Comment

Comment by Vahid Masrour on April 9, 2010 at 9:47pm

What i recently found interesting about the debate on knowledge definition was changing the hierarchical step after knowledge from wisdom to competency. When put in that perspective, knowledge, added to attitudes, skills turns into a component for competency. (Add values and you could get "capability" in the Moral Leadership framework). Looking at knowledge as a specific construct of data and information is fine, but looking at what comes after the achievement of knowledge should be part of the discussion too, IMHO.

Comment by Alice MacGillivray on March 7, 2010 at 6:12pm

In another forum, we were recently talking about the importance of adapting language with different groups and in different circumstances when addressing knowledge-related challenges.

I appreciate the efforts to define knowledge, develop transferable KM models and so on, and have participated in such activities off and on for 15 years or so. And--of course--many others worked to define and redefine knowledge for many centuries before we were born. My conclusion is that the process can be far more valuable than products.

Given that we are in a KM4DEV forum, I think my main motivation for posting was around boundaries and ethics. What are the implications of excluding the communities/people/systems one is trying to support when reifying definitions (or anything beyond some principles)?