The Notion of Knowledge

The notion of knowledge can be said to be ambiguous due to the many facets that are included in the word (Alvesson and Kärreman, 2001). A common way to get an understanding of knowledge is to start by outlining distinguishing characteristics concerning data, information and knowledge (see Brooking, 1999; Dahlbom and Mathiassen, 1993; Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka and Takeuchi, 1995). It is important to underline such differences when dealing with these things. Table 3-1 depicts some distinguishing characteristics concerning data, information and knowledge6.

6 _{These characteristics do not cover all aspects concerning data, information and knowledge found in the}

information system- and knowledge management field etc. Table 3-1 is merely an illustration of some characteristics regarding these issues, and is to be seen as a basis for a discussion concerning the notion of knowledge.

IT for Learning and Acquiring of Work Knowledge among Production Workers

30

Table 3-1 Data, information and knowledge

Data Information Knowledge

Dahlbom and Mathiassen (1993) “Data are formalized representations of

information…” (p. 26)

Davenport and Prusak (1998) ”…[it is] a message, usually in the form of a document or an audible or visible

communication.” [Author’s comments] (p. 3)

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) “[knowledge is] a dynamic process of justifying personal belief towards the ‘truth’.” (p. 58) and “…is anchored in the beliefs and commitments of its holder.” [Author’s comments] (p. 59) Davenport and Prusak (1998)

“ Data is a set of discrete, objective facts about events.” (p. 2)

Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995) “…information is a flow of messages…” (p. 58)

Davenport and Prusak (1998) ”Knowledge is a fluid mix of framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a framework for evaluating and incorporating new

experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the minds of knowers. In organizations, it often becomes embedded not only in documents or repositories but also in organizational routines, practices, and norms.” (p. 5)

To summarize, distinguishing characteristics concerning data, information and knowledge on the basis of the citations depicted in Table 2-1 are: (a) data is representations of information (e.g. columns and rows in a table in a database), (b) information is symbolic representations and messages from data (e.g. when organizing data in columns and rows into reports) and (c) knowledge is what people ‘makes out’ of information in activity (e.g. people do activity grounded on information).

The most problematic word when outlining distinguishing characteristics concerning data, information and knowledge is probably that of knowledge. The notion of knowledge is, as in the case of work practices, not easy to encapsulate by reference to a single sentence in giving clear and distinct definition of the word (see citations in Table 2-1). In this thesis knowledge is relative to people doing activity by stating: doing things knowledgeable is about doing

things grounded on knowledge about those things. ‘Things’ can be any activity people do at work or elsewhere in other situations. This statement makes several apparent- and unapparent characteristics of knowledge noticeable: (a) knowledge is related to activity (do things

knowledgeable) (b) people doing activities have a capability to learn (do things

knowledgeable require that knowledge is acquired in some way) and (c) activities are related

to a context (where people do activity and where knowledge is acquired). In summary, people do not do things by themselves but aligned or not aligned with other people. Further, how people do things can be considered right or wrong, good or bad relative to the context. In that sense, what people do, do not go by unnoticed when people do things with other people.

This way of perceiving knowledge connects knowledge to activities that in any way is related to other people in any context. The context is the different social situations people take part in. One such situation is at work. This way of thinking about knowledge is related to

3 Central Concepts Goldkuhl’s (1999) conception of action knowledge. According to Goldkuhl (1999), action knowledge “is knowledge directly or indirectly related to action” (p. 2) and is closely related to practices. The practice functions as a context where people do activity as in e.g. the notion of work practice (see section 3.1), which is a context for work activities.

Doing activity knowledgeable requires that knowledge exist and is acquired in some way. This is related to that knowledge has different properties: (a) knowledge is personal, (b) knowledge is talked about, (c) knowledge may be public, (d) knowledge is applied in doing activities and (e) knowledge is valuated. These properties are about how knowledge can take on different shapes. Knowledge can in any situation appear to be personal, explicit and talked about, public and shared, applied in activities, and valuated. These properties are in line with the levels of action knowledge in Goldkuhl (1999). Such knowledge can coexist on different levels: (a) a subjective level, (b) an intersubjective level, (c) a linguistic level, (d) an action level and (e) a consequential level. This way of thinking about knowledge is depicted in Figure 3-2.

Action level Consequential level Linguistic

level

Linguistic level

Subjective level Subjective level

Intersubjective level

Figure 3-2 Levels of knowledge

This way to elaborate upon the notion the knowledge underlines knowledge as belonging to human being without refraining from the aspect that knowledge can not be shared among different people who share a common frame of reference concerning how such knowledge is understood and applied in practice which in itself is a subjective activity (see Figure 3-2).