I want to enter into conversation with scholars around the value of what I think of as lumping and splitting. (Thanks to T. Radcliffe for these terms). This is what I mean: As I read the discourse around the KBE, it occurs to me that there are many times in which I wish the author had separated different kinds of work and different kinds of worker when discussing the needs and the effects of the KBE. This is splitting. I suspect that many of the claims that are made about the KBE are true for some sets of workers but not others, and are true for some sets of jobs, but not some others.
Lumping, on the other hand, refers to considering diverse groups and situations together and identifying them based on what they have in common. Lumping broadly, we might refer to industry, the economy and today’s workforce. More narrow lumping might consider high tech industry, Europe’s participation in global trade, and unemployed youth. However narrowly or broadly we lump, we are treating diverse entities similarly based on their similar qualities.
Certainly, lumping has advantages. It would be exceptionally difficult to consider every kind of work context at the level of supra-national policy discussions. And, as a relatively new concept and one which is suggested to affect work and learning rather universally, the KBE deserves a little bit of freedom to consider its relations in broad terms. However, the bredth of the assumed characteristics and assumed effects of the KBE are far from uncontested. There are questions about who is being left out of the discourse and the magnitude of the impacts. As I read the discourse around the KBE, I find myself continually trying to imagine what worker, what learner and what work environment particular discussions involve, and which are not so involved. When I read statements such as “In order to protect its legitimate employment interests, a profession typically resists sharing this knowledge with others” (Boreham, 2006, p. 143) I wonder which professions, which industries and under what work contexts this is true. Does this apply to banking, ITC sales, medicine, shipping, plastics engineering, tourism, advertising, construction, power production, media, government? Does it apply to wait-staff, engineers, nurses, baristas, fashion consultants, journalists, artisans, chefs, janitors, teachers, retail associates, pilots, farmers, actors, plumbers? The tendency to lump has made it very difficult for me to imagine beyond the abstract theoretical toward something more concrete and practical. This is important. Monumental implications are being associated with the KBE. Policy is being driven by this poorly understood and poorly defined concept. We do not know the whats of the KBE: what effects, what implications, what requirements, what characteristics? We also don’t know the whos: Which workers, which industries? I suggest that there needs to be a little more splitting and a little less lumping when we theorize and discuss the KBE.
Not only would I like to begin a conversation around the value of splitting for the discourse in KBE, but I would also like to consider how that discourse might be split. I have suggested above that I would like to see authors be more specific about what types of worker an author imagines for their discussion. But we still have to lump to some degree. What categories would be most informative? We might consider the personal characteristics of the worker such as age, gender and various dispositions. We might consider the learning/skills/educational characteristics of the worker such as educational attainment, talents and learning styles. We might consider employment characteristics such as experience, mobility and type of work one is capable of and willing to do.
Similarly, I suggest that it is important to consider and discuss specific industries, types of industries or types of work environments. These should be split in some way that might allow us to see who and where the KBE might have its effects and where our proposed reactions are to be directed. We might consider industries that deal in knowledge as a commodity by selling knowledge products. We might consider those in which the knowledge base is continually changing. We might consider service and production industries separately; public and private industries separately; competitive and non-competitive (internationally and otherwise) industries separately.
The nature of work may indeed be changing, as the KBE discourse claims. But to what degree is that different than it has been in the past? In what ways? For whom? We need to consider the work and workers for whom assumptions about the KBE may be true so that we can gauge the extent of the effects/needs of the KBE and ensure that our policies and reactions to the KBE aren’t privileging some and marginalizing others. The KBE discourse seems focused on gaining competitive-edge (mostly in terms of a globalized market). I wonder about those workers and industries that are not closely linked to international competition. How does policy driven by a KBE discourse on global market competition affect them?
One area of great concern in KBE discourse is education and training. Authors are suggesting massive changes in delivery and curricula (among other things) and lifelong learning is being promoted as a way of dealing with the demands of a KBE. In many cases, “…social and economic conditions are laid at the door of education and training…” (Edwards, p. 75). In many cases, problems are identified and education and training (whatever that means) is suggested as the solution. Authors aren’t necessarily being clear. We might consider various forms of learning at work, various institutions for continuing education, and various sites of adult learning. Often it is suggested that public education has a role to play in creating the citizens needed in the KBE. This may be an opportune time to reflect on the role of public education contrasted with private education and workplace training. But I won't enter that discussion here. But if a reader has comments to make in this regard, I would enjoying following that thread deep ito the woods! *grin*
In summary, today’s ruminations simply (if not long-windedly) ask scholars to consider splitting, making explicit the types of workers, work and learning they envision when they theorize about the needs and effects of the KBE. Several authors have begun to split knowledge into tacit and codified, and into know-how and know-that. Boreham (2006) has suggested that this separation represents a false dichotomy, and the concept of work process knowledge can help us to understand how learners integrate both in a dialectic relation that leads to learning and problem solving. In the next blog, I would like to bring Boreham’s ideas to bare on today’s discussions about splitting workers and work in KBE discourse.
happy Solstice!
No comments:
Post a Comment