I am deeply intrigued by the concept of knowledge. In their chapter, ‘Organisational knowledge, professional practice and the professional doctorate at work’, Lee, Green and Brennan (2000) discourse that universities are becoming displaced as the primary locations for the production of knowledge. It is suggested that ‘new knowledge’ is produced in ‘the context of application’ outside of universities in places such as work sites (and perhaps more latterly, the Internet via the World Wide Web).

The authors in this chapter do not define what the mean by the term ‘knowledge.’ However, it may be reasonable to assume that they consider knowledge to be an ‘artefact’ – something produced as the output of a production process.

The Macquarie Dictionary (Delbridge & Bernard, 1998) defines knowledge as an ‘acquaintance with facts, truths or principles, as from study or investigation’. However, other ‘knowledge workers’ such as Harlan Cleveland (Cleveland, 1982) and Russel Ackoff (Ackoff, 1989) built on T.S Eliot’s 1934 suggestion (Eliot, 1969) that ‘knowledge’ is positioned along a continuum expanding from data to information, thence knowledge and beyond to wisdom. More recently,

George Siemens (Siemens, 2006) has suggested that knowledge’ is but one of a number of ‘learning concepts’ inclusive of data, information, (knowledge), meaning, understanding and wisdom. According to Kikhil Sharma (Sharma, 2005), Milan Zeleny (Zeleny, 1987), aligned with Buddist thinking (Winter, 2003) in addition, suggests ‘enlightenment’ beyond wisdom.

If in fact the majority of commentators are correct, that knowledge is but one level perhaps of a ‘knowing’ or ‘learning’ continuum whether or not ‘new knowledge’ is now created outside of a traditional university may in fact partially be irrelevant. Perhaps the ‘new focus’ should also consider the production of wisdom and enlightenment?

(Lee, Green, & Brennan, 2000) suggest that there may be ‘modes of knowledge production’. They draw on the work of Michael Gibbons (Gibbons et al., 1994) who posits two modes of knowledge production (or research)

Mode 1 Knowledge production

1. Linear, causal and cumulative process with knowledge generated within universities then applied to solve practical problems
2. Closed system, based on pure science
3. Inherently ‘reductionist’
4. Publicly funded

Mode 2 Knowledge production is more varied and less systematic (than mode 1) and anti-coherent.

1. Occurs outside of public institutions (such as universities) in the contested borderland with the market/society (workplace).
2. Open system where the participants are ‘creative agents’ determining priorities and focus
3. 'Synoptic’ – consideration of the whole using multi-disciplinary teams
4. Privately funded?

Apart from the process difference between the two modes of knowledge production is the concept of space, place or the locus of the production (university c.f market/society (workplace). The question arises then, is it likely that the identified learning artefacts such as data or enlightenment are more or less likely to be produced in differing places or spaces?

Upon reflection, the suggestion of just two modes of knowledge production may not adequately allow for knowledge or innovation generated by an individual such as an author or thinker (although it could be argued that the ‘society’ dimension of mode 2 knowledge production caters for such).

It is interesting to observe that as the University’s imperative financial need to engage with research outside the bounds of its traditional institution emerged in the late 20th century, that a new mode of knowledge production is spawned.

Learning and research skills
The LC definition of learning as ‘a cognitive and/or physical process in which a person assimilates information and temporarily or permanently acquires or improves skills, knowledge, behaviors, and/or attitudes’. Implies that the produce of learning can either be ‘one-time’ (a new learning is acquired) or ‘on-going’ (an improvement or movement along a continuum). Such a definition infers that learning could either be ‘reactive’ or ‘purposeful’ in the sens that the learner may or may not have purposefully sought the learning.

Research can be conceived as purposeful learning. A skill or technique is usually related to the use of one’s hands or body. For academic research, the part of the body likely to be most used is the brain.

‘Critical distance’ within a workplace

I am really just guessing here. Whilst I have found Jameson’s reference to ‘critical distance’ I haven’t really found a definition of it per se. Lee, Green, & Brennan, 2000:131 suggest that critical distance can be understood as the supersession (replacement) of the representation problem. Eric Igou (Igou, 1999) argues that we often interpret facts through a ‘selectivity’ lens where we tend to infer characteristics and construe relationships beyond the information given. That we form cognitive ‘representations’ of stimulus that differ from the information and that it these formed representations (and not the original stimuli) that govern our subsequent thoughts, judgements and behaviours. Put another way, we tend to ‘read’ into what we may see or what we may hear our own interpretations?

I take it that Jameson is suggesting that classic knowledge or research (science) is undertaken by objective practitioners, compared to the subjectivity inherent in post-modern interpretations. University researchers tout their academic rigour as a sound basis for knowledge construction.

Lee, Green and Brennan, 2000:131 suggest that it is in the mingling of previously disparate realms (such as academia, the workplace and society?) where the risk is that critical distance might be lost.

To my way of thinking, the issue of critical distance is of little difference independent of the specific realm. In fact, I could better understand the issue if it was touted that critical distance is perhaps potentially compromised within realms other than academia. However, in a ‘mingled’ realm I do not understand the concern.
Bottom line, the concept of adopting collaborative, cooperative cross-realm research approaches hopefully address any validity concerns of workplace-based knowledge construction.