Professional Documents
Culture Documents
KNOWLEDGE AS A VERB
My purpose in this paper is to share with the reader an approach to studying human sense making which has from its inception conceptualized knowledge and information as a verb. This approach, called Sense making, has made no distinction between knowledge and information. Instead, it has referred to the making and unmaking of sense and has defined information/knowledge as product of and fodder for sense making and sense unmaking.[1] In this view, knowledge is the sense made at a particular point in time-space by someone.
36
From the inception then, Sense making has been about knowledge management, albeit by another name. Sense making, the approach, has developed over these 25-plus years within the bounds of particular discourse communities. These include primarily the field of library and information science (where applications have focussed on the study of information needs and seeking and on the match between systems and users); the various communication fields (where applications have focused on interpersonal, mass and cyberspaced communication in service, media, medical and other settings); and education (where applications have focused on user-centered pedagogy).
indeed, an exciting, revolutionary move. On the one hand, the call to knowledge management is accompanied by calls for less emphasis on technology, outcomes, routines, isolation, centrality, explicitness and obedience; and more emphasis on people, context, process, creativity, collaboration, diversity, tacitness and initiative. To the extent that this is a useful description of this new pulse, then the thrust toward knowledge management can be seen as an exemplar of the same pulse that is percolating in virtually every realm of human existence. Other manifestations in the business realm involve the move toward process management and learning organizations (CoulsonThomas, 1997). In education, you hear calls for learner-centered education (Norman and Spohrer, 1996). In media practice, there are calls for civic journalism, or public journalism (Dervin and Clark, 1993). In library and information system design, there are calls for user-oriented systems (Dervin, 1992). In computer science, there are calls for usercentered design (Norman, 1993). Observers of the knowledge management pulse have detailed a host of reasons for the revolutionary force: the demands of increased competition, and the rise of information technologies being most mentioned. But if we look at the knowledge management phenomenon in broader perspective, we can conceptualize it as a symptom of, and a proposed solution for, human confrontation with issues of chaos versus order and centrality versus diversity. Once upon a time, in the western tradition at least, it was thought that information/knowledge could describe and fix reality and that transferring that valuable resource into the minds of participating humans would enable them to act effectively in their work and life environments. One way of thinking about the major philosophic contest of our time is that this old world view is falling to the ground and as a species we are struggling to create alternatives that work. Knowledge management is one manifestation of this quest (Hayles, 1990; Wilson, 1998). At this level of abstraction what this pulse mandates is a radical reconceptualization of what is involved in the enterprises of knowledge creation and management. While once knowledge was valued for providing answers, homogeneity and centrality, now we need to think of potentials for empowering and releasing creativity and diversity. While once we thought we could bask in the certainty of answers and solutions, now need to learn to appreciate the courage and creativity it takes to step into the unknown only partially instructed by information/knowledge. In this view, every next moment is unknown; and the step into it can never be more than partially informed.
37
five different possible causal factors, none of which would have been addressed by traditional knowledge management approaches: a failure in educating engineers so they were unable to interpret appropriately the data at hand; a historical confluence of organizational and environmental contingencies; a failure by decision makers to attend to alternative narratives of the launch because of power games and organizational culture; a rhetorical failure on the part of those arguing against the launch; a non-dialogic organizational community (Harrison, 1993; Lighhall, 1991; Miller, 1993; Vaughan, 1997). What is interesting about the knowledge management literature is that both the revolutionary pulse and its opposite co-exist, often in the same article. The critique of the pull back to conceptualizing knowledge as mapping certainty in people, situations, and things is succinctly described by Fahey and Prusak in their 1998 article on the 11 deadliest sins of knowledge management. I repeat their list here because as a communication specialist it is a list I have heard frequently over the past 25 years in other fields: library and information science, information design, mass communication, health care delivery, public education campaigns, service delivery and so on. Fahey and Prusaks 11 deadly sins of knowledge management are: 1. Not developing a working definition of knowledge. 2. Emphasizing knowledge stock to the detriment of knowledge flow. 3. Viewing knowledge as existing predominantly outside the heads of individuals. 4. Not understanding that a fundamental intermediate purpose of managing knowledge is to create shared context. 5. Paying little heed to the role and importance of tacit knowledge. 6. Disentangling knowledge from its uses. 7. Downplaying thinking and reasoning. 8. Focussing on the past and the present and not the future. 9. Failing to recognize the importance of experimentation. 10. Substituting technical contact for human interface.
38
11. Seeking to develop direct measures of knowledge. The importance of listing these 11 sins here is not to convey the exact nature of the critiques. Rather, it is to provide an impressionistic bridge. This is where knowledge management is today; it is exactly like critiques that began to emerge 25 years ago in the fields of communication and library and information science and still do. It is also the set of gaps into which Sense making began to step 25 years ago and what it still struggles with today. Knowledge management as a field has no reason to berate itself for its contradictions and struggles for, indeed, they mirror the same contradictions and struggles in other fields. They form, if you will, one of the highest mandates for attention by the human species.
assumptions which guide the Sense-making approach, to exemplify the kinds of findings about human sense making which have resulted from applying these assumptions, and to then illustrate the potential use of these results in interpersonal, group and technology-mediated interfaces. The first section below will attend to research frameworks for user studies; the second to design applications.
39
questions are applied to an overall situation, sometimes to specific micro-moments in the situation. Looking to the gap has allowed our research to break out of picturing users only in the reflections of our own mirrors. For example, our studies have typically found that users attend far more to issues of cause and underlying connections and to comparisons of the different answers constructed by different players in situations than traditional knowledge databases account for. In most knowledge management systems this kind of knowledge is relegated to the subjective and opinion and often not treated as knowledge at all. Other studies have showed how users bring to bear entirely different sets of sense-making criteria when they are sense-making on their own terms. Thus, for example, when users are evaluating answers from knowledge sources that they found not useful, they focus on system criteria (e.g. credibility and expertise) but when they evaluate answers they found useful they turn to time-space-movement (e.g. getting new ways of looking at things, unearthing causes, moving toward destinations). One of our main findings has been that information and knowledge are rarely ends in themselves; they are rather means to ends. By freeing our interface with the user from the systems obsession with information and knowledge, we leave users free to define what is informing on their own terms.
This is one reason Sense making is described as attending to sense making and sense unmaking. The other reason, of course, is that todays knowledge often becomes tomorrows struggle. What emerges then is a different way of thinking about human beings. Their changes, formerly conceptualized as error or chaos, becomes fodder for a new kind of prediction. The issue of what predicts human information seeking and use best has been the most tested of propositions in the line of work driven by Sense making. Across a host of studies, two primary answers emerge: one is that it is rarely person attributes (traits and predispositions) or task or organizational attributes but rather how users conceptualize their movement through timespace and their gap bridging that predicts sense making and sense unmaking best. The second is that under those circumstances when noun-oriented characteristics such as status or demography or personality do predict best, it usually means there is a constraining force operating in the situation, a force which may need attention because it may be limiting sense-making potentials. In the process of addressing issues relating to prediction, Sense-making studies have constructed a set of universal categories of situation-facing based on the concepts of time, space, movement, gap, constraint. One such category scheme codifies the users movement at a moment in time-space as stopped: two or more roads lie ahead (decision); something blocks the road (barrier); the road has disappeared (wash out); someone or something is pulling the user down the road (problematic); the road is spiraled and has no direction (spin-out); or the user blanked out (out-to-lunch stop). The categories, part of a scheme that has become identified as focusing on situation movement, has been pitted against demographic predictors in a number of studies. In each case, situation movement has accounted for far more variance in user internal and external behavior. In short, take ten users facing the same situation, those who see it as a decision involve themselves in knowledge creation and use in markedly different ways from those who see it as a spin-out, or wash-out and so on. Sense-making studies have developed prototypical categories based on the time-space-movement metaphor for situations, gaps (questions), and outcomes (helps and hindrances). These categories form a new kind of human universal. For example, across some 15 years of Sense-making studies the ways in which users evaluate their uses of information system has readily fallen into categories such as: found direction, got a new way of looking at things, got connected to information, got companionship and support, avoided a bad place, got pleasure and joy, arrived where I wanted to.
40
Another prime example of a new kind of universal is the marked differences found in sense making and sense unmaking, depending on how the actor is attending to other people at a given moment in time-space. Strong predictors of differences include the differences between attending to: self relating to self; self relating to another; self relating to a collectivity; self in a collectivity relating to another; self in a collectivity relating to another collectivity. The point here is this: regardless of whether a person is involved in individual or collaborative work, the business of making sense regarding oneself and ones relationships to others and collectivities are universal mandates. Knowledge creating, seeking and use change as these situational focuses change as the sense-maker moves through time-space. Collaborative work is necessary to knowledge management, but it is not sufficient despite the too widespread assumption that the best knowledge is created only in collaborative settings.
design attention be focussed both on communality and contest. In designing a system, for example, the mandate would be to seek out sites of maximum agreement as well as maximum disagreement. Sense making calls this the circling of perspectives or frameworks, the surrounding of the phenomena in order to reach for that which can never be touched or held still. In actual user studies, the mandate to attend to power has been implemented by the continuing application of questions focussing on the users struggles, constraints, barriers, hurts and hindrances, as well as the users assessments of the relationships between a given moment of sensemaking and the power structures of an organization or society. As one example, in a large-scale study of citizens in the home town of a service company, we learned that a substantial number of citizens felt the company treated its employees unfairly. When asked what impact having come to this conclusion had on their behaviors or thoughts about the company, a substantial number in turn replied that they did not intend to use the companys services. In another study, members of a community oriented toward unity and just inclusion unearthed hidden pockets of disagreement and conflict by asking members where they saw disagreements and collisions and what they saw accounting for these. Three main findings have emerged from this work. One is that users often have highly elaborated theories of how power works, how it is hidden in specific arenas of activity, and how it constrains their sense making and their sharing of their understandings with others. The second is that users have been willing to tell us things that ordinary surveys miss entirely. The third is that if we want users to tell us what they really think and feel, we must make it safe for users to attend to power issues. If this cannot be done in public arenas, then anonymity structures need to be added.
41
understand one another. Reading about a best practice, for example, makes little sense without an understanding of the struggle and gaps it was invented to traverse; hearing that someone disagrees with you about a decision can easily lead you to stereotyping the speaker unless you hear as well about the material struggles which have led the person to the position. One way of thinking about this is to say that Sense making mandates the embodiment of knowing by attending to the time, place, and action of its making and unmaking. It is this anchoring in material conditions and action which disciplines the cacophony of diversity. Further, by mandating attention to arenas of maximum disagreement and maximum agreement, Sense making forces attention to the full range of diversities that pertain to a situation. In actual studies, diversity is made manageable by codifying based on the time-space-movement categories described above and by anchoring it in descriptions of material situations and actions. Further, studies have shown that the number of categories needed to account for the same variance in outcomes when described in verbing terms (i.e. time-space-movement-gap) is far fewer then when described based on traditional categories for tapping diversity (e.g. personality and demographic traits). Perhaps the most telling finding of all is that when diversity is treated within Sense makings mandates, users indicate they do not need to know all perspectives on a question to be usefully informed and satisfied with participation. Rather, having a sense of the range and the situational reasons for the differences releases thinking potential.
Emotions are conceptualized by Sense making as playing a role in several important ways. One is that they are a major measure of outcomes for human beings. Systems ignore this at their peril. The second is that emotions play a large role in human capacities to share and cooperate with other people. On the one hand, we need rigorous attention to all manner of points of view. But on the other hand, people work best when they feel good about themselves and being fearful because of differences in viewpoints usually leads to counterproductive emotions and actions. The third emphasis on emotion in Sense making focuses on emotions are a site of human struggles. People talk naturally, for example, about emotions blocking their thinking, or repetitive mistake making driven by emotions. This natural talk is another kind of sense making. In the context of organizations trying to capitalize on human creativity and flexibility, it is a useful kind of knowing. It goes without saying, of course, that it requires an unusual level of safety to be created in the organizational environment. Numerous Sense-making studies have incorporated this enlarged conception of the human knower. In a typical study, for example, it was determined that a group of graduate students had what could best be described as a stereotyped viscerally negative emotion about a certain author. The study then teased out the range of positions on this author and allowed to be aired alternative viewpoints which opened up the possibilities for discussion. In another kind of study, a typical result ranks emotional helps among the primary ways users evaluate the utilities of information systems.
42
say is sometimes hard to hear, but that in fact when the hearing of difference and contest is designed well, designed communicatively, the results can be not only useful, but also fun. Permeating the Sense-making framework is an assumption that all interfaces between human beings and between them and the systems they design to serve them are guided by assumptions about the nature of reality, the nature of human beings and the nature of information and knowledge. Most of our current systems, including knowledge management systems as well as our communication and information systems, are based often implicitly on assumptions of order and certainty: human beings as cognitive and rational; reality as fixable; information and knowledge as describing that reality. These assumptions operate implicitly even while we are extolling the spontaneity and naturalness of collaboration and communication. But the difficulty is this: effective interface and communication is rarely well-described as spontaneous or natural. Communication is designed, whether in antiquity or by hidden forces or hereand-now by us with explicit attention. Sense making attempts to provide a beginning methodology that can discipline that design.
As each participant spoke, other participants recorded on a continuing dialog sheet things they agreed with, things that they disagreed with, things that they found useful, and their questions/ muddles. All contributions were timed. At each step in the dialogue, participants were asked to anchor their contributions into their own life and work conditions (e.g. what led to this?). While participants started with marked animosities toward one another, by the end of the day they were brainstorming ways to help one another. The days proceedings both written and taped were collated and used as a basis for system design. In another ongoing application, participants in a community where each member works on separate but interrelated projects come together weekly to share their work. In the typical format, presenters in a given week are given 20 minutes to describe their projects in these terms: the best of what I have achieved so far, what has helped me so far, the struggles I am facing now, the help I could use now. Then each participant responds in timed rounds in this format: what I admired/found useful was, the connection to my own work is, the struggle I had was, what I think you might find useful is, what I look forward to is. Results of this mode of interaction have yielded overwhelmingly positive evaluations and duplication and adaptation in numerous other settings.
43
traditionally librarians had been trained to ask users noun-based questions. Thus, for example, if a user asks: Do you have any books on Renaissance Painters?, the librarian has traditionally been trained to respond: Yes, we do. Do you have a particular painter in mind or a group of painters? Do you want copies of art or biography? Do you want art in color or black and white? Numerous studies have documented the mismatches between users and systems that arise from this typical model of questioning, one that still dominates not just in libraries but in all manner of organizational interfaces with their users. An alternative mode of questioning, called Sensemaking questioning, makes minimal use of nouns and ask the user instead: What happened that brought you here? What question are you trying to answer? What help would you like? If I was able to help, what would you do with it? While no large-scale formal study has been executed, practitioners primarily reference librarians who use the Sense-making questioning approach swear by it, saying that it makes their interchanges with users both more efficient and more effective.
and hindered them. Again, students made utility judgments. After reading the full-length articles, students in both classes did a final rating. Results suggested that the addition of the Sense-making overlay produced a marked improvement in user ability to decide what would be useful.
CONCLUSIONS
In the above applications of Sense making to the design of communication, information and knowledge management systems, the design never focusses on arriving at right answers or best knowledge. Rather, the assumption is that under those circumstances where accuracy and factizing are important aspects these will emerge from the Sense-making surround. But the surround allows, as well, other strategies for knowledge making and using. The surround by definition does not mandate, as traditional information/communication systems do, attention to coherency or centrality or certainty, but rather to the unleashing of sense-making potential. Such system designs must by definition be responsive and iterative and open. But Sensemaking research suggests these characteristics are not enough. What is needed is a way of
44
conceptualizing knowledge making and using which unleashes sense making for the realities of human situation-facing. This also inherently mandates attentions to ways of bracketing or taming at least in part the impacts of power which constrain human willingness to share and problem solve collaboratively. These are, of course, not small mandates. They offer a radically different conception of what a knowledge management system might be about. It is, however, the conception which 25 years of work on human sense making has led me to conclude we must implement in design if our systems are to be maximally useful to their users. More than that, however, is the fact that the mandate for our systems may be even more serious: the success of our enterprises, the haboring of scarce resources and perhaps even the survival of the species.
The Journal of Knowledge Management , Vol. 1 No. 1, September, pp. 15-26. Dervin, B. (1980), Communication gaps and inequities: moving toward a reconceptualization, in Dervin, B. and Melvin, V. (Eds), Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. 2, Ablex Publishers, Norwood, NJ, pp. 73-112. Dervin, B. (1983), An overview of Sense making: concepts, methods, results, International Communication Association annual meeting, Dallas, TX, May, http:// communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/ art/artdervin83.html, Dervin, B. (1989a), Audience as listener and learner, teacher and confidante: the Sense-making approach, in Rice, R. and Atkins, C. (Eds), Public Communication Campaigns, 2nd ed., Sage, Newbury Park, CA, pp. 67-86. Dervin, B. (1989b), Users as research inventions: how research categories perpetuate inequities, Journal of Communication, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 216-32. Dervin, B. (1992), From the minds eye of the user: the Sense-making qualitative-quantitative methodology, in Glazier, J.D. and Powerl, R.R. (Eds), Qualitative Research in Information Management, Libraries Unlimited, Englewood, CO, pp. 61-84. Dervin, B. (1993), Verbing communication: mandate for disciplinary invention, Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, pp. 45-54. Dervin, B. (1994), Information <> democracy: an examination of underlying assumptions, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, Vol. 45 No. 6, July, pp. 369-85. Dervin, B. (1997), Given a context by any other name: methodological tools for taming the unruly beast, in Vakkari, P., Savolainen, R. and Dervin, B. (Eds), Information Seeking in Context, Taylor Graham, London, pp. 13-38. Dervin, B. and Clark, K.D. (1993), Communication and democracy: a mandate for procedural invention, in Spilichal, S. and Wasko, J. (Eds), Communication and Democracy, Ablex Publishers, Norwood, NJ, pp. 103-40. Dervin, B. and Dewdney, P. (1986), Neutral questioning: a new approach to the reference interview, RQ, Summer, pp. 506-13. Fahey, L. and Prusak, L. (1998), The eleven deadliest sins of knowledge management, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, Spring, pp. 265-75. Gould, S.J. (1996), The Mismeasurement of Man , W.W. Norton & Co, New York, NY. Harrison, E.F. (1993), The anatomy of a flawed decision, Technology in Society, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 161-83. Hayles, K.N. (1990), Chaos Bound: Orderly Disorder in Contemporary Literature and Science , Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Not es
[1] Sense making has been developed since 1972 by Dervin and colleagues. A Web-site is devoted to it, listing articles written by Dervin, and some 600 articles citing the approach in some way:http:// communication.sbs.ohio-state.edu/sense-making/. The descriptions presented here present a brush stroke portrait across some 100 studies and applications. Particularly relevant specific presentations include: Dervin (1980; 1983; 1989a; 1989b; 1992; 1993; 1994; 1997), Dervin and Clark (1993) and Dervin and Nilan (1986). A debt is owed to Richard F. Carter without whom the development of Sense making would not have been possible (Carter, 1989, 1991). [2] Particularly relevant is Goulds The Mismeasurement of Man , originally published in 1981 and recently revised (1996). [3] The authors understanding of the field of knowledge management is based on a reading of the relevant items listed in the bibliography.
Bi b liogra phy
Carter, R.F. (1989), Reinventing communication, scientifically, in Kim, H.S. (Ed.), World Community in Post-industrial Society: Continuity and Change, Wooseok, Seoul, Korea, pp. 59-84. Carter, R.F. (1991), Comparative analysis, theory, and cross-cultural communication, Communication Theory , Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 151-8. Clarke, D.S. (1998), Knowledge management (Letter to editor), Sloan Marketing Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, Spring, pp. 4-5. Coulson-Thomas, C.J. (1997), The future of the organization: selected knowledge management issues,
45
Lighthall, F.F. (1991), Launching the space-shuttle Challenger: disciplinary deficiencies in the analysis of engineering data, IEEE Transactions of Engineering Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, February, pp. 64-74. Miller, C.M. (1993), Framing arguments in a technical controversy: assumptions about science and technology in the decision to launch the space-shuttle Challenger, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication , Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 99-114. Norman, D.A. (1993), Toward human-centered design, Technology Review, Vol. 96, pp. 47-53. Norman, D.A. and Spohrer, J.C. (1996), Learner-centered education, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, April, pp. 24-49. Vaughan, D. (1997), The trickle-down effect: policy decisions, risky work, and the Challenger tragedy, California Management Review , Vol. 39 No. 2, Winter, pp. 80-6. Wilson, E.O. (1998), Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, Knopf, New York.
Eisenberg, H. (1997), Reegineering and dumbsizing: mismanagement of the knowledge resource, Quality Progress, Vol. 30, May, pp. 57-64. Glazer, R. (1998), Measuring the knower: toward a theory of knowledge equity, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, Spring, pp. 175-94. Knott, D. (1997), Get smarter by sharing ideas, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 95, May 26, p. 32. Liebowitz, J. (1998), Expert systems: an integral part of knowledge management, Kybernetes , Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 170-8. Manville, B. and Foote, N. (1996), Harvest your workers knowledge, Datamation, Vol. 42, July, pp. 78-80+. OLeary, D.E. (1998a), Knowledge management systems: converting and connecting, IEEE Intelligent Systems , Vol. 13 No. 3, May-June, pp. 30-48. OLeary, D.E. (1998b), Using AI in knowledge management: knowledge cases and ontologies, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 13 No. 3, May/June, pp. 34-9. Ruggles, R. (1998), The state of the notion: knowledge management in practice, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, Spring, pp. 80-9. Sieloff, C. (1998), Knowledge management (Letter to editor), Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, Spring, p. 4. Skyrme, D. and Amidon, D. (1997), The knowledge agenda, The Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, September, pp. 27-37. Teece, D.J. (1998), Research directions in knowledge management, California Management Review, Vol. 40 No. 3, Spring, pp. 289-92. Wiig, K.M. (1997), Knowledge management: an introduction and perspective, The Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, September, pp. 6-14. Zuckerman, A. and Buell, H. (1998), Is the world ready for knowledge management?, Quality Progress, Vol. 31 No. 6, June, pp. 81-4.
Sugg es t ed re a d i ng
Abecker, A., Bernardi, A., Hinkelmann, K., Khn, O. and Sintek, M. (1980), Toward a technology for organizational memories, IEEE Intelligent Systems, Vol. 13 No. 3, May/June, pp. 40-48. Baker, M. and Barker, M. (1997), Leveraging human capital, The Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, September, pp. 63-74. Been, K. (1998), Knowledge management (Letter to editor), Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 3, Spring, p. 4. Chase, R.L. (1997), The knowledge-based organization: an international survey, The Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, September, pp. 38-49. Davenport, T.H., DeLong, D.W. and Beers, M.C. (1998), Successful knowledge management projects, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39 No. 2, Winter, pp. 43-57. Dervin, B. and Nilan, M. (1986), Information needs and uses: a conceptual and methodological review, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 21, pp. 3-33.
Brenda Dervin is Professor of Communications at Ohio State University, USA. E-mail: dervin.1@osu.edu
46