On Thu, 31 Aug 1995 DavidM1225@aol.com wrote:
> > Corporate
> >"knowledge" to me is not neutral. I would suggest that it seems to be
> >imposed on employees every day. Who does the imposition and why should also
> >be addressed in any discussion of "knowledge production" in
> >organizational development.
>
> Alice in Wonderland says that words mean whatever you want them to mean.
> Truth in the corporation is socially defined. Is the glass half full or is
> it half empty? And how do our definitions then influence the development
> of our psychological sets which influence our selective perceptions of
> other information.
>
> Knowledge to me is a cognitive map. It is integrated information,
> experience, skills into a systemic whole with boundaries meaningful to the
> makemaker and if (s)he can convince anyone else.
>
> David Markham
> DavidM1225@aol.com
Aside from the Alice reference ---- Yes, you're right, human interaction
socially defines knowledge into a boundaried system. But, at least for
me, the glass is neither full nor empty. It just "is".
My argument is centered on who defines what knowledge is "important" and
many times we don't critically examine why a specific knowledge is
"needed" to assess either its value and evaluate its impact on
organizational development then the "systemic whole" you allude to David
is not fully clear.
I respectfully suggest that motivating someone to acquire new knowledge
could be interpreted as how much I am able impose something on anyone we
work with that makes them want "to know".
-- Thomas A. Lifvendahl Northern Illinois University RE/ACE Office DeKalb, Illinois 60115 815/753-1621 P60TAL1@corn.cso.niu.edu