I’ll start by suggesting that knowledge is what we use as the basis for our actions. But as I work with different organisations and different individuals what I have noticed is that people are talking about different types of knowledge and these must be managed differently.
Typically we know for one of the following reasons:
· I recognise from a previous experience as in “I know that face”, “I have travelled this way before”, “I have encountered a problem like this in my previous job”, or “I have practice of doing it.”
· I have evidence and can replicate the result; it is quantified, written in a document.
· I understand because I have studied this, I understand because I have listened to what you say and can make sense of it, I understand because I have observed what is going on; or
· I believe, I have faith, I commit to without certainty, I trust you and you won’t let me come to harm.
As an example consider the debate caused by the Carbon dating of the Turin shroud. The Turin shroud is a linen cloth bearing the hidden image of a man who appears to have been crucified. It is kept in the royal chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy. It is believed by many to be a cloth worn by Jesus Christ at the time of his burial. In 1988 carbon dating estimated a date range of 1260 – 1390, suggesting this belief was wrong. This was convincing enough for most scientists, though caused a real dilemma for deeply religious scientists. However the evidence of science is not sufficient to convince the true believers. In fact a whole industry and science has sprung up around the Turin shroud called “Sindology.”
Why is it that each of us can see the same thing but conclude something different?
If we look at each type of knowledge in turn the mechanisms for capturing and sharing are different, some more straightforward than others.
Geoff
