Concepts of Knowledge and Learning

In general, there is no commonly accepted system for describing and defining knowledge (OECD 2000) that would allow for understanding the relation of knowledge, learning and the developments in economic and social life. Following Willke’s (2004) argument, knowledge means in the first place the integration of information in systemically relevant practice. So, knowledge is made use of only where it is applied and where an individual decides that it makes sense to be applied. Applying knowledge to where it is useful and creates value in a learning society means to bring it to economic and social life.

According to the OECD (2000) economic models focus on gathering and processing information in order to make decisions and they refer to knowledge and information in two different ways: Firstly, the decisive postulation in standard microeconomics is “that the economic system is based on rational choices made by individual agents.” (original emphasis, p. 12). Thus, agents are crucial in that their knowledge (how much and what kind) about the world in which they act and their ability to process relevant information provide the foundation for decision making. Whereas through the second perspective knowledge is regarded as an asset that is in the production process, an input in terms of competence and output in terms of innovation. Thus, knowledge can be owned, bought and sold and theories that focus on innovation or competence development in and of organisations focus on knowledge creation, transfer and exploitation of knowledge (OECD 2000). The next section focuses on the differentiation between explicit and implicit or tacit knowledge so as to illustrate the potential but also the limits of knowledge transfer or trade.

3.2.1. Explicit and Implicit/Tacit Knowledge

On a more analytical level, knowledge can be classified in different ways. The above described perspectives on knowledge imply initially a threefold nature of knowledge: first, there is knowledge that can easily be articulated, transferred to other people for example on paper, the internet, by spoken word or in knowledge management tools and is thus tradable (“explicit knowledge”). Second, there is an “implicit dimension” of knowledge which refers to knowledge that comes from experience, allows an agent to make relevant decisions and is not easily expressed in words. This knowledge, was first called “implicit” by Polanyi (1967) who referred to it as that part of our knowing that we cannot make explicit: “we can know more than we can tell” (p. 4). Polanyi argued that implicit knowledge covers a variety of sensual and conceptual information and images that are activated when individuals try to make sense of something new. This is where the third nature of knowledge can be made out: According to Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) this tacit dimension is divided in two categories: the first one as mentioned above deals with that kind of informal knowledge that was coined ‘know-how’ (Ryle 1949) and means the more technical dimension behind practical experiences that can hardly be expressed. Whereas, the second category deals with a dimension that creates the filter of how we perceive reality and what we are able to envision for our future.

It consists of schemata, mental models, beliefs, and perceptions so ingrained that we take them for granted. The cognitive dimension of tacit knowledge reflects our image of reality (what is) and our vision for the future (what ought to be). Though they cannot be articulated very easily, these implicit models shape the way we perceive the world around us. (Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995, p. 8).

Thus, the third aspect can be called that kind of implicit knowledge that determines the way agents perceive the world and interpret their perceptions. The last aspect of the three is often termed as “mental model”12_{, mind-set, schemata, beliefs etc. that individuals are}

12 _{„Mental models are the images, assumptions, and stories which we carry in our minds of ourselves,} other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world. Like a pane of glass framing and subtly distorting our vision, mental models determine what we see.“ (Senge et al. 2007, p. 235).

not aware of. For this thesis the term “mental model” is used as defined by Senge et al. (2007). These mental models that guide people’s perception and determine their belief and value system help them to make sense of the world and reduce complexity. At the same time mental models limit the possibilities in taking certain (life) options because the options cannot be perceived by the individual (by reducing complexity some options are blended out). Another reason is that even if the options are perceived they might be declined because their realization would contradict the existing value and belief system inherent in an individual's mind (Senge et al. 2007). Mental models direct the individual’s attention and cause the individual to see, feel and act according to those underlying ideas of how the world is operating (Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995). This idea is very important to the kind of change management that needs to be undertaken in learning societies and thus in the networks that are examined in this thesis. This is because here, in peoples’ mental models the potential new opions are defined, i.e. what is thinkable and what is not. That means that without a change in existing mental models, hardly any new options can be perceived or realised.

For organisations and institutions the implicit part of knowledge is oftentimes especially valuable and interesting because this is an important element of an employee's experience and expertise that allows for a deep understanding of complex systems and enables the individual to solve context-specific problems (Winkler 2004). Moreover, individuals can only pass on this kind of knowledge in showing and explaining somebody else “how to do” these practices. This again makes the individual important and allows for recognizing and valuing her or his agency. This aspect is highlighted also by the following concept of “sticky” and “leaky” knowledge.

3.2.2. Sticky and Leaky Knowledge

The creation of knowledge is closely connected to the creation of innovation and thus to competitive advantage as Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) pointed out. Transferring knowledge from one individual or context to another is known to be difficult oftentimes, especially so when the intangible assets connected to knowledge are heavily tacit and hard to put into words (see for example Hargreaves 2004). Moreover, sharing knowledge, creating places for “ba” (see chapter 3.3.2) and continuous innovation is usually restricted to a certain space (Nonaka/Takeuchi 1995). Since the created knowledge and its productive use mean a competitive advantage, the interest of an organisation to keep this knowledge within its organisational borders is substantial. So the knowledge flow should be high within an organisation, across different departments (horizontally) and hierarchical levels (vertically) but sensitive knowledge should not leave the organisation (Aderholt/Wetzel 2005). Brown and Duguid (2001) discuss this question in depth and analysed the relationship between “sticky” knowledge (knowledge that does not flow where it should, for example between a research & development department and a production or sales department) and “leaky” knowledge (knowledge that does flow where it should not, for example between specified researchers who work for different companies). They conclude their analysis with the statement that knowledge is both, sticky and leaky at the same time.

The authors state that “stickiness” and “leakiness” are rather features of knowledge instead of categories or special kinds of knowledge. Thus, knowledge can be sticky at one time in a certain situation and leaky at another point of time in a different situation. Whether knowledge turns out to be sticky or leaky depends on the existence or non- existence of shared practice: “If knowledge leaks in the direction of shared practice, it sticks where practice is not shared.” (Brown/Duguid 2001, p. 207). In following the above stated examples of sensitive knowledge flowing between two research departments of different companies, this means that the involved individuals, the researchers share practices. They think, work and elaborate on the same problems and since they chose similar jobs and work environments, they have many aspects of their daily lives in common (see chapter 4.3.2, paragraph on homophily theory). Communication between those two people is very likely to be effective, joyful and guided by mutual respect because they perceive each other as similar. However, communication between individuals who do not directly share so many criteria of their daily lives and follow a different set of goals and rules is not as naturally flowing and takes more effort. For this thesis this is an important aspect because creating new connections between persons that hardly perceive each other as similar is one of the core tasks within learning regions. Here, people communicate with each other who have not had reason to do so until then, even if they live in the same region. Creating practice between them is hence a vital part of creating knowledge flows.

This result is based on the idea that tacit knowledge is non-tradable and needs to be converted into explicit form in order to flow. Accordingly, first a certain practice has to be spread in order to provide the implicit knowledge ground that enables an embedding and sense-making process of the transferred explicit knowledge. When practice is not shared knowledge is unlikely to be transferred and vice versa.

Simply by being human, we all engage in a great deal of similar practice, and hence share a great deal of tacit understanding. People do share knowledge and insight by virtue of their membership in those overarching sociocultural "slabs." Nonetheless, much of the practice that forms identity and gets work done is more local and more dynamic. (Brown/Duguid 2001, p. 204).

After presenting core concepts of knowledge and learning, in the subsequent paragraph, individual and organisational learning theories as well as concepts of knowledge management and knowledge creation are depicted.