In the previous blog, I argued that authors theorizing and discussing the KBE need to be more explicit about the types of workers, industries and jobs that they are considering in their discussions. I suggested that instead of lumping them together and making universal claims about the needs and effects of the KBE, it would be more useful if authors split these lumps into categories of workers, work and industries. Authors would have to choose meaningful categories that might help us explore the ways in which the KBE intersects with different populations and contexts. I invited discussion into the value of splitting and the categories of workers, work and learning that would be appropriate.
One area in which authors have been splitting is in identifying types of knowledge. This has been done in an attempt to differentiate the KBE from previous economies. It has been argued that tacit knowledge and know-how are more important to competitive advantage in a globalized knowledge-based market economy than codified knowledge or what has been called know-that. In another blog, I discussed Boreham’s suggestion that tacit/codified and know-how/know-that are inaccurate binaries. Knowledge is being presented as either tacit or codified; know-how or know-that. Boreham argues that the concept of work process knowledge can help us to see how tacit and codified interact: individuals engage both dialectically in order to learn, create new knowledge, and solve problems. In this blog, I want to engage this concept to help me make sense of the diverse and conflicting definitions and assumptions about knowledge in the KBE.
I agree with Boreham that representing knowledge as either tacit or codified is an over-simplification which has the power to misinterpret the learning process and the production of new knowledge. Although the distinction can be useful, the processes of learning and knowing are much more complicated. And the knowledge that one has for work, particularly the knowledge that is supposedly the base of the economy, involves an integration of that which is codified and that which is more tacit. We each have access to a network of knowledges. Even if we consider only internalized knowledge (as opposed to information stored outside of ourselves that we can access) we each have a wealth of experiences and understandings; tacit and codified knowledge; know-how and know-that. We draw on these in diverse ways as we attempt to make sense of the world, learn new things, and solve problems.
I have argued that we need to be more specific about the types of workers, work and knowledge that we are considering when we theorize the KBE. One way in which we can do this is by considering the type of knowledge that is involved in work. But instead of simply classifying jobs as those in which tacit or codified knowledge is used, I propose that all work, all problem-solving, and all innovation in the workplace involve both tacit and codified knowledge to different degrees. We could envision a continuum between tacit and codified knowledge along which any particular job could be set. In a sense, this represents a scaling of work process knowledge.
100% ______________________________________________________________100%
Codified tacit
Of course, no job and no task within that job would be 100% tacit or 100% codified. And different tasks within the same job and the same job at different times will require a different proportion of tacit and codified knowledge. The purpose is not to define the degree to which tacit and codified knowledge are used in a particular job. Rather, to allow us to consider the different effects of the KBE on jobs that rely more or less tacit or codified knowledge and to ask if the assumptions about the KBE apply to each of these labour subsets. Grand generalizations have been made in abstract terms about the competitive value of tacit knowledge in a KBE, and policy and action are being proposed in education and training to address that assumed value. And yet, I suggest that we have not adequately explored which industries, which workers, and which jobs are positioned to capitalize on tacit knowledge. If only a small proportion of the economy or the workforce is so positioned, broad application policy and action is not warranted. If only workers and industries already privileged stand to benefit from actions related to tacit knowledge, we should be asking how others will be affected.
Alternatively (but strongly related) we might consider separating labour into what I provisionally (and problematically) call knowledge-work and labour-work. The same caveats apply as did above: Any job and the tasks within each job are likely a varied mixture of both knowledge-work and labour-work. This alternative has the added confusion of defining and differentiating knowledge and labour: a highly problematic issue. By labour-work, I mean to suggest jobs in which the physical labour of the individual is the primary commodity being sold for pay. This would be a broad category involving varying degrees of knowledge. For example, I would classify carpentry as labour-work even though a carpenter has a great deal of knowledge about tools and materials and how to build, because the carpenter is primarily selling the product of his labour.
By knowledge-work, I am suggesting those jobs that are rapidly changing in a KBE which rely not only on tacit knowledge and know-how but to a more significant degree on codified knowledge and know-that. This group would include the formally-trained, credential-wielding experts that sell their knowledge, skill, or opinion.
This introduces the important competitive dimension of knowledge. As an economic model driving broad social policy, the KBE focuses on competitive advantage. And yet, I suggest that we have not adequately explored the degree to which knowledge-based competitive advantage is relevant to workers and industries in general. I suspect that the assumptions about the KBE are truer for work in these knowledge-work fields than they would be for work in labour-work areas. Furthermore, I suggest that policy and actions based on the KBE and its assumptions may advantage workers and industries unevenly between those in knowledge-work and those in labour work.
These proposals, imperfect as they are, are meant as starting points for discussion around how we can really explore the assumptions about the KBE and how they relate to real industries, real jobs and real workers. It is likely that each of the categories I have suggested above could be divided again into more meaningful and informative categories of work and workers. What I suggest is needed is a set of categories that allows us to see how different populations are related to the KBE. Where are the assumptions valid? Who would benefit from policy and action driven by KBE assumptions?
No comments:
Post a Comment