Replying to LO30053 --
Dear Organlearners,
Philip Keogh <Philip.Keogh@leedsth.nhs.uk> writes:
>Many thanks for your reply. You pose two questions...
>
>>Here are two interesting questions.
>>(1) Which paradigm does a LO follow -- the "information
>> paradigm" or the "knowledge paradigm"?
>>(2) Can you explain your choice above?
>
>I am going to take the easy way out on this one and
>answer "BOTH".
>
>Reason - There is never (now there is a bold statement) a clear
>dichotomy between two alternatives. Things are never "black
>and white", "hot or cold". There is usually a choice of the
>mid-ground - a compromise.
Greetings dear Philip,
Thank you for your answer because it made me think deeply about the issue
once again. I myself is also very careful not to use LEM (Law of Excluded
Middle) to base my decisions upon. Using LEM is usually a "quick fix" to
simplify a complex issue.
But after contemplating it all over again, i think that the concept
"paradigm" makes all the difference. I cannot think of one instance where
a paradigm shift involved both the old and the new paradigm afterwards.
>So to answer question 1, I would refer you to Checkland's
>POM (Process of Organisational Meaning) model. It, I feel
>- you may disagree, covers both the information and the
>knowledge paradigm by not treating them as opposites, but
>as choices that lie on a sliding scale and more importantly
> - it deals with people.
Although i agree to Checkland's POM, i do not think that it takes the
issue of a paradigm shift into consideration. It is only the past three
years that i myself have come under the impression of how much people
consider either information or knowledge as crucial to their progress. I
was from my student days aware of the difference between the two, but i
never realised how much people base their actions on which one they
believe to be prevalent.
>I would be interested in hearing your "horror stories". Painting
>a picture with words ensures that concepts (and meaning) are
>more successfully transferred. I would guess that the academics
>who hold the "information paradigm" may well perceive a world
>where their success is based on information. They may even
>perceive information as knowledge, and vice versa. There will
>also be academics "in the middle ground".
Strangely enough, i know of some academics who keep to the "middle
ground". Two heads of departments comes to my mind at present. But i think
it it is because they "rig their sails according to the direction which
the wind blows". So much for my insistence on a paradigm exclusion. Some
"feel feathers" even for paradigms!
To tell you about the horror stories would place me in a difficult
position. Their details were told to me in confidence because i am known
as a "square peg in a round hole" -- meaning that i resist in exploiting
the academical system for my own personal advantage. But i will go as far
as telling this -- once an academic (heads of departments and even deans)
has crossed the path of the rectory too much, he/she is relieved from all
active duties, given an office with a secretary and told to keep
him/herself buzy with whatever pleasing until the day of retirement
arrives. I think that it is criminal to oust thinking people from a system
which is perhaps unknowingly following the "information paradigm".
Here is the picture: To see such knowledgeable persons with a history of
learning for life telling what happened to them with tears running down
their cheecks is too much to bear.
>Nothing however remains the same, and once people and
>organisations realise (learn) that information is merely a
>attribute of something else (knowledge), and that it is
>knowledge (people) they really want to deal in - - then the
>tipping point will be reached and we will see the change (for
>the better I think!).
I agree with you, but i have to qualify myself. It is not simply
information versus knowledge, but information versus all which involve
knowledge. We grow in knowledge not only because of feeding upon
information, but also because of our direct observations. In 1971 i became
aware of the superiorty of a management system based upon direct
observation. In 1972 i learned how that very management system began to
implode because of replasing direct observations with a complex practice
of gathering information (which after all had to rely on direct
observations). The outcome was disastrous. The organisation, perhaps the
foremost of its kind, was almost destroyed within three years.
Nothing can replace direct observations, not even detailed information.
>I hope the above remains coherent and I have passed on to
>you what I think I mean and understand!
It was indeed coherent. Last week i helped with a workshop in which it
came out that the coherency/consistency of an organisation is its prime
qualification in an environment which is becoming continually complex. We
began to talk on what it takes to be coherent/consistent, but i fear that
we had far too little time to explore this topic. Perhaps we can do it on
this LO-dialogue.
Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciated it -- and it fit in
nicely with that workshop of last week.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@postino.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.