Adjusment on our definition of Knowledge

Considering our DI-KW (stands for Data Information Knowledge Wisdom) model, as from Feb 8, 2010 via http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/we-are-the-knowledge-hy... - “WE ARE THE KNOWLEDGE : HYBRID DEFINITION OF KNOWLEDGE” , we made adjustment to our definition of Knowledge as follow :

Knowledge is Human Enlightenment Agent (HEA) evolved as emergent behavior inside human body as complex (adaptive) system since beginning, having consciousness* and free will (mind and value) as well as behaving dynamically as Subject acting to transform physical realities into Data and Information toward higher level and maturity of Knowledge itself and beyond

*This is modified definition after we formally announced the DIKW model transformed into separated DI-KW model (http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/the-origin-of-knowledge... - THE ORIGIN OF KNOWLEDGE AND KM : DI-KW SEPARATED ENTITIES MODEL and http://mobeeknowledge.ning.com/forum/topics/blooms-taxonomy-knowled... - BLOOM’S TAXONOMY, KNOWLEDGE AND KM REVISITED : SHOULD DIKW MODEL TRANSFORMED INTO DI-KW MODEL?)

Views: 44

Comment

You need to be a member of Knowledge Management for Development to add comments!

Join Knowledge Management for Development

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)?

Donate !

We all get a great deal out of our engagement in KM4Dev. Maybe you would be happy to express appreciation through a voluntary contribution. Crowd funding works! 

background and info

________________________________

 

***

note if the donate link above does not work for you, click here on donate! and at the bottom of that page click on the donate logo

***

Members

© 2018   Created by kmfordev admin.   Powered by

Contact us  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service