Reviews of Knowing Knowledge

A few reviews of Knowing Knowledge that might be of interest:

Dave Pollard: "George Siemens' online book Knowing Knowledge is fun to read: It's laid out like a Tom Peters book -- full of graphics and different type fonts, and some wonderful quotations. It has a kind of stream-of-consciousness style that's a bit McLuhanesque. It's playful...Although his prescription is, I think, impractical, his vision of an organization that enables effective knowledge-sharing, learning and collaboration is worth thinking about."

Ton Zylstra: "Although the ideas were familiar to me in principle, I still had difficulty reading the book with aim of reviewing it. This is exactly because Siemens rejects the conventional design of a book as a knowledge product and as a linearly structured story with the aim to sway the reader. The book is much more of an invitation to have fun browsing, to jump from section to section as if it were hypertext, and to return to it regularly."

Mark Landy (Knowledge Tree): "On the one hand, I agree with his observations about the changing nature of the world, the significance of networks, and so on, but I also feel rather uneasy about his point that the ‘know where’ and the ‘know who’ are more important today than the ‘what’ and the ‘how’...Overall, there is much in his analysis that I find persuasive, but I’m not sure if the solution to the knowledge dilemma, as described by Siemens, lies in ‘offloading’ the ‘act of knowing’ onto the network (2006:33).

I've been pleased with the general response to KK. Since its "release" it's been downloaded ~130,000 times (November had just under 45K downloads, December 24K, Jan 20K, and have since averaged between 7 - 9K a month). The actual sales of the book have not been significant. So I'm in a stage of reflection. What was the impact of the book? Was it worthwhile to release as a free download? It was not a financial success, but then I never intended it to be. The accompanying wiki has received a fair bit of dialogue (including the commentary of a class of knowledge management students). The opportunity for discussion has been valuable. And yet I have had numerous masters and PhD students comment on advisory committees lamenting that it is not a "peer reviewed" resource. Anyway, just some random musings with no defining intent.

A Simple Definition of Knowledge

Attempting to define knowledge is always a source of great joy. I've tried to walk wide circles around the subject by focusing instead on describing (as compared with defining) knowledge. But descriptions can only go so far...and at a certain point, the question of "what is knowledge" becomes important to many people - particularly managers, philosophers, and people who generally have too much time available or possess a generally contentious spirit.

Laying aside common definition approaches - often mired in epistemology and ideological and even political wrangling - I define knowledge more as a function of its structure than it's inherent nature. To that end, this image reflects how I currently see knowledge:

At its simplest, information is a node which can be connected. When connected, it becomes knowledge (i.e. it possesses some type of context and is situated in relation to other elements). The combined nature of many such connections results in understanding...i.e. understanding is an emergent property of the network (I think "property" is a more accurate term than "entity" as listed in the diagram...hmm, need to change that). By way of a simple example, if I'm involved in educational psychology, possessing the names of key theorists is an example of information...see how different theorists relate to others, how they contrast, and what they each contribute, is an example of knowledge...the aggregate and depth (including strength) of these connections presents a degree of understanding of the field and related factors or concepts. At this point, we bring in our existing knowledge networks - i.e. how do educational theorists relate to other experts in different disciplines? What's the history of Russian culture and how did it influence Vygotsky? How do the ideas of Piaget relate to Darwin? Or how do Darwin's ideas relate to Ancient Greek Philosophy? Each one of these nodes (information) contributes to a connection (knowledge), of which the aggregate produces our understanding.

Seeing knowledge as connections and understanding as aggregation of connections is particularly relevant in the current climate of read/write web. The tools which enable the greatest possibility of connection forming provide the greatest possibility of knowledge growth. The tools with provide the greatest possibility of making sense of the resulting connections form the basis for understanding (which is why pattern creating or information visualization tools are valuable as our connections become more diverse and networks become more complex).

WHO SAYS WE KNOW: On the New Politics of Knowledge

Larry Sanger, of wikipedia, and more recently citizendium, fame has an interesting article on knowledge as a domain of experts or amateurs (the masses): WHO SAYS WE KNOW: On the New Politics of Knowledge (reactions from notable thinkers follow at the end of the article). Wikipedia serves a different knowledge need than experts. I don't go to Wikipedia when I'm grappling with the meaning of life, global warming, or advancements in neuroscience. Wikipedia, like an encyclopedia, aggregates knowledge. I go to wikipedia when I want to find a quick answer to a fairly simple question. Or when I want to direct someone to a quick and dirty overview of a concept. The value of wikipedia is its accessibility - not everyone has an online account with an encyclopedia (or a physical version handy). Wikipedia removes access barriers. For most of my knowledge needs, that is sufficient. When I'm working on an article, conducting focused research, or involved in other more formal knowledge seeking activities, I find myself going to journals and experts.

Toward a future knowledge society

Stephen Downes presented a Venus Seminar recently - Toward a Future Knowledge Society. In the presentation, he explores many of the concepts I presented in Knowing Knowledge...and that others (notably Dave Snowden and Dave Weinberger) have long advocated - namely that the structured view of knowledge has given way to more diverse ways of organizing, categorizing, and knowing. Slide 44 sums up Stephen's views on knowledge, initially presented in his essay on Learning Networks and Connective Knowledge. See also his earlier article on Connective Knowledge.

After an initial criticism of hypothetico-deductive model of knowledge, Stephen explores networks as the new model of understanding knowledge. The breakdown of order and the prominence of chaos (in all aspects of complex phenomenon, but here, particularly in relation to the structures assigned to information) requires a different view of what knowledge itself is. The shift is one from the old model of rules and categories, to a new model of patterns and similarities. In this model, concepts are distributed entities, not centrally held or understood...and highly dependant on context. Simply, elements change when in connection with other elements.

While I agree with this assertion generally, something important happens that is a property of the networks themselves - something that is beyond simply knowledge and moves into the domain of understanding. I depart from Stephen's views with regard to his assertion of where understanding, and thereby meaning, is found in networks.

Stephen asserts (in this paper) that network learning is meaning-less:"what a sentence ‘means’ is the (truth of falsity of) the state of the world it represents. However, on a network theory of knowledge, there is no such state of the world to which this meaning can be affixed. This is not because there is no such state of the world. The world could most certainly exist, and there is no contradiction in saying that a person’s neural states are caused by world events. However, it does mean that there is no particular state of the world that corresponds with (is isomorphic to) a particular mental state. This is because the mental state is embedded in a sea of context and presuppositions that are completely opaque to the state of the world."

This departure may be a by-product of conversations Stephen and I have had in the past about the objective nature of things, so it is entirely possible that I'm seeing his comments through the lens of those conversations, and not exclusively on what he's saying here.

In contrast with Stephen's statement in the above quoted paper, on slide 23 of his Venus presentation he presents what, in my eyes, is an accurate reflection of the "thisness" of items. Items in and of themselves possess characteristics that are objective, clear, concise - outside the scope of our interpretation. The "thisness" of an entity is what permits it to connect with other entities that have complementary characteristics, hence the basis for connection. Stephen posits this broadly under the umbrella of "self-organization". Again, I agree. But I see a conflict with the fluid notions of subjectivity and that items are what they are only in line with our perceptions...and what items are when they connect based on defined characteristics (call them basic facts, if you will). In my view of knowledge, I still see a role for many types of knowledge to hold value based on our recognition of what is there, rather than our interpretations or perceptions. The networked view of knowledge may be more of an augmentation of previous categorizations, rather than a complete displacement. In fields where information is rapidly changing, the adaptive nature of networks would appear to be more relevant and valuable than

At this point, I think Stephen confuses the original meaning inherent in a knowledge element, and the changed meaning that occurs when we combine different knowledge elements in a network structure. Knowledge, in many instances, has clear, defined properties and its meaning is not exclusively derived from networks (though increasingly today, this is the case). The meaning of knowledge can be partly a function of the way a network is formed (for example, the presence of "c" changes the meaning of "a" and "b") and partly our interpretation. With regard to interpretation, we see an entity based on what it is - it's "thisness" and we value and interpret it based on the existing networks of understanding that we hold. Political discourse provides much insight into what this looks like. Two or more parties can observe the same event, and how they situate the ideas in their personal network of understanding, drives how they interpret the event. It's not that, as Stephen asserts, knowledge networks have no meaning, but instead that knowledge networks have a meaning that exists as a network entity, but the meaning is altered based on how we personally situate the network in our larger world views. The node through which we enter the network determines how we see the network. The fact that the meaning of an entity changes based on how it’s networked does not eliminate its original meaning. The aggregated meaning reflects the meaning held in individual knowledge entities.

This then raises the importance of context. Lynne Redder in a recent conference on learning and memory states that “Concepts and percepts are nodes in a network of interrelated nodes...Nodes and links vary in strength – a function of frequency and recency of exposure...availability of a node depends on its current level of activation”. Concepts are influenced by the context in which they exist. But context is not something that envelops nodes and provides meaning. Context is a node itself (namely the particular sequencing of nodes present when new knowledge is added). Knowledge meaning is adjusted, not created, by context exclusively. The “thisness” of an entity also contributes to the aggregate meaning.

Tags: connectivism downes

Knowing Knowledge discussion

I will be discussing Knowing Knowledge over the next few weeks with SCoPE. Information is available here (it will kick off with a live discussion - it will be recorded for later listening).

Update: The recording is now available here (it starts several minutes into the session).

Tags: book discussion knowing knowledge

Knowing Knowledge - Available for Purchase

Knowing Knowledge is now available for purchase via Lulu.

It will eventually be available through Amazon and other publishers. I'll keep you informed as those sites become available. If you would like to review the book before purchasing, it's available as an 8 mb .pdf download. Images in this download are low resolution to reduce the book size. The purchased publication is obviously a higher quality resolution.

As mentioned in the previous post, a wiki has been set up for discussion (or correction) of the text.

Knowing Knowledge - .pdf Files

I have uploaded three .pdf files for the book Knowing Knowledge:

Section 1
Section 2
Section 3

Color images are also available on flickr: Knowing Knowledge Photoset

I will upload high resolution versions to Lulu on Monday, so if you would like a physical copy of the book, it will be available at that time.

...and if you are interested, please contribute to the wiki and correct the errors of my ways: Knowing Knowledge Wiki

Last update before the book is released (I hope)

I encountered a slight delay this week in the final typesetting work of Knowing Knowledge. While I don't have an exact date confirmed yet, the text will be available this next week (i.e. by Oct 13). Denham Grey offered the excellent suggestion of making the images available via flickr - which I will have available at the same time as I release the .pdfs and the book itself. In the interim, the Knowing Knowledge wiki is available.

Once things have settled, I will be able to devote more time to dialogue in this space and on the wiki...

Tags: knowing knowledge wiki

Another update...

Time appears to move at a different pace when not under our control. I have submitted the final version of Knowing Knowledge for typesetting (I've been informed that it should be ready as of September 26. An editor will then take a final look at the document. Once approved (hopefully by September 28, I will upload the files into Lulu...and they will send out a sample book for review (making sure that typesetting translated appropriately for the text). This will apparently take about five days.

After I have the physical copy of the book, I'll do a quick scan to make sure it looks as it should, and will then release the .pdf's, wiki, and a link to Lulu for those who wish to purchase a paper copy. If things work according to this timeline, the book will be ready by October 5 - a few weeks delayed from my original target, but, I hope, worth the delay/wait.

Marketing...

Now that I have the book in its final process (typesetting...which I hope will take less than two weeks), I need to start thinking about marketing. I'm not a marketer...so I would appreciate any thoughts on how I should move forward.

As I've stated before, I'm selling the book through lulu.com (eventually through Amazon and others once the global ISBN process finishes)...and will be making .pdfs available for free downloads. Additionally, I will have a wiki available for readers to "rewrite" the sections of the book that they feel they are able to strengthen.

I have had several people ask me why I am making it available for free download. I really haven't thought of it too much - it seems like the natural thing to do. I certainly hope people will purchase the book, but my first goal is to get conversation started. And starting a conversation is much easier when everyone has access to the conversation.

I don't know if authors generally make a decent return on writing a book. I suspect most don't. From my last five years of blogging at elearnspace, I have discovered that by reducing the access barriers to a conversation, the richer the experience (and I suspect, if people enjoy the .pdf version of the book, they'll be inclined to buy it. If they don't feel I did a good job, then it only makes sense that they don't pay me for work that they feel is mediocre...). So, in that spirit, a free version of the book appears to best serve my goals.