Knowledge Levels and their Transformation: Towards the Integration of Knowledge Creation and Individual Learning
out of 25
Post on 06-Jul-2016
<ul><li><p>Knowledge Levels and their Transformation:Towards the Integration of Knowledge Creationand Individual Learning*</p><p>Hammad AkbarSchool of Management, University of East Anglia</p><p> This paper shows the link between knowledge creation and individuallearning, and the coherence that exists between the knowledge creation view andsingle and double-loop learning models. It does so by examining differences in levels of knowledge and their relationship with creativity and knowledge creatingbehaviours. The analysis shifts the focus from the abstract notion of tacit knowledgeto a more specific discussion on creative human cognition. The paper is unique inadopting an endogenous perspective to the analysis of individual learning. Theanalysis is distinct from previous discussions on knowledge creation in three ways: (a)explicit and tacit knowledge are analysed in terms of the nature and degree of inter-dependence that exists between the two; (b) knowledge levels are defined in terms of their applications rather than as abstract concepts; and (c) a distinction is madebetween shifts and movements in knowledge to separate, and subsequently integrate,the information processing and creative dimensions of learning. Further, the paperhighlights specific challenges and limitations/costs that are associated with thetransfer/acquisition of knowledge levels, and argues that in the absence of aconscious effort, knowledge levels are acquired through mistakes and failures.Following that, various theoretical and managerial implications to facilitateknowledge creation are discussed.</p><p>INTRODUCTION</p><p>The knowledge creation view (Nonaka, 1991, 1994; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995)predominantly adopts an organizational perspective to the analysis of knowledgecreation. Indeed, this perspective is important as new knowledge contributes toorganizational competitiveness. However, knowledge creation cannot be viewed as</p><p>Journal of Management Studies 40:8 December 20030022-2380</p><p> Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.</p><p>Address for reprints: Hammad Akbar, School of Management, University of East Anglia, UK(email@example.com).</p></li><li><p>separate from individual learning. The absence of such focus makes it difficult tointer-relate action and knowledge, or address the issue of Cartesian subjective-objective split (Easterby-Smith et al., 2000). As a result, much as the role of tacitknowledge in innovation is highlighted (Howells, 1996; Lam, 2000; Nonaka, 1991),knowledge creation is likely to remain largely privatized. This paper examines the link between knowledge creation and individual learning in an attempt to integrate the two.</p><p>Following the need to stretch the analysis beyond two levels (Huff, 1997), thepaper extends Argyris and Schns (1978, 1980) single and double-loop models toexamine larger differences in knowledge levels, and their relationship with cogni-tion and behaviours which facilitate knowledge creation. The paper is unique inadopting an endogenous perspective to the analysis of individual learning. Theanalysis is distinct from previous discussions on knowledge creation in three ways.First, in contrast to the eitheror approach of the knowledge creation view,explicit and tacit knowledge are examined in terms of the nature and degree ofinter-dependence that exists between the two. Second, knowledge levels aredefined in terms of their applications, and the equivalence that exists within these,rather than as abstract concepts. Finally, the cognitivists view on knowledge cre-ation is extended with the distinction between shifts and movements in knowledgeto separate, and subsequently integrate, the information processing and creativedimensions of learning. Further, the paper discusses how knowledge levels areinternalized and externalized, and by stretching the analysis to multiple levels,magnifies the problems associated with their acquisition/transfer. In doing so, itsupports the claim advanced by Cheng and Van de Ven (1996) that innovationand chaos are inter-twined. The paper concludes with various theoretical andpractical implications to facilitate knowledge creation.</p><p>Learning in this paper is defined as the process of gaining knowledge aboutcause and effect relationships, and the external effects on (Shrivastava, 1983) andof these relationships. The unit of analysis in this paper is the individual. The discussion is mainly focused on the epistemological dimension of knowledge creation. Detailed discussion on the ontological dimension of knowledge, or in-dividual versus organizational knowledge creation, is beyond the scope of this paper, and so is the discussion on eugenics or IQ/EQ. The approach adopted in this paper is analytical and explanatory, as well as prescriptive. The first sectionof the paper provides a review of the relevant literature. The second classifiesknowledge levels, and shows how these generate depth and creativity in under-standing. The third section presents various benefits of knowledge levels in termsof reducing learning costs/dependency, affecting behaviours/attitudes, and their transformative effects. The fourth section examines the costs and limitationsassociated with the internalization and externalization of knowledge levels,and how these can be minimized. The final section presents the conclusion andimplications.</p><p>1998 H. Akbar</p><p> Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003</p></li><li><p>REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE</p><p>Definition of Knowledge</p><p>Knowledge is defined in different, and often controversial, ways. One set of defi-nitions distinguishes it from information. Information is the conversion of unor-ganized sludge of data (Davis and Botkin, 1994) into relevant and purposefulinformation (Drucker, 1998; Jones, 1995). Knowledge is the subjective storage ofaggregate information (Strydom, 1994) or expertise (Machlup, 1984). Another setof definitions appears in the form of objectivesubjective controversy, or the onto-logical realism versus epistemological relativism debate in philosophy. Knowledgein the traditional epistemology is equated with intransitive and objective truth.It is believed to exist in its absolute, static and non-human forms. In contrast,knowledge in the modern epistemology is viewed as the process of justifying per-sonal belief in pursuit of truth (Nonaka, 1994). Knowledge is considered relative,transformable and historically transient (Lawson, 1997).</p><p>The objectivesubjective divide tends to converge if knowledge is analysed interms of its levels. The Oxford Dictionary (2000) defines level as the amount, stand-ard, point of view, height, floor, or rank in scale or size of importance that existsin a particular situation at a particular time. Towards the objectivesubjective con-vergence, knowledge in this paper is defined both in terms of its product andprocess dimensions. Knowledge as a product refers to levels of objective truth,and as a process to the subjective and relative exploration of these levels. Thisdefinition makes a critical distinction between the ontological existence and theepistemological availability of objective truth. The highest level of such truth isabsolute in nature. However, while it may exist, its underlying essence, as detailedlater in the discussion, is not explicitly available for subjective comprehension.What is most explicitly available is the lowest level of objective truth, i.e. the every-day reality. In between the two, there exist different levels of objective truth withdifferences in levels of explicitness. Consequently, knowledge for a subject is the process of exploration. It is relative as the comparison of the intransitive andtransitive dimensions of truth (Bhaskar, 1986; Lawson, 1997) allows the underly-ing essence to be explored. The intervening variable in the process is humanunderstanding. As subjective knowledge progresses to higher levels, the otherwiseless explicit levels of objective truth begin to emerge, leading to a convergencebetween objectivity and subjectivity. In the discussion which follows, the termlevel is used to refer to the objective/ontological dimension, whereas the termknowledge level refers to the subjective/epistemological dimension of truth.</p><p>Explicit versus Tacit Knowledge</p><p>Following Polyanis (1966) distinction between focal and subsidiary awareness,knowledge is often distinguished between its explicit and tacit components. Explicit</p><p>Knowledge Levels 1999</p><p> Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003</p></li><li><p>knowledge is the hard, codified data (Nonaka, 1991), or formal and structuredknowledge (Kim, 1993). It can be aggregated at a single location (Lam, 2000), andis stored in organizations routines, procedures, practices, know-how and conduct(Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997). In contrast, tacit knowledge refers to the highlysubjective insights, intuitions and hunches (Nonaka, 1991), and the accumulatedskills and experience (Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997). It is person-embodied andingrained (Chesbrough and Teece, 1996; Howells, 1996; Lall, 1985) and difficultto be formalized, organized (Kim, 1993; Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997), or aggre-gated at a single location (Lam, 2000). Tacit knowledge is recognized to play animportant role in technological innovation (Howells, 1996), sustaining a firmscompetitiveness (Winter, 1987), or the success of Japanese enterprises (Nonaka,1991). However, the critical element within tacit knowledge which allows newknowledge to be created remains unspecified.</p><p>The explicittacit distinction is weak in terms of its scope and perspective. Itinadequately incorporates the differences in levels within the tacit and explicitcomponents. The analysis of tacit knowledge, as explained later in terms of levelsof learning, has rarely shifted beyond two levels. Likewise, explicit knowledge ismainly understood in terms of its highest level of explicitness, i.e. knowledge whichis formalized and codified. Knowledge which is articulated verbally (Hedlund,1994), such as views and opinions which are vital to an organizations functioning,or that which is not formalized or verbalized but can be demonstrated non-verbally, is ignored. What is also ignored is that there may exist levels within thehard codified knowledge, in that, some codified knowledge is more explicit in con-veying the underlying meaning compared to another. Part of this weakness stemsfrom the lack of individual-specific focus to analysis. It results in tacit and explicitknowledge being viewed as independent phenomena, with insufficient analysis ofthe nature and degree of inter-relationship that exists between the two.</p><p>Organizational Knowledge Creation</p><p>The knowledge creation view considers that new knowledge is created throughdynamic interactions between explicit and tacit knowledge (Nonaka, 1991, 1994;Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). Explicit knowledge is relatively easy to be trans-formed. It is acquired through practice, repetition, reinforcement, imitation, social-ization (Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997), or logical deduction and formal study(Lam, 2000). In contrast, tacit knowledge is difficult to be codified (Leroy andRamanantsoa, 1997). It is transmitted through metaphorization (Nonaka, 1991),or learning histories (Kleiner and Roth, 1997) and internalized through immer-sion (Baumard, 1999), assimilation (Kim, 1993), experience and trial-and-error(Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997), learning-by-doing (Lam, 2000), and observation,imitation and practice (Nonaka, 1991). Critical to its internalization is the activeinvolvement of individuals in the context (Nonaka, 1994), and a close interaction</p><p>2000 H. Akbar</p><p> Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003</p></li><li><p>among the knowing subjects (Lam, 2000). Nonaka (1991) uses the explicittacitdistinction to present four sequential patterns of knowledge-creation: (a) tacit-to-tacit, where existing tacit knowledge is converted into new tacit knowledge throughthe process of socialization; (b) tacit-to-explicit, where tacit knowledge is trans-formed into explicit knowledge through the process of externalization; (c) explicit-to-explicit, where existing explicit information is re-shaped into new explicitknowledge through the process of combination; and (d) explicit-to-tacit, whereexplicit knowledge is transformed into tacit knowledge through the process ofinternalization.</p><p>The knowledge creation view, however, is inadequately integrated with individ-ual learning. It ignores the relationship between action and knowledge, and couldperpetuate the Cartesian subjectiveobjective split (Easterby-Smith et al., 2000).Moreover, as the differences in levels within the explicit or tacit component areignored, it cannot account for those in transformative effects of new knowledge.Also, if such levels are incorporated in the analysis, Nonakas knowledge creationpatterns, as explained later in the discussion, tend to converge with the traditionalcommunication theories.</p><p>Behaviourism and Cognitivism</p><p>Organizational learning is often differentiated between behaviourism and cogni-tivism. Behaviourism observes measurable and controllable behaviours. Theunderlying assumption is that behaviours are reflexive and predictable, and canbe exogenously conditioned (Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997) through an appro-priate stimulusresponse, or S-R, sequence (Borger and Seaborne, 1966). Suchsequence is reversed in neo-behaviourism where the expectations of the conse-quence of a response generate a secondary stimulus for action (Lefranois, 1972).Behaviourism views learning as passive, adaptive and experiential (Fiol and Lyles,1985; Levitt and March, 1988; Nelson and Winter, 1982), and emphasizes thenotion of decision rationality, where individuals change their actions to achievea given set of outcomes, preferences or goals (Cheng and Van de Ven, 1996). Itsindividual learning models, however, mainly originate from animal studies in psychology and controlled laboratory experiments (Borger and Seaborne, 1966).</p><p>Cognitivism, on the other hand, studies human conduct in terms of mentalstates (Leroy and Ramanantsoa, 1997) and shifts the focus from response learningto the learning situation (Borger and Seaborne, 1966). The underlying assump-tion is that behaviours are purposive and unpredictable. Cognitivism views learn-ing as an active phenomenon (Hedberg, 1981), and emphasizes the notion ofaction rationality (Cheng and Van de Ven, 1996), in which cognitive maps andimages are modified or redefined (Argyris and Schn, 1980) and adaptive adjust-ments are blended with manipulative enactment of environment (Hedberg, 1981).Studies have also attempted to show the complementary nature of learning and</p><p>Knowledge Levels 2001</p><p> Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2003</p></li><li><p>behaviour (Argyris and Schn, 1980; Inkpen and Crossan, 1995; Leroy andRamanantsoa, 1997). A qualification is, however, introduced that cognitivechanges may not lead to an observable change (Huber, 1991) or behaviouraloutcome (Fiol and Lyles, 1985) in the immediate future (Inkpen and Crossan,1995). Cognitivism, however, has failed to provide a mo...</p></li></ul>
View more >
TOWARDS THE INTEGRATION OF KNOWLEDGE ORGANIZATION SYSTEMS WITH THE LINKED DATA ... Towards the Integration…
Networks for Learning and Knowledge Creation in for Learning and Knowledge Creation in Biotechnology ... In Networks for Learning and Knowledge Creation in ... Roni Factor, Einat Achituv-Du-nour ...Authors: Amalya L OliverAffiliation: Hebrew University of Jerusalem
IDEAL DIMENSIONS OF KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT ...... a Unified Model for Knowledge Creation, ... Nonaka’s SECI Model The transformation of tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge as annunciated by Nonaka’s ...
The Web 2.0 Driven SECI Model Based Learning and his knowledge transformation model ... Web 2.0 driven SECI model based learning process. 1. ... This knowledge creation model
Towards a Geography of Knowledge Creation: The Ambivalences between ‘Knowledge as an Object’ and ‘Knowing in Practice’
Knowledge sharing and ﬁrm Knowledge innovation sharing+and+firm+inniovatioet al., 2003). Moreover, knowledge sharing occurs at the individual and organizational levels. For individual employees, knowledge sharing is talking to ...
Analysis of Knowledge Management and E-Learning Integration ??2015-09-08Analysis of Knowledge Management and E-Learning Integration Approaches Janis Judrups ... Knowledge management looks at learning as a part
PENINGKATAN INDEKS SITASI TULISAN ILMIAH INDEKS SITASI TULISAN ILMIAH ... Knowledge Creation and Knowledge Architecture 3-18 Nonaka’s Model of Knowledge Creation and Transformation
Analysis the effects of Cultural Intelligence on Knowledge ...journal- externalization and internalization knowledge creation processes require knowledge transformation ... Nonaka’s four modes of knowledge creation ... model of the ...
The Future of Learning in the Knowledge Society ... Future of Learning in the Knowledge Society: Disruptive Changes for ... and knowledge-creation ... in the Knowledge Society: Disruptive Changes for
Knowledge Creation And The Seci Model Harpreet Kaur ijbm.co.in/downloads/vol2-issue1/51.pdfKnowledge Creation And The Seci Model ... organizational knowledge creation such as Nonaka’s model, ... transformation of tacit knowledge to explicit knowledge and ...
Beyond the learning process and toward the knowledge creation process: Linking learning and knowledge in the supportive learning culture
The Role of ICT in Knowledge Creation ??s Theory of Knowledge Creation is no ... He proposed a knowledge model that will ... and a lot of transformation of one’s tacit knowledge to explicit ...