Transcript No Slide Title

Knowledge and change
XII Nordic I&D Conference
Aalborg 1-3.9.2004
Climbing the knowledge pyramid.
R&D programs at Oslo University College
Dr. Robert W. Vaagan, Associate professor
Faculty of Journalism, Library and Information Science
Høgskolen i Oslo
OUC and 3 new R&D programs


Oslo University College est. in 1994: 18 smaller state colleges merged,
today Norway’s largest university college, with 10,600 students and a
staff of 1,000. Currently 7 faculties and 4 centres, with 30 BA and 9 MA
programs. OUC recently received accreditation of a doctoral program in
the study of professions, and several other doctoral programs are in the
pipeline. Possible university status within 5-8 years.
In June 2003, OUC board decided to establish three new R&D
programs, to concentrate, strengthen and supplement existing R&D:
– Communication, Culture and Learning (CCL)
– Health Sciences and Social Welfare (HSSW)
– Technology, Design and Environment (TDE)


2003-2004: planning & design; 2005: operational
R&D programs broadly conceived, most of the 7 faculties and 4 centres
will limit their participation to 1-2 programs. By bringing together 11
OUC units in 3 programs, R&D within programs will be multi- and
interdisciplinary. This poses challenges.
Høgskolen i Oslo
Challenges



Although the programs are meant to be supplementary to existing R&D, they pose
challenges. Needless to say, there are both enthusiasts and sceptics. Throughout
OUC the new R&D programs will have an impact on the concept of knowledge
(explicit and tacit forms), on knowledge creation and sharing. All 11 units need to
reassess their current R&D resource use and priorities. Thematic foci and
methodologies must be reviewed in order to formulate strategy and decide how to
interact with the three new programs. To what extent should existing R&D continue
under the faculty/centre mantles or be channeled into the new programs? Will
fragmented organizational culture(s) and academic “silos” pose problems? Do
blurred disciplinary boundaries weaken or strengthen involved disciplines?
Scientific staff who join the programs bring with them parts of their individual
R&D resources, and in addition, financing will be sought from external sources. By
exposing the programs to market forces, OUC has accepted that New Public
Management is a priority for the present government.
What about the Faculty of Journalism, Library and Information Science and LIS as
a discipline?
Høgskolen i Oslo
CCL module
OUC unit and priority in
relation to CCL module
Education &
didactics
Cultural
diversity
ICT &
media
Youth in
big cities
Professional
dialogues
Faculty of Education
High
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Faculty of Fine Art and
Drama
High
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Faculty of Journ., Library
and Information Science
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
High
Centre for Multicultural and
International Studies
Moderate
High
Moderate
High
Moderate
Faculty of Health Sciences
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Moderate
Faculty of Nursing
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
High
High
Faculty of Bus., Public Adm.
and Social Work
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Faculty of Engineering
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Høgskolen i Oslo
Knowledge sharing
3 critical and integrated
aspects:



Managing knowledge
sharing
Learning from
knowledge sharing
ICT support for
knowledge sharing
which in turn create 3
related traps:



The management trap
The individual
learning trap
The ICT trap
Huysman, M. & de Wit, D. (2002)
Knowledge Sharing in Practice.
The Netherlands:Kluwer
Høgskolen i Oslo
Explicit and tacit knowledge





Explicit or codified
knowledge readily
available in written
form
Converted from
tacit knowledge
Self-conscious
Seen as objective
Scientific, verifiable







Tacit knowledge often
concealed, implicit, oral
May not be converted into
explicit/codified form
Not self-conscious
Seen as subjective
Postmodernist ?! (aesthetics and
intuition as valid forms of
knowledge)
Instinct, intuition, talent, hunch,
competency, dexterity, knowhow, learning-by-doing
Less scientific, less verifiable
than explicit/codified form
Høgskolen i Oslo
Climbing the pyramid
“Knowledge is not an easy
term to define.
In fact
epistemologists spend their
entire
lives
trying
to
understand what it is to know
something. I won't try to
define knowledge […] for our
purposes, knowledge takes
information one step further
than information. I think of
information as data that tells
me about my business and
how it functions”
D. Marco (2003). ”A meta-data
repository is the key to knowledge
management”, The Data Administration
Newsletter (TDAN.com)
Høgskolen i Oslo
Knowledge management
“Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed
experiences,
values,
contextual
information, expert insight, and
grounded institution that provides an
environment and framework for
evaluating and incorporating new
experiences and information. It
originates and is applied in the minds
of knowers. In organizations, it often
becomes imbedded not only in
documents or repositories but also in
organizational routines, processes,
practices,
and
norms”
Prusak, T.H & Davenport, L. (1998).
Working Knowledge: How Organizations
Manage What They Know, No.5, Harvard
School Press: Boston




Foundations of knowledge
management
Knowledge as key
organizational resource
Organizational activity
based on knowledge
resources
Influences on knowledge
processing within an
organization
Holsapple. C.W (ed) (2003). Handbook
on Knowledge Management, Vols.I_II,
Berlin: Springer
Høgskolen i Oslo
LIS to the summit?




Information: ”data that has been processed into a
meaningful form”
Knowledge (= understanding) : ”information
evaluated and organized in the human mind so that
it can be purposefully used”
Unclear conceptual distinction
Consequences for LIS climbing the pyramid?
Feather, J. & Sturges, P. (eds.) International Encyclopedia of Information and Library
Science, London:Routledge, pp. 244, 341
Høgskolen i Oslo
Information science and theory
”Information science has not reached a stage of development
where it relies on a sufficiently sound theoretical and
methodological base to be accepted as an important field of
study. It is still looking for its identity […] Information
science, perhaps, has waited too long to establish a sound
theoretical basis for a cognitive-oriented information theory“
Wersig 2003
Høgskolen i Oslo
New directions in information theory





Constructivism (”information as the change in world
representations” Wiener 1996, Buckland 1991, Cole 1994)
Systems theory (”information as a choice for something and
thus against everything else that competes – Luhman 1988)
Action theory (”information as the value of knowledge in
action” Roberts 1982, Kuhlen 1990, Rauch et al 1994)
Modernization theory (”information as the development of
ordering structures within the ambiguous” Lyotard 1979,
Wersig 1993)
Common core: complexity; an integrated theory of information
may be a theory of complexity reduction (Wersig 2003)
Høgskolen i Oslo
LIS: towards the natural sciences?
An underlying problem is that LIS – influenced esp. by information
science and theory as well as by knowledge management - and in contrast
with older disciplines like philosophy and psychology - tends to treat
knowledge as a measurable unit. It thereby fails to adequately address
vital qualities of knowledge (e.g. tacit knowledge), and contextual aspects
of knowledge (direction, use, values, norms). This may change with new
advances in IS and KM. Already, parts of LIS recognize that the social
and ethical contexts and the use of information are decisive aspects of
“information literacy” [i]. The LIS definition also says little about the
genesis or creation of knowledge. Some of these shortcomings are linked
with the uncertainty regarding the identity, purpose and direction of LIS
[i] ACRL – Association of College and Research Libraries
http://www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlstandards/informationliteracycompetency.htm#ildef
See also Vaagan & Holm 2004
Høgskolen i Oslo
[i]
and away from the social sciences,
humanities & arts?
The classical librarian skills of cataloguing and classification have, in the
information age and knowledge economy, been reinforced with theories
and skills related especially to information and communication,
information retrieval, information systems, computer science, knowledge
management and web design. These place contemporary LIS increasingly
in the natural sciences, and less in the social sciences, humanities & arts.
For instance, the mathematical theory of information is more concerned
with quantification of information, than with how meaning or content
comes to be associated with a signal or message, which concerns
philosophers, psychologists, sociologists and linguists (Audi 1999:434435). Much will depend on developments in constructivism, systems
theory, action theory and modernization theory, and a possibly integrated
theory of complexity reduction (Wersig 2003). Yet looking ahead to what
LIS may evolve into, it is difficult not to believe that developments in e.g.
artificial intelligence (e.g. Kutz et al 2004) are likely to have more impact
on LIS than philosophical enquiries (e.g. Mason 2003).
Høgskolen i Oslo
Summary and conclusion

Enhanced LIS understanding of knowledge also means closer consideration
of knowledge perspectives in the social sciences, humanities and arts,
including postmodernist views. At OUC, three new inter- and
multidisciplinary R&D programs may invigorate and broaden individual,
disciplinary and organizational understandings of knowledge, knowledge
creation and sharing, and also make tacit knowledge more manifest. As a
result, LIS at OUC may benefit.

As LIS attempts to ascend the knowledge pyramid, its understanding of the
concept of knowledge relies esp. on information theory and science, and on
business-oriented knowledge management techniques. Increasing reliance
on the natural sciences at the expense of the social sciences, humanities &
arts, may lead LIS to neglect some basic epistemological and ontological
considerations about knowledge. Although new developments in
information theory (constructivism, systems theory, action theory and
modernization theory) concentrate on complexity reduction, a deeper
understanding of how complexity relates to knowledge is required (Wersig
2003).
Høgskolen i Oslo
Thank you!
E-mail:
[email protected]
Høgskolen i Oslo