Knowledge Dialogue. Lilia posts, and several other people pick-up on Lilia’s recent post on “Questions Powering Knowledge”. No doubt about that. Just look at the popularity of FAQ’s as a substitute for more planned communication.
A question is (generally on the face of it) an indication of someone wanting to know something. As Jack Vinson notes (quoting Denham Grey) questions come in all shapes and sizes. The problem with this list of categories is that it is a bit one-dimensional as ontologies go. In fact many different aspects of questions are being categorized. Who’s asking who, with what kinds of objectives, and using what strategies & processes. In fact 9 times out of 10 gaining knowledge in the form of a direct response to the question posed is not the main motive, or not even part of the motive, notice.
Lilia also concludes “KM is about motivation to learn”. Well OK, but for me this still begs the question about the motive in the learning itself. It’s about making or influencing a decision to achieve something else. Learning for it’s own sake – to simply have more knowledge as a resource as the outcome, is rarely the sole objective.
The Q&A process, and dialogue more generally, is definitely where knowledge is created, though gaining the A to the Q is only (a small) part of it. Secondly, classifying people’s motives in Q&A / Dialogue is really back to what makes people tick generally – anthropology, Maslow, Hertzberg, Heylighen, Pirsig, etc. An (evolutionary) ontology of life, the universe and everything.
Lilia also links to Andy at Croeso. Must follow-up the Shell EP connection – a customer in my day job.