the Xanedu Course Pack for AMDS 8800. NAPC 2007.

Laudon, K., & Laudon, J. (2006). Management information systems: Managing the digital firm (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Simmons, T., Stevens, S., Toland, M., Ware, Y., Working, K., Young, J., & Zidonis, S. (2007). Heidegger's ontology: Phenomenology and existentialism. Unpublished manuscript. Walden University.

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

We continue our journey through epistemology, now moving onto Pragmatism. We’ll explore how James’s metaphysical pragmatism can be applied to non-metaphysical truth and practices in furthering knowledge in the workplace—specifically, how to manage information overload and maximize individual learning.

Between the Internet and company Intranets, today’s knowledge workers have access to a vast amount of information. James’s theory of truth may provide some guidance to today’s knowledge workers in helping them sift through that information—in the form of criteria by which to evaluate truth. In this way, James can help us with how we can further knowledge in the workplace. For example, one can look to James’s criteria of instrumental truth to help define what is the truth—or perhaps what could be considered the most correct knowledge—for that workplace. That is, each idea or belief could be evaluated in light of its ability to link the employee’s, department’s, and/or company’s experience and their ‘power to work’ (James, 1907, p. 23).

While helping further workplace knowledge, it is important to remember that truth is very subjective to each individual or entity. As James states in citing the ideas of Schiller and Dewey, “…ideas become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience” (1907, p. 23). Echoing Kant’s belief that “no mental faculty is to be cultivated by itself, but always in relation to others” (1960, p.71), James also teaches us that we acquire new beliefs and ideas through the linking or ‘grafting’ of new knowledge onto previous. As new knowledge is acquired, it is done so in relation to what we already know, and in forming these new truths our old ideas and beliefs are forever changed (James, 1907, p. 24). James also—like Rousseau—cautions us that a person must want to acquire new ideas; that “a new opinion counts as ‘true’ just in proportion as it gratifies the individual’s desire to assimilate the novel in his experience to his beliefs in stock” (1907, p. 25).

Perhaps the answer to furthering knowledge in the workplace is not to rely solely on compulsory training for delivering the “truth”, but rather to also equip knowledge workers with the tools, ability, and opportunities to make linkages for themselves and evaluate their own important truths in context of the ideas and beliefs of them individually and as a member of their workplace. This sentiment is supported in Jay Cross’s new book Informal Learning where in discussing the future of work he states, “As we enter an age of informal and workflow learning, authority is less centralized than ever before” (2007, p. 7). He further goes on to quote Etienne Wenger (noted expert on communities of practices) who states, “Learning is best understood as an interaction among practitioners, rather than a process in which a producer provides knowledge to a consumer” (Wenger as quoted in Cross, 2007, p. 7).

But how can organizations provide these tools, ability, and opportunities? Fostering knowledge networks can help, plus maximizing informal learning. Since informal learning is how we naturally learn the best/most, as knowledge managers we need to maximize these opportunities and help people to be able to utilize their networks to improve their potential learning. For example, “Learning is optimizing our connections to the networks that matter to us. This satisfies both the community concept of learning (social networking) and the knowledge aspect (gaining access to information and fitting it into the patterns in one’s head)” (Cross, 2007, p. 19). The form the tools and opportunities take will vary but can include such things as communities of practice, collaborative software tools, and corporate yellow pages / expert finders. Importantly, it also needs to include making physical space within organizations to encourage sharing plus supporting employees in making the time to share.

-Robin

References:

Cross, J. (2007). Informal learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject

Kant, I. (1960). Chapter 4: Cultivation of the mind. In Education (pp. 66-82). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. (Original work published 1803)

Rousseau, J.J. (1957). Book III. In B. Foxley (Translator), Emile (pp. ii-v,128-171). London: JM Dent and Sons. (Original work published 1762)

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

As we continue our journey through epistemology, we will consider the theories of Rogers (Humanism) and Skinner (Behaviorism) and explore how they each contributed to the process of training analysis.

Beginning in the 1960s, Skinner’s emphasis on observing actual behaviors and modifying it through operant conditioning led to the method of programmed instruction. This approach involved the breaking down of learning into small pieces, and then providing instruction, practice, and reinforcement on each piece. Behaviorism’s operant conditioning (i.e., ignoring undesirable responses and reinforcing desirable ones) can particularly be found in many of today’s technology-enabled courses that utilize feedback loops and custom pathing through the learning experience based on the learner’s responses.

Echoing elements of both Rousseau and Kant, 1970s humanist psychologists Rogers and Maslow provided additional insights into what motivates people to learn. Maslow, with the concept of striving for self-actualization, encouraged educators to help learners make choices on their own. Rogers encouraged a learner-centered approach that empowered learners to develop the skills and self-confidence to educate themselves (i.e., the skills of meta-learning). He also echoed pragmatist believes about the discomfort that must come as part of the process of new learning (James, 1907, p. 24; Rogers, 1961, p. 187). Rogers further encouraged us to remember that learning is both intellectual and behavioral by stating, “It is not simply an intellectual value choice, but seems to be the description of the…behaviors by which [the learner] moves exploringly toward what he wants to be” (1961, p. 176).

As we look at instructional systems design and other processes used by many of today’s workplace learning and performance improvement professionals, one can see many Behaviorism and Humanist influences. Humanism provides us with greater insight into the individual learner—which is considered via target audience analysis and identifying the learners’ potential affective goals plus any motivational and/or environmental barriers that may impede the learner. On the other hand, Behaviorism emphasizes that what is important is that the learner can actually display the behavior or perform. From this, comes the development of performance objectives that focus on observable behaviors. Also included is performance gap analysis, which identifies the differences between the current performance/observable behavior and what is desired. In addition, Behaviorism’s operant conditioning can also be seen in the design of during and post-training activities that facilitate and reinforce the learning process. Operant conditioning can also be seen in implementation considerations, such as when analysis reveals that a company’s rewards and recognition structure needs to be re-worked in order to ensure learning transfer.

-Robin

References:

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject

Rogers, C. (1961). Chapter 6: What it means to become a person. In On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. pp 107-124. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Trade & Reference Division. Electronic reprint from Xanedu Course Packs.

Rogers, C. (1961). Chapter 8: To be that self which one truly is: A therapist’s view of personal goals. In On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. pp 163-182. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Trade & Reference Division. Electronic reprint from Xanedu Course Packs.

Rogers, C. (1961). Chapter 9: A therapist’s view of the good life: The fully functioning person. In On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of psychotherapy. pp 183 - 196. Houghton-Mifflin Company, Trade & Reference Division. Electronic reprint from Xanedu Course Packs.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). A technology of behavior. In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (chap. 1). Retrieved from http://www.xanedu.com/

Skinner, B. F. (1971). A technology of behavior. In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (chap. 2). Retrieved from http://www.xanedu.com/

Skinner, B. F. (1971). A technology of behavior. In Beyond Freedom and Dignity (chap. 3). Retrieved from http://www.xanedu.com/

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

Today we’ll look to epistemology to see if we can answer the question of which is more important – theory knowledge or practical knowledge.

Theory knowledge provides the legitimacy of facts, rules, and concepts founded upon research. As Schwan states, its “strength and value…lie in its generality, system, and economy” (1971, p. 62). But it is this generality which causes difficulty, for practice—in contrast—requires the concrete and particular. Unfortunately, as Schon points out, research and theory also are being increasingly criticized for not meeting “the needs and interests of professional practitioners” (1987, p. 10) and that curriculums too entrenched in theory may not adequately prepare professionals for practice in their field (1987, pp. 11-12). Schwab (1971) echoes Schon’s points with his own concerns about theoretical approaches being inadequate to helping prepare professionals to solve and apply practical solutions.

On the other hand, Schon describes how practical knowledge provides experience and skill in problem solving—resulting in the artistry by which the seasoned professional practices his trade. Practical knowledge also provides the opportunity to build what Schon terms ‘knowledge-in-action’ — the ability to apply tacit knowledge and make wise judgments in the light of new problems and situations (1987, pp. 23-25). Practical experience can also provide the opportunity for ‘reflection in action’ — a series of evaluations, learnings, and modifications that are made in the midst of practice (Schon, 1987, pp. 26-29). With these two concepts and techniques in place, the artistry of professional practice can be realized and observed.

In exploring this challenge of theory versus practice, Schwan cautions that we will perform (or practice) well only to the degree to which we consider the conditions to which the theory is to be applied. Furthermore, Schwan recommends that we not accept any single theory, but rather apply multiple theories to paint a more complete picture or more accurate assessment of a situation. Much like the scholar-practitioner model followed at Walden University, perhaps the solution lies in the enquiry cycle of learning existing theories, exploring the boundaries and limitations of those theories, and then exploring new directions through practical application.

Then to address the question of which is more important — theory knowledge or practical knowledge — perhaps we can consider that while both are important, they can successfully operate independent of one another. For example, a person can successfully acquire or apply practical knowledge without conscious knowledge of the underlying theory. At the same time, a person can successfully acquire and focus on theoretical knowledge without ever venturing into the practical knowledge. It may, however, be argued that the more defensible and rewarding method would be to blend the two approaches. As Schon states, “rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying [both] theory and technique” (Schon, 1987, pp. 3-4).

Another question we may want to consider is which should come first —theoretical knowledge or practical knowledge. While not wanting to digress into a chicken-or-the-egg-type debate, it could be interesting to consider which would be the best to lead with in helping others acquire new knowledge and skills. Is it best to lead with theoretical knowledge and then provide opportunity for practice based on the theory? Or is it best to lead with practice and then debrief what did and didn’t work and share potential reasons based on the theory? Perhaps the answer lies in learning theory and individual learning styles and preferences. Also perhaps a question of emphasis on theory versus practical knowledge can be answered in a matching to the desired behavioral outcome. This could be related to the concepts of ‘know how’ versus ‘know why’ being discussed in current literature. Perhaps it can also be related to cognitive levels where theory and the ability to create the tools that allow individuals to perform their task is a higher-order cognitive skill versus practical knowledge and using the knowledge to perform tasks may be at a different/lower level—or perhaps even be in the psychomotor rather than cognitive domain.

-Robin

References:

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Reprint in CoursePack at www.xanedu.com: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. In School review (pp. 493-542). Reprint in CoursePack at www.xanedu.com: University of Chicago Press Journals.

Copyright Robin Donnan 2007. All Rights Reserved.
Performance Associates, Inc.

Today we take an interesting turn in our exploration of epistemology—the challenges and opportunities that gender and sexual orientation bring to the management of knowledge.

Gender

Women’s perspective on knowing, as described by Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986) presents many opportunities for managing knowledge. For example, their concept of subjective knowledge encourages the development of one’s instinct and intuition as a means of being able to define one’s own truth. “Truth, for subjective knowers, is an intuitive reaction [where one is] not...part of the process, as constructor of truth, but as conduit through which truth emerges” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 69). This means less reliance on restrictive dualistic thinking of absolutes. It also embraces what the authors call “connected knowing, an orientation toward understanding and truth that emphasizes not autonomy and independence of judgment, but a joining of minds” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). And like Empiricism and Romanticism, it values pragmatic firsthand experience—”learning through direct sensory experience or personal involvement with the objects of study” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 74).

In the development of subjective knowledge, Belenky at al. cite the importance of trusted experts who can offer their experience and provide guidance. “By sharing reactions and solutions ...by being given the opportunity to talk things over with a sympathetic, nonjudgmental person with similar experience... [one can see that one] has experience that may be valuable to others” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 61). This, in essence, is similar to the concept of having a mentor to whom one can turn for reassurance and advice.

The subjective knowledge approach also presents challenges for managing knowledge. For example, through intuition and instinct, it relies on an increased usage of tacit knowledge, which can be more challenging to capture and share with others. There are also the challenges a subjectivist epistemology faces “in a world that emphasizes rationalism and scientific thought” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). It is difficult for a subjectivist voice to be respected in the light of centuries’ practices of emulating the scientific process even for the study and exploration of the arts and humanities. And more disturbingly, how can we encourage the development of subjectivist intuition without requiring the negative life experience, abuse, or “crisis of trust in male authority” that many of the women in Belenky et al.’s article described (1986, pp. 57-58)? Another challenge (or potential limitation) of subjectivism and those who adhere to its tenets, is the tendency to “insist on the value of personal, firsthand experience; and... if they listen at all to others, it is to those who are most like themselves in terms of life experiences” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 68). As Schwab (1971) taught us, there is greater value in applying multiple theories to get a more accurate and complete assessment of a situation.

Sexual Orientation

In DeCastell and Bryson’s chapter, they explore what insights the challenges of gay and lesbian studies can bring to pedagogy—which they define as “analyses of how knowledges are produced and resisted” (1997, p. 65). DeCastell and Bryson present many opportunities for managing knowledge. For example, their progressive pedagogy reminds us that it is best to consider all perspectives with equal tolerance and to strive to escape the restrictive bounds of us/them thinking.

DeCastell and Bryson’s knowledge approach also presents challenges for managing knowledge. For example, what were prevalent racist biases in the mid-twentieth century have now been replaced by homophobic biases; even if these biases are erased, there will likely still remain the challenge of new biases including those against certain races/cultures (often due to current local and world events). As DeCastell and Bryson state, “It takes intellectual, political, and emotional courage to withstand and work through the trauma that predictably results whenever the smooth operation of the normal/pathological binary is questioned and interrupted” (1997, p. 70). Changing viewpoints is never easy. DeCastell and Bryson also discuss at length the challenges of teaching more controversial subject matter, in a way cautioning those who do so to be prepared for the reactions and outbursts that may occur. Inherent also are the challenges and limitations of language and how one can discuss differences without inadvertently reinforcing old stereotypes and us/them biases, or putting “identities on trial” (DeCastell & Bryson, 1997, p. 76).

References:

Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind (pp. 52-75). Basic Books, Inc. (Reprinted from CoursePack, p. 91, 2007, www.xanedu.com)

DeCastell, S. & Bryson, M. (1997). Querying pedagogy. In Britsman, D. P. & Miller, J. L (Eds.), Radical interventions: Identity, politics, and differences in educational praxis (pp. 60-80). State University of New York Press. (Reprinted from CoursePack, pp. 105-117, 2007, www.xanedu.com)

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. School review (pp. 493-542). University of Chicago Press. (Reprinted from CoursePack, pp. 61-86, www.xanedu.com)

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

We continue our study of epistemology today with a look into Drucker's view that “the adult – and especially the adult with advanced knowledge – will be as much trainer as trainee, as much teacher as student.”

Drucker was very prophetic when claiming in 1993 that “training in one form or another will …become lifelong” and that “the adult…will be as much trainer as trainee, as much teacher as student” (p. 207). In my over 20 years as a workplace learning and performance improvement professional serving the corporate sector, I have observed and participated first-hand in the evolution of the knowledge worker as both continuous learner and instructor.

When I first developed training in the late 1980’s, workplace training was being treated as an event, often long and going over multiple weeks—very similar to what employees experienced when they were in college. Indeed, as instructional designers we were directed to design these courses like boot camps to indoctrinate the new employees into the culture, procedures, and expectations of the company; lecture, discussion, and business-school style case studies were the instructional approaches of choice. Fast-forward now to today and training is no longer a school-like event; it is woven into the every day processes of all the leading corporations with which I work. The direction to instructional designers today is not to recreate a college-like experience but rather to design highly-interactive practice and application-based programs that also incorporate pre- and post-learning event elements to ensure better transfer of the learning. Courses now are much shorter in duration, often just ½ day or less and only multi-day at major career milestone/promotion points. Courses no longer just occur in a classroom; they occur via web conference or more informally via coaching relationships and on-the-job training supported by knowledge bases, job aids, and the individual’s own research and reading.

Thus, today’s knowledge worker alternates between trainee (when participating in short classes or web conferences, reading the company’s Intranet/knowledge base, or collaborating with their coach, supervisor, or other peers) and trainer (when leading short classes or web conferences, adding their expertise to the company’s Intranet/knowledge base, or coaching and developing their direct reports and mentees). This alternating of the individual between trainer and trainee is critical to fostering the self-directed lifelong learning which Drucker argues is critical to the knowledge worker. Davenport and Prusak also echo this need in their emphasizing that everyone in an organization needs to actively “create, share, search out, and use knowledge in their daily routines” (2000, p. 108).

Add to this the research being done to quantify the impact of these HR-related activities on firm performance (Becker & Gerhart, 1996; Niehaus & Swiercz, 1996) . Hopefully research will soon be able to display solid empirical evidence that knowledge and learning are both critical components of individual and organizational performance. Meanwhile, as knowledge managers in the knowledge society we can do our part to continually support and foster employees’ ability to apply their meta-learning skills individually and collectively to help ensure the sustainability of both individuals and organizations.

- Robin

References:

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996, August). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779.

Davenport, T. & Prusak, L. (2000). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know (paperback ed.). Boston: Harvard Business School Press. (Original work published 1998)

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-Capitalist Society. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc. (Reprinted in Xanedu course pack).

Niehaus, R. & Swiercz, P.M. (1996). Do HR systems affect the bottom line? We have the answer. Human Resource Planning, 19(4), 61-63.

Wright, P., Gardner, T., Moynihan, L., Park, H., Gerhart, B., & Delery, J. (2001, Winter). Measurement error in research on human resources and firm performance: Additional data and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 54(4), 875-901.

We're in the home stretch now of our journey through epistemology. Today we'll look into how a team leader would implement Senge's discipline of dialogue.

As Senge (2006/1990) emphasized, the skill of dialogue is an important prerequisite element to the discipline of team learning. In the follow-up book to The Fifth Discipline (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994), William Isaacs outlines the levels and stages of dialogue beginning with conversation and ideally ending with true dialogue rather than discussion or debate. Isaacs and Smith go on to discuss the basic components of a dialogue session and how to design a dialogue session. For example, key elements of a positive dialogue session include an invitation to the dialogue session, generative listening, allowing for silence to consider individual and team thoughts, suspending judgment, and using disagreements as an opportunity to identify areas the team needs to explore further. Additional dialogue session guidelines offered by Isaacs and Smith include allowing at least two hours, checking in with every team member at the beginning and end of each session, not having an agenda or being overly prepared, not meeting over a meal, speaking to the center of the group and not to each other, and agreeing to meet for at least three times to allow adequate opportunity for the conversation to grow into dialogue (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994, pp. 377-380).

With these recommendations in mind, as a team leader I would take a multi-pronged approach for implementing a discipline of dialogue. First, ensure that upper management supports and models the use of dialogue within the organization. Second, provide training and practice in critical dialogue skills such as listening, suspending judgment, and brainstorming. Third, implement a method—similar to the Army’s After Action Reviews—that uses dialogue to capture key learnings at the end of project efforts, posts those to a shared knowledge base, and then uses those key learnings to help shape future projects. Fourth, publicly recognize and privately reward those who practice positive and productive dialoguing. Also, another important element per Senge (2006/1990) to support dialogue and the learning organization is to allow time for reflection (both within and between dialogue sessions). For this, I would recommend adopting 3M’s “Fifteen-Percent Rule” that supports employees spending up to 15% of their time in individual learning and knowledge-building pursuits that benefit not only them as individuals but also the organization in innovation (McElroy, 2003).

- Robin

References:

McElroy, M. (2003). The new knowledge management: Complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
S
enge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed ed.). New York: Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Senge, P. M., Kleiner, A., Roberts, C., Ross, R. B., & Smith, B. J. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Doubleday.

Epistemology is defined as “the branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity” (epistemology, n.d.). In the exploration of epistemology, many philosophers have attempted to define what knowledge is, how it is acquired, and what is truth. My next three posts will be a synthesis of what these many philosophers have taught us over the ages, resulting in the formation of five guiding principles that can be applied to the modern application of learning and knowledge management.

Guiding Principle 1: Knowledge involves aspects of both the mind (thinking) and the body (senses and experience)

In the early days of epistemology, there was a strong separation between mind and body. Plato and Descartes believed that knowledge was of the mind. Plato (360BC/1968) argued that knowledge is innate and need only be brought forth. Descartes (1644) coined the phrase “cogito, ergo sum”—I think, therefore I am—and argued our senses should not be trusted, and that thought proceeds and is more certain and clearer than the body. On the other hand, Aristotle and Locke believed that knowledge focuses on the body and what is learned through our senses and experience. Aristotle (350BC/1993) argued that knowledge is created via mental processes based on what our senses perceive of the world around us. Locke (1689) developed the concept of the mind as a “tabula rasa” (white paper or blank tablet) upon which experience writes.

As we move into the 18th century through the mid-20th century, a separation between mind and body was still evident, yet some synthesis of the two began. Rousseau (1762/1957), James (1907), and Dewey (1938/1998) emphasized experience and the senses. On the other hand, Kant (1803/1960) argued that we need both sense and understanding. He believed that the body and senses help form self-sufficiency, strength, skill, quickness, self-confidence, discipline, and individuality plus enable one to become a contributing or working member of society. At the same time, Kant believed that the mind helps with the development of understanding, judgment, reason, and morality.

Looking now to the turn of the last century, a more holistic view of knowledge emerged. Schon argued for both ‘knowledge-in-action’ and ‘reflection-in-action’ (1987, pp. 23-29). Senge introduced the concept of systems thinking which “integrates [his five] disciplines [for learning] into a coherent body of theory and practice” (2006, p. 12). Nonaka and Takeuchi encouraged Western companies to embrace more holistic concepts of knowledge characterized in the Japanese intellectual tradition that emphasizes “the ‘whole personality’… [where] knowledge means wisdom that is acquired from the perspective of the entire personality… [resulting in a] valuing of personal and physical experience over indirect, intellectual abstraction” (1995, p. 29). They further argued that tacit knowledge in particular involves both physical skills (or ‘know-how’) as well as a cognitive aspect that “reflects our image of reality (what is) and our vision for the future (what ought to be)” (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 8).

Guiding Principle 2: Knowledge is acquired through a combination of methods

The ancient philosophers provided many enduring truisms related to understanding how knowledge is acquired. For example, Plato (360BC/1968) introduced his sun metaphor—where the light of good helps us to see the ideas of the mental world—which is the basis of the concepts we hear today with such words and phrases as "enlightenment," "seeing the light," "bright ideas," and "dawning on us.”

Many philosophers believed that knowledge was acquired through the senses. Both Aristotle and Locke contended that one can acquire new knowledge only through the senses and accumulating those experiences to form knowledge and skill. For them, knowledge is inductive by nature. Aristotle (350BC/1993), who laid the foundation for the scientific method, argued that we use our sensory perception to take in particulars and then use reasoning powers to understand what our senses perceived. Locke (1689) argued that the only knowledge humans can have is based on experience (‘a posteriori’). In Book I of Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding, he argued against innate knowledge and the Cartesian split between mind and body. In Book II, Locke presented his theory of knowledge being one where all knowledge is acquired through either our senses or from reflecting on our experiences in the physical world. Interestingly, Locke still did support the Cartesian Dualism of the mind/body split; even though the mind gathers data from the sensory world, Locke argued that knowledge is an intellectual event in a world separate from the physical one. In the 18th century, Rousseau offered a four-step approach for acquiring knowledge where we “let the senses be the only guide for the first workings of reason” (1762/1957, p. 131). He argued that knowledge should be acquired first through the senses, observation, and experience; second, gradually gain the ability to focus on one thing for a long time (as driven by the learners’ interest—not an external mandate); third, apply these to ‘an honest trade’ (ensuring that one does not acquire the prejudices of one’s social and/or economic position); and then, finally, develop judgment and reasoning.

Many philosophers also believed that knowledge is acquired through the mind. Plato and Descartes were proponents of knowledge being acquired through the intellect alone—they both believed that we are born with innate ‘a priori’ knowledge and can deduce truths through mental reasoning. Proponents of rationalist philosophy, they believed that the intellect could be used to acquire knowledge about everything there is to know—that one merely needs to apply adequate intellectual reflection and study to a subject in order to deduce the truth. Plato (360BC/1968) argued that ideas are perfect, eternal, and found in the soul and that knowledge is innate and needs only be brought forth. Descartes (1644) argued that reason alone determines knowledge and this can be done independently of the senses. He further asserted that since conscious sense experience can be the cause of illusions, all sense experience should be doubted. Instead, Descartes argues, the thinking mind can operate under its own rules of logic to come to conclusions about that ‘other world’—the physical world.
More recently, the belief has emerged that knowledge is acquired through multiple means. Kant (1803/1960) argued that two kinds of judgment are needed—a priori (deductive reasoning) and a posteriori (inductive reasoning). Echoing Kant’s belief that “no mental faculty is to be cultivated by itself, but always in relation to others” (1907, p. 71), James also taught that we acquire new beliefs and ideas through the linking or ‘grafting’ of new knowledge onto previous.

As new knowledge is acquired it is done so in relation to what we already know, and in forming these new truths our old ideas and beliefs are forever changed (James, 1907, p. 24). Furthermore, Nonaka and Takeuchi have cautioned Western managers to let go of knowledge acquisition as something that occurs through books and classrooms, but rather through a “less formal and systematic side of knowledge… [that focuses] on highly subjective insights, intuitions, and hunches that are gained through the use of metaphors, picture, or experiences” (1995, p. 11).

To be continued...

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Let's continue our exploration of five guiding principles of knowledge by exploring principles 3 and 4.

Guiding Principle 3: Truth is subjective

Throughout the study of epistemology, there is one concept that the philosophers have debated heatedly—and that is the concept of truth. Some—like Descartes (1644)—strove for certainty in truth, while others took a more accommodating stance.

Some philosophers’ beliefs of truth were characterized by absolutes. Plato (360BC/1968) asserted that only ideas are perfect, eternal, and permanent—unlike all things in the physical world that always become corrupted and die. Descartes (1644) argued that knowledge of eternal truths can be attained by reason alone. He asserted that truths are attained by reason and are broken down into elements that intuition can grasp through a purely deductive process resulting in clear truths about reality. Descartes also argued that everything we know is either a thing, an affection of a thing, or an eternal truth (1644, p. XLVIII). Furthermore, he believed that we can conceive of physical substance without the actual object, but the opposite is not true—thus the truth lies only in the mind (Descartes, 1644, p. LIII). And relatively recently, Skinner (1971) argued that truth can be found only in directly observable behaviors.

Fortunately these rigid definitions have yielded to a more accommodating and subjective view of truth. Locke believed that in "searches after truth...the very pursuit makes a great part of the pleasure. Every step the mind takes in its progress towards knowledge makes some discovery, which is not only new, but the best too, for the time at least” (1689, p. 1). James presented his view of instrumental truth, or “the view that truth in our ideas means their power to ‘work’” (1907, p. 43). He also supported the subjectivity of truth in citing the ideas of Schiller and Dewey who argued that “…ideas become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience” (James, 1907, p. 23). Women’s perspective on knowing, as described by Belenky, Goldberger, Clinchy, and Tarule (1986), presented the concept of subjective knowledge which encourages the development of one’s instinct and intuition as a means of being able to define one’s own truth. “Truth, for subjective knowers, is an intuitive reaction [where one is] not...part of the process, as constructor of truth, but as conduit through which truth emerges” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 69). Subjective knowledge means less reliance on restrictive dualistic thinking of absolutes, and embraces what the authors call “connected knowing, an orientation toward understanding and truth that emphasizes not autonomy and independence of judgment, but a joining of minds” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 55). Nonaka and Takeuchi asserted that “organizational intention provides the most important criterion for judging the truthfulness of a given piece of knowledge…intention is often expressed by organizational standards or visions that can be used to evaluate and justify the created knowledge” (1995, p. 74). Drucker also took an accommodating view of truth, stating “All knowledges are equally valuable; all knowledges, in the words of the great medieval saint and philosopher St. Bonaventura, lead equally to the truth” (1993, p. 218).

Guiding Principle 4: Learning is most effective when it involves elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking

Through their study of knowledge, the epistemological philosophers also contributed their beliefs about how learning can be most effective—and many argued for including elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking. Descartes (1644) argued for steps to educate oneself that included both intellectual pursuits and practice as a means to apply morals and logic. Kant (1803/1960) argued for methods designed to train both the mind and the body. He believed the mind should be trained (1) through both physical and moral training, (2) with an eye to the end goal—is it for work (scholastic culture) or play (free culture); (3) to maximize memory skills early and cultivate understanding; and (4) with rules alongside application and examples. Kant also believed that the body should be trained through (1) active doing to combine skill and senses; (2) developing a photographic memory (to be used in nature as well as in books and music); and (3) using childhood games to prepare children for the future and condition them to remain busy and work toward an end goal (1803/1960). Rousseau (1762/1957) argued for learning through experience first and then proceeding to mental reasoning. He believed that it is best to teach through doing whenever possible, and only fall back upon words when doing is out of the question. Rousseau also emphasized the need for experienced-based self-directed learning stating:

Let the senses be the only guide for the first workings of reason… The child who reads ceases to think, he only reads. He is acquiring words not knowledge. [Rather] teach the scholar to observe the phenomena of nature… Put the problems before him and let him solve them himself. Let him know nothing because you have told him, but because he has learnt it for himself. (1762/1957, p. 131)

Late 20th century philosophers continued to support the idea of effective learning needing both practice/doing and thinking/theory. Rogers encouraged us to remember that learning is both intellectual and behavioral by stating, “It is not simply an intellectual value choice, but seems to be the description of the…behaviors by which [the learner] moves exploringly toward what he wants to be” (1961, p. 176). Skinner’s operant conditioning involved the breaking down of learning into small pieces, and then providing both instruction and practice (along with reinforcement) on each piece (1971). Schon stated, “rigorous professional practitioners solve well-formed instrumental problems by applying [both] theory and technique” (1987, pp. 3-4). He argued for practical knowledge providing experience and skill in problem solving—resulting in the artistry by which the seasoned professional practices a trade. Practical knowledge also provides the opportunity to build what Schon termed ‘knowledge-in-action’—the ability to apply tacit knowledge and make wise judgments in the light of new problems and situations (1987, pp. 23-25). He also recommended the use of practical experience that can provide the opportunity for ‘reflection in action’—a series of evaluations, learnings, and modifications that are made in the midst of practice (Schon, 1987, pp. 26-29). Schwab (1971) also argued in support of the need for both theory and practical application. He asserted that theory knowledge provides the legitimacy of facts, rules, and concepts founded upon research; however, theory alone—with its inherent generality—is not enough for today’s professionals since practice requires the concrete and particular.

More recent philosophers have brought the concept of learning through both practice/doing and thinking/theory into the mainstream. Drucker himself criticized the traditional liberal arts education (typically grounded in theory), stating that this form of education “does not enable [students] to understand reality, let alone to master it” (1993, p. 213). He argued that what is needed instead is a blending of theory and doing, being able to live and work in both the worlds “of the ‘intellectual’ who focuses on words and ideas, and that of the ‘manager’ who focuses on people and work;” by having both, “there can be creativity and order, fulfillment and mission” (Drucker, 1993, p. 215). Senge introduced “the five disciplines [that] represent approaches (theories) and methods [practices] for developing three core learning capabilities: fostering aspiration, developing reflective conversation, and understanding complexity” resulting in what he calls ‘generative learning’ or enhancing the capacity to create (2006, pp. xiii, 14). Furthermore, Senge cautioned that “we learn best from experience, but [if] we never directly experience the consequences of our most important decisions” we will be limited in what can be learned from that experience (2006, p. 23). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) also embraced a holistic method of learning, believing that learning provides an opportunity to internalize knowledge and convert from explicit to tacit knowledge. They argued that sometimes learning by doing is the best method—what they termed ‘re-experiencing’ others’ experiences—and believed that other times hearing or reading of others’ experiences works equally well (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, pp. 69-70).

To be continued...

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Let's now complete our exploration of five guiding principles of knowledge.

Guiding Principle 5: Today’s knowledge managers need to remain flexible, willing to adapt their approaches and adopt new perspectives/techniques

Epistemology has much to offer to today’s knowledge managers. It is interesting to note that the advice is varied. When considered together the solution appears to be adopting a flexible mindset and being willing to adapt one’s approach based on what epistemology teaches us from the past, as well as what we will learn in the future.

From the ancients, we gather suggestions for how to maximize knowledge acquired through the mind or body. Plato’s assertions suggest the need to provide opportunities for each individual’s innate knowledge to spring forth (360BC/1968). He argued 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, argued that the knower has the ability to gather knowledge through mental processes applied to information (i.e., gathered via their senses) based on the world around us (350BC/1993). This gathered knowledge can then be used to increase what the knower knows. The implications of this for knowledge managers is 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 form memories which can then become experience, and 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.

Even though Rousseau addressed the education of an adolescent in Emile, he brought forth many ideas that are followed today in the methods of experiential and discovery learning that work for children and adults alike. Rousseau’s gathering sea shells analogy (1762/1957, p. 134) also has a parallel to today’s Internet-based processes for gathering ideas and information. With the vast number of sources available today, ideas and information—just like Rousseau’s sea shells—run the risk of being gathered, tossed here and there as they fit our interests, and then being thrown away once we become overwhelmed. Thus conscious work must be done to ensure that ideas and information have the opportunity to be converted into knowledge before they are thrown away and lost.

Moving forward to the 20th century, Schwab (1971) asserts the need to apply multiple theories to get a more accurate understanding or assessment of a situation, and that people need to be taught how to critically consider and evaluate multiple theories. Schon’s (1987) teachings remind us that for a good learning environment in either academic or corporate institutions, the artist-practitioner needs to be able to convert his/her tacit knowledge into knowledge and activities that can be conveyed and then practiced or applied by students. The artist-practitioner also needs to share his/her experiences of theory in practice; the implication is that if the instructor lacks that experience, it would be helpful to bring in others as guest speakers to provide that and/or (in the case of adult learners) elicit students’ experience to aid in applying the theory. Belenky et al. (1986) cited the importance of trusted experts who can offer their experience and provide guidance when developing one’s subjective knowledge. “By sharing reactions and solutions ...by being given the opportunity to talk things over with a sympathetic, nonjudgmental person with similar experience... [one can see that one] has experience that may be valuable to others” (Belenky et al., 1986, p. 61). This, in essence, is similar to the concept of having a mentor to whom one can turn for reassurance and advice.

Our most recent knowledge experts provide additional recommendations for how today’s knowledge manager can maximize workplace knowledge sharing and learning. Drucker recommended that knowledge managers help facilitate how to best apply knowledge to produce business results (the improvement, exploitation, and innovation that he speaks of as the three kinds of new knowledge) in order “to make knowledge productive” (1993, pp. 185, 191). Senge argued that “the organizations that will truly excel in the future will be the organizations that discover how to tap people’s commitment and capacity to learn at all levels in an organization” (2006, p. 4). He encouraged knowledge managers to maximize the increased connection and networked nature of organizations, thus leading to “new capacity for continual learning, innovation, and adaptation” (Senge, 2006, p. xvi). He recommended companies create a structure that fosters learning and continuous improvement, encouraging the five disciplines and blending them into the organization’s culture. This could be done through developing a shared vision, providing opportunities for reflection, and aligning the reward system to encourage learning and sharing. Senge also encouraged working to create a positive learning environment and being willing to invest in the long-term and not be distracted by short-term gains; thus the implication for the knowledge manager is to help organizations balance their need for short-term results with the desire for sustainability and achievement of lasting and long-term goals. Nonaka and Takeuchi argued that to maximize the knowledge creation capability of an organization, the knowledge manager needs to provide opportunities for individual knowledge to be converted into organizational knowledge “through dialogue, discussion, experience sharing, and observation” (1995, p. 13). They also encouraged the involvement of all levels to create new knowledge—from front-line employees, to middle managers, to senior management (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995, p. 15). Furthermore, they asserted the value of using a rugby team approach to teamwork. This involves having overlapping project phases taken on by a multi-disciplinary team who has shared responsibility throughout the development process and takes turns in contributing what their specialization offers to the task at hand (Takeuchi & Nonaka, 1986).

Summary

Reflecting on the history of epistemological thought results in five guiding principles that can be applied to the modern disciplines of learning and knowledge management:
1. Knowledge involves aspects of both the mind (thinking) and the body (senses and experience).
2. Knowledge is acquired through a combination of methods.
3. Truth is subjective.
4. Learning is most effective when it involves elements of both practice/doing and theory/thinking.
5. Today’s knowledge managers need to remain flexible, willing to adapt their approaches and adopt new perspectives/techniques.

The implication is that today’s learning and knowledge management professionals need to use these principles to respect both thinking and experience, and to provide opportunities and methods in the workplace that maximize both the mind and body. Learning and knowledge management professionals are encouraged to model openness and discourage the tendency to seek ‘the’ right answer or truth; instead, they need to encourage the consideration of multiple perspectives and ensure different viewpoints are heard. Learning management professionals in particular need to build in ample opportunities for both theory and practice during workplace learning events. And, finally, learning and knowledge management professionals themselves must be lifelong learners possessing a long-term view. They need to educate themselves and stay current on the methods for effective learning plus knowledge acquisition, sharing, and creation. They must also be able to weigh these methods in light of an organization’s culture and business goals—being willing to recommend incremental solutions that will lead to accomplishing the long-term vision. They must also be flexible, willing to change their approach as needed and help the workforce realize that learning and knowledge is everyone’s job.

References

Aristotle. (350BC/1993). Posterior analytics (J. Barnes, Trans.). London: Clarendon Press.

Belenky, M. F., Goldberger, N. R., Clinchy, B. M., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Subjective knowledge: The inner voice. In Women's way of knowing: The development of self, voice and mind, New York: Basic Books, Inc.

DeCastell, S. & Bryson, M. (1997). Querying pedagogy. In D. P. Britsman & J. L. Miller (Eds.), Radical interventions: Identity, politics, and differences in educational praxis (pp. 60-80). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of philosophy. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.classicallibrary.org/descartes/principles/index.htm

Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education (60th anniversary ed.). Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society.

Drucker, P. (1993). Post-capitalist society. New York: Harper Collins Publishers, Inc.

epistemology. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved November 18, 2007 from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epistemology

James, W. (1907). Pragmatism: A new name for some old ways of thinking. In The matter of belief: Selected works of William James. Retrieved October 1, 2007 from http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject

Kant, I. (1803/1960). Education. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Locke, J. (1689). Essay concerning human understanding. Retrieved September 3, 2007 from http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/publications/locke_understanding.html

Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

Plato. (360BC/1968). Republic (B. Jowett, Trans.). Public Domain.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist's view of psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

Rousseau, J. J. (1762/1957). Emile (B. Foxley, Trans.). London: JM Dent and Sons.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Schwab, J. J. (1971). The practical: Arts of eclectic. In School review (pp. 493-542). Chicago: University of Chicago Press Journals.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. (Original work published 1990)

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 1: A technology of behavior. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 2: Freedom. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Chapter 3: Dignity. In Beyond freedom and dignity. Retrieved August 25, 2007 from http://www.xanedu.com

Takeuchi, H. & Nonaka, I. (1986). The new new product development game. Harvard Business Review, Jan-Feb 1986(86116), 2-11.

- Robin
Performance Associates, Inc.

Dalkir (2005) defines information filtering as the process by which one can “go through an enormous amount of information to find the small portion that is relevant to us” (p. 238). With the vast amount of information we all have access to today, it becomes imperative to develop our own personal information filtering process. For me personally, I use different approaches information filtering processes—one for work and one for school.

For work, I rely upon consistent electronic file structures to enable easy retrieval of information. This structure is used for files as well as for email (including the use of rules to file emails automatically into the correct folders). I also use color coding of my calendar and any physical file folders to more easily differentiate between clients and projects.

For school, I rely upon EBSCO alerts and an AskSam database that I started in my second quarter at Walden (Seaside software, n.d.). To stay abreast of new articles related to my research focus, I’ve set up a number of EBSCO alerts that are automatically emailed to me; I also have them set up in a Firefox page via RSS feeds so that I can quickly preview the articles as they arrive. For my research database, I’ve applied a number of the concepts from this program. I first spent time defining the taxonomy and structure for my database; this involved defining the key categories and search terms I anticipated using when needing to retrieve information from my research. With key words and categories defined, I then began to enter all my journal articles, class notes, and assignments. The most critical thing I’ve learned is to stay disciplined with this entry process, e.g., using the week between quarters to update my database based on the previous quarter. Now finishing my sixth quarter, I’m already finding my database to be an incredibly useful tool for quickly locating the article or reference I may recall based on just a portion of the title or a quote. It has also been very useful in supporting my further research and writing when I need to search the over 400 entries in my database to see how many related hits I have on a particular topic.

References:

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Seaside software. (n.d.). askSam. Retrieved May 6, 2008 from http://www.asksam.com/brochure.asp

- Robin

Copyright Robin Donnan 2008. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.perfassocinc.com