The primary characteristic of the objectivist perspective is that knowledge is entitative and free from individual subjectivity (Hislop, 2013). This means that knowledge can be possessed by people but with the additional capability to existing independently of individuals in an explicit form (Hislop, 2013). On the other hand, the practice-based perspective sees knowledge not as codifiable but instead centralized around the argument that knowing is inseparable from purposeful human activity (Hislop, 2013). Based on these primary distinctions between objectivist and practice-based perspectives the theories represent different implications on the impact of tacit/explicit and cognitive/holistic knowledge dichotomies. Because objective theory believes that explicit knowledge is equivalent to objective knowledge it privileges the explicit and is primarily driven by cognitive processes (Hislop, 2013). Practice-based theory represents the idea that tacit and explicit knowledge are mutually constituted and that even codifiable knowledge has implicit elements that a reader wouldn’t make sense (Hislop, 2013). This demonstrates that knowledge is more holistic taking into considerations not just the mind but also the body.
The individual learning view is focused around “individual’s mental models as the essence of learning” and possible to separate individuals and organizations/systems (the metaphor of a soup and bowl) (Brandi, pg.26). But the theory on social learning questions the relationship between learning and cognitive structures, believing that learning is interrelated within communities of practice (COP) that make up an organization (metaphor of a rope) (Brandi, 2011). But the authors take these learning theories one extra step in their pragmatist approach, explaining it is “not possible to separate the individual from the social, the context and/or the organization” (‘products’ of history and culture) (Brandi, pg. 34).
Within the dense academic writings on Hislop and Brandi, two critical themes emerge language and human essence. For social learning theory, individual learning theory, pragmatism and the objectivist perspective, language plays a critical, but unique role. For example, in Bandi’s social learning theory language is a central element not just serving as a medium of knowledge transmission but also culture (Brandi, 2011). As well, the pragmatic approach explains “some experiences may not be apprehended as knowledge, because they do not enter a sphere of communication with self and others” (Brandi, pg. 32). Reflecting on experiences and turning it into language is the only way learning informs future practice for this approach (Brandi, 2011). The objectivist perspective has a conduit model of knowledge sharing which relies on explicit knowledge (and therefore language) for learning (Hislop, 2013). Although the individual social theory discusses language less, its centralization around mental models and cognitive structures as the essence of learning makes language integral (Brandi, 2011). However, practice-based perspective believes knowledge is embedded in practice and not derived purely from cognitive processes and so language is less critical (Hislop, 2011). Based on the theories above, is language necessary to thinking, knowing and learning? In what regard do we need to utilize language explicitly versus tacitly?
While engaging in the readings I found myself dialed into a philosophical discussion that wasn’t just focused around organizational knowledge and learning but instead human essence. At the core of diagnosing learning, thinking and knowing, are key assumptions surrounding the interaction and translation of language, reflection and experience. The theories utilize different formulas to explain human essence, for example, individual learning theory focuses on how we come to know whereas social learning theory discusses ways of being, becoming, identity development and socialization (Brandi, 2011). Can aspects of the elements above be separated from the mind and/or the body; from the self and/or environment?
The ambiguous theories surrounding language and essence have been argued by philosophers over centuries and this paper will not take on finding a right answer. But it is important to recognize how this discussion brings us back to basic principles of what it means to be humans and interact with the world. This moves organizational knowledge experts away from thinking about affordances of technology or focusing on content delivery and towards understanding translations of human’s internal and external experiences, which is extremely important when designing and engaging organizations in knowledge-sharing activities.
Resources:
Brandi & Elkjaer (2011) Organizational Learning Viewed from a Social Learning Perspective, in Handbook of Org Learning and Knowledge Management
Hislop, D. (2013) The Objectivist Perspective on Knowledge, in Knowledge Management in Organizations (Chapt. 2 &3, pp 17-46). New York: Oxford University Press (3rd Ed.)
Majchrzak, A., Faraj, S., Kane, G. C., & Azad, B. (2013). The Contradictory Influence of Social Media Affordances on Online Communal Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(1)
Treem, J., & Leonardi, P. (2012). Social Media Use in Organizations Exploring the Affordances of Visibility, Editability, Persistence, and Association. Communication Yearbook, 36, 143–189.
Commentaires