2.1 Introduction
2.3.1 What is knowledge?
There are various perspectives to the understanding of knowledge. Philosophers have deliberated over the concept for centuries – from the time of Plato and Aristotle to the present day. However, since this research is based on the LAB – a social institution – the researcher believes it is relevant to view knowledge (in part) from a sociological perspective. Further, it is a way of illustrating that there are other perspectives to knowledge – that which is different from an information and knowledge specialization perspective. The sociology of knowledge proposes that knowledge:
19
• Is socially determined – Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, both German sociologists, argue that thinking and consciousness are social products. That is, all human thought and consciousness develop out of real life and the actual conditions that particular individuals share.
• Constitutes a social order – this asserts that knowledge is not merely the outcome of a social order but also relates to sensory experiences (McCarthy 1996: 23).
From a sociological perspective, knowledge is a set of ideas and acts accepted by one or another social group or society of people – ideas and acts pertaining to what they accept as real for them and for others (McCarthy 1996).
From the information specialization perspective, knowledge is a continuum. This continuum is illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Figure 1: The knowledge continuum
Source: Bellinger (2004)
20
According to Harris (in Ponelis and Fairer-Wessels 1998: 2) the continuum determines the path to reaching knowledge. A continuum is a continuous non-spatial whole or extent or succession in which no part is distinct or distinguishable from adjacent parts (Continuum 2009). In the case of the knowledge continuum, it begins with data where data are the lowest level along the continuum. Data have no intrinsic meaning, but it must be sorted, grouped, analyzed and interpreted. Data processed in this manner become information. Information has substance and a purpose. When information is combined with context and experience, it becomes knowledge.
Finally, knowledge leads to wisdom. Wisdom is the understanding of which knowledge to use for what purpose.
Ponelis and Fairer-Wessels (1998: 2) settle on a definition of knowledge. Their contention is that knowledge is information in context through experience. Context is an individual’s framework to viewing life. This includes influences such as social values, religion, cultural heritage and gender. Experience is previously acquired knowledge. The researcher believes that knowledge is the stepping stone to further knowledge - knowing leads to change. Handy (1989:
8) wrote:
“A frog if put in cold water will not bestir itself if that water is heated up slowly and gradually and will in the end let itself be boiled alive, too comfortable with continuity to realize that continuous change at some point becomes discontinuous and demands a change in behavior. If we want to avoid the fate of the … boiling frog we must learn to look for and embrace discontinuous change.”
Bourner (1998) argues that if one fails to acknowledge this change (albeit gradual) one will be in danger of not realizing its impact on transformation. In order to engage effectively with the concept of knowledge management, one needs to engage with change. It is this very change that is transforming knowledge in a world where the management of knowledge becomes imperative.
21
Often, the terms information and knowledge are used interchangeably. It is the premise of this research that they are different. Information is organized, systematized data. While information is an objectification; knowledge involves subjectivization. Information can be knowledge when a human being interacts with it, appropriates it, and makes it her or his own, contextualizes living it by placing it in relation to other knowledge that is already his or her own, and internalizes it by making it a part of his or her belief system (Archarya 2002). Apart from the transformation of data to knowledge, knowledge needs to be stored (codified) and retrieved (decodified) in a manner that is user-friendly and meaningful.
Hall (2006) argues that the knowledge in knowledge management is focused on codification. He argues that the mainstream key knowledge management commentators, such as Ruggles, Davenport and Prusak, view codification as the primary vehicle by which knowledge becomes
“portable”, “reusable” or “transferable” within the organization. He continues by arguing that codification involves the locking of knowledge into information. Therefore, in order to unlock the coded information into knowledge that can be used it has to be decoded. Codification and decodification need to be thought of as inter-dependent processes. Usually, when codifying knowledge one needs to keep a decodifier or decodification context in mind. If one wishes someone else to be able to decodify our knowledge, then one needs to codify it in a language and using terms which the users are likely to understand. Decodification will resurrect the codified knowledge into information and will give meaning to the end-user.
While knowledge relates to context and experience, there are different forms of knowledge.
22 2.3.2 Forms of knowledge
In 1966, the Hungarian philosopher Michael Polanyi, in The tacit dimension
Technical dimension as in the case of a craftsperson’s expertise which they are unable to articulate scientifically;
(in Ponelis and Fairer-Wessels 1998), distinguished between two forms of knowledge, namely explicit and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge can be articulated in formal language and transmitted among individuals, whereas tacit knowledge is personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involving such intangible factors as personal belief, perspective and values (Ponelis and Fairer-Wessels 1998:3). Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) argue that explicit knowledge is a western form of knowledge entailing the belief that knowledge can be taught through education and training and can be expressed by the computer and transmitted electronically and stored in databases in a systematic and logical order. Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) are critical of management experts Drucker and Toffler and by implication western expression of tacit knowledge. They argue that when Drucker observes that “within a few years after Taylor began to apply knowledge to work, productivity began to rise at a rate of 3.5 and 4 percent compound a year, he was actually referring to the application of quantifiable data to work” (Nonaka and Takeuchi 1995: 8).
Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) view tacit knowledge as an eastern concept, particularly suited to the Japanese culture. They argue tacit knowledge is deeply rooted in an individual’s conduct and experience, as well as ideals, values, emotion, intuition, insights. Tacit knowledge makes use of images and symbols. It has two dimensions:
Cognitive knowledge which reflects people’s image of reality (what is) and a vision of the future (what ought to be).
23