psue@inforamp.net wrote:
> Arnold Wytenburg wrote:
>
> >I also held a similar viewpoint regarding the
> >data/information/knowledge/understanding/wisdom taxonomy for much of my
> >life. Sadly, though, I abandoned it several years ago in favor of an
> >alternative and (I believe) much more effective construct.
>
> This construct, which I think you describe as a framework below, seems to
> be the "Complex Adaptive System that by its nature arises from the
> interaction of information, reflection, intent and action." that you
> described in your previous post (L021017).
Part of the difficulty we face lies in the limitation of our languages.
My concern is less with what we call components and more with how they are
related to each other, hence the distinction between 'taxonomy' and
'system' (even these words can be confused with other, hence: "dynamical
complex adaptive system")
> I'd like to understand your definitions of information and knowledge.
> >From the above, they seem to be almost the same. What seems to be missing
> from the framework is "know how". Wouldn't you say you want your clients
> to accumulate more [relevant] "know how", which is a type of knowledge.
> Perhaps the framework itself, represents "know how".
Again, our language does us disservice. I use the terms information and
knowledge within the context of different classifier systems. What you
call 'know how' isn't a thing that can be accumulated. Instead, I believe
is a capacity for action which can be developed. Whereas information lies
within a system that classifies things, knowledge lies within a system
that classifes actions. I've noted in response to another post that I
believe knowledge is more about the act of knowing than about the things
our knowing acts upon. I like your step in the direction of 'know how'
and ask if it might be worthwhile to also consider 'know what', 'know
why', 'know when', 'know where' and 'know who'. My impression of someone
who has mastered these capacities is that they are 'knowledgeable'--that
is to say, they are good at 'knowing' which is a heck of a lot more useful
than being merely informed, regardless of the quantity or quality of
information.
> This sounds like "learning how to learn" (I've recently heard this
> described as "deutero loop" learning - I haven't been able to find any
> references on the Internet).
I understand what you describe as 'double loop learning'. I try to
incorporate such a concept in my work by suggesting to clients that they
direct their organizations to adopt a 'think-do-learn-change dynamic' into
their cultural orientation. This differs from the classic 'think-do-learn
loop' in two ways: first, it comprises a dynamic (rather than a loop)
where each act informs each of the others in a non-sequential manner more
consistent with the behavioral dynamics of the overall social-econimc,
socio-cultural, socio-technical and socio-political aspects of our
environment; and second, it forces the organization to continuously assess
the validity of its information base. This cannot be accomplished unless
one perceives 'knowledge' as an 'act of knowing'.
Success under such a rubric is dependent less upon the information to
which one has access and more upon the 'quality of thinking' that goes on
within an organization. Knowing and thinking are substantially similar,
much more so than knowledge and information. My overall concern with the
'knowledge management' movement is that it will lead organizations to
believe they can successfully 'outsource their thinking' to consultants or
to technologies.
Cheers, Arnold
--Arnold Wytenburg <arnold@originalthinking.com>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>