What we know in University - and in other places

HOW DO  WE KNOW WHAT WE KNOW IN UNIVERSITY - AND IN OTHER PLACES

How we know what we know? Are we interested to examine how we know what we know? Is the real basis of our knowledge actually an understanding on how our knowledge is developed? How would our knowledge change if we really started to think together - if we started to know together?

Let us focus on one concrete situation. Now we go in to University but this setting is certainly somewhat analogical everywhere - whenever any of us does something, how do we know what we do? Do we decide to do something or do we just do it? And in case we deliberately decide to do something special, how do we know what we choose to do?

Picture 1. How do you know what you know (blackboard in Agora building, University campus, Jyväskylä Finland)

The picture above is bit blurry, sorry about that, but it is an authenting representation of a new framework which saw it's daylight 22nd of May 2012. On that exceptionally beautiful morning I had a privilege to speak in our program, University in Change, which we have tailored for the leaders in University of Jyväskylä.

In that picture a person (marked with letter H) develops and lectures a course (L) in the University setting. The question here is that how she knows what she does? How she knows, if she has freedom to develop her course,  what should be the topic and substance of her course. And in any case she has more or less freedom to choose what that course includes - how she knows what that are the particular issues she will discuss during different sessions?

Part of the new framework,  "How do you know what you know", is the age of the person. Is she just graduated and for instance 25 years old, or is she 30 years old who is doing or is just done her PhD dissertation. Or is she 40 years old researcher or professor or in some other position or is she 50+ years old an even more experienced person in some position. May I ask you to pause here for a moment and reflect your own experiences and observations. What is your understanding how different people know what they know, and how experience change this setting. It is interesting topic to ponder, or what do you think? I will not elaborate this perspective of age and experience any further in this blog because I wish to focus here on connection between person and people around her. The nature of that connection is very important - it may be a mark of a living disciple

Hence, let us concentrate to the connection between a person H and the people around her, they are marked with letter P in the framework. My bold proposal here is that we have failed to appreciate how crucial this connection could be both in creating most important knowledge which we can use in our work and in giving the reason for whole idea of working together in any organization. I would even suggest that the well developed and truly working connection between a person and people around her could actually be a basis of an living discipline.

The concept "living discipline" is new one and thus deserves a short discussion. Living discipline means that key people (H and P together) are willing and able share with each other an understanding what is most important knowledge at the certain point of time. Certainly people will have different views, perspectives and understanding, but this is seen more as a beneficial source than a hindrance for an active dialogue and knowing together.

I would argue that we can even test whether some unit (department, faculty, etc.) could claim that it has achieved the level of a living discipline as a modus operandi. The test is simple. When a person H goes in the classroom to do her work L, does she share what happens in the classroom with people around her?

This sounds deceivingly easy and many would probably hasten to say that: sure I tell what happens; some would probably say: I talk about those events rarely, anectodically and with few people. This is, however, not quite the essence of my point here. The essence is following: are people  (H and P together) creating in active collaboration an understanding what should be discussed in the classroom today (today means here, often, continuously)?

In case H and P are thinking together and they are trying to understand together what is most crucial knowledge today, this will mean that they are deeply interested to know all the time what happens in any classroom where anyone of the group (H and P) is doing her work. The living discipline is tested every day, the living discipline develops everyday.

It is surprising to realize how little people seem to need each other in any organization, Universities included. For me the way how social media works and how people share experiences together has opened an angle to examine organizations and the way how organizations and in particular how people within organizations operate. In many cases there are already technologies in place which would, at least in principle, create a basis for thinking and knowing together, but these systems and technologies are often utilized rather scarcely.

Perhaps we have not really paused to think how absolutely crucial it is how we connect with each other. Hence I decided to write this blog and suggest the idea of a living discipline. What we are talking here would be a huge change. In living disciple the people in any giving setting would really be in a position of creating and constantly developing relevant knowledge together. They would not work in any kind of isolation, far from it, all the active connections with researchers world wide, all the connections and experiments with practical organizations and all the knowledge of existing doctrines would be seen as an elementary building block in creating a living discipline.

Let us develop ourselves in our ways of knowing together.

Knowledge in Business

How Do We Know What We Know

What does the concept "paramount reality of everyday life" mean? Does this concept have anything to do with those matters which we handle in business and other real life organizations? Well, a too short answer would be that it is theoretical concept and we in practice can manage nicely without thinking these kind of issues and realities any further. This stance is certainly possible, but please bear with me for a while. I propose that it could be very valuable for all of us in every organization to pause to reflect and to examine how we know what we know.


The paramount reality of everyday life means that it is typical for us to think that we see and understand how things are. Somehow things are self evident to us.  Certainly, we know that there are a lot of issues which we do not know and we are fully aware that there are all kind of matters which are totally out of our reach, eg. some technological issues and such matters. And yet, at the same time we seem to possess a very peculiar certainty - we know how things are, at least how the most relevant things are.


A way back in history philosopher Rene Descartes unraveled this puzzle mastefully. He pointed out that people always wanted more and more all kinds of things, there was, however, one thing what people tought that they had enough of that. Dare to quess what that was (is)? Yes, it was common sense. People were convinced that this part of life on their behalf was in good order.


Perhaps in that respect very little has changed. Have you, for instance, seen a person to buy a latest tabloid from a supermarket? There is no lack of certainty. He has seen, partly through his earlier readings, what is really happening in this world and what celebrities are doing and all that. He also seems to know without hesitation what kind of issues merit his attention. Yes, this is his free time and time to unwind, I grant that all. And being by myself a person who runs up and down different hills during free time I have very little gravitas to assess anyones's free time activities. Nevertheless, you may admit that we have some point here.


Just a few days ago I had pleasure to say few words to an esteemed eMBA delegation from Iceland. At some point in presentation I showed almost a similar picture as below: the end of the (typical)road. Could we claim that the eMBA studies are the end of a typical everyday attitude where we think without thinking what we think? Could it be that eMBA studies on their part give tools to decide to think what you think?




There are at leat two aspects of our thinking which we could reflect. Firstly, we could analyze how we build our tinking every day by focusing on certain issues and by leaving some other matters in the shadow. We could examine how we do that indivudually and how we construct our thinking in organizations. In very practical terms, what are the issues we talk (and even think) in our meetings? How people learn to know what is important in our organizations? How we, by ourselves,  have learned to think which issues are most important - are those issues still most crucial, do they merit to get our attention?

Secondly, we must value our thinking as most precious resourse. It is a resource which must be used very wisely. Here, David Rock and his fabulous book, Your Brain at Work, tells this message extremely powefully.

In sum, we may become much better in understanding how we know what we know. That understanding can be immensely valuable - also in practice.


***

This blog builds on phenomenolocal and ethnometodological thinking and I am most greatful to several authhors and thinkers who have explored the world from this perspective. For further reading please study thinkers like: Alfred Schutz and Harold Garfinkel.