◥ University. {q} PhD. ⏫ THEMES. ⏫ KM. ⚫ UK. ⚫ England. ⬤ London. ↂ EndNote. Body of Knowledge. A body of knowledge (BOK or BoK) is the complete set of concepts, terms and activities that make up a professional domain, as defined by the relevant learned society or professional association.[1] It is a type of knowledge representation by any knowledge organization. Several definitions of BOK have been developed, for example: (1) "Structured knowledge that is used by members of a discipline to guide their practice or work.” (2) “The prescribed aggregation of knowledge in a particular area an individual is expected to have mastered to be considered or certified as a practitioner.” (BOK-def).
Examples of bodies of knowledge[edit] The following are examples of bodies of knowledge from professional organisations: See also[edit] Core curriculum References[edit] ^ Jump up to: a b Oliver, G.R. (2012). Knowledge. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.[2] Theories of knowledge[edit] In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one can say "He believes it, but it isn't so," but not "He knows it, but it isn't so. " [5] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction.
What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Communicating knowledge[edit] Symbolic representations can be used to indicate meaning and can be thought of as a dynamic process.
Situated knowledge[edit] Common knowledge. Common knowledge is knowledge that is known by everyone or nearly everyone, usually with reference to the community in which the term is used. Common knowledge need not concern one specific subject, e.g., science or history. Rather, common knowledge can be about a broad range of subjects, such as science, literature, history, and entertainment. Often, common knowledge does not need to be cited. Common knowledge is distinct from general knowledge. The latter has been defined by differential psychologists as referring to "culturally valued knowledge communicated by a range of non-specialist media", and is considered an aspect of ability related to intelligence.[1] Therefore there are substantial individual differences in general knowledge as opposed to common knowledge.
The assertion that something is "common knowledge" is sometimes associated with the fallacy argumentum ad populum (Latin: "appeal to the people"). Examples[edit] Examples of common knowledge: See also[edit] References[edit] Ignorance management. Ignorance management is a knowledge management practice that addresses the concept of ignorance in organizations.[1] Overview[edit] Ignorance Management has been described by John Israilidis, Russell Lock, and Louise Cooke of Loughborough University as: "Ignorance Management is a process of discovering, exploring, realising, recognising and managing ignorance outside and inside the organisation through an appropriate management process to meet current and future demands, design better policy and modify actions in order to achieve organisational objectives and sustain competitive advantage. The key principle of this theory is that knowledge management (KM) could better be seen as Ignorance Management due to the fact that it is impossible for someone to comprehend and understand everything in a complete way.
Research[edit] Several attempts have been made to explore the value of managing organisational ignorance in order to prevent failures within knowledge transfer contexts. See also[edit] I know that I know nothing. The phrase "I know that I know nothing" or "I know one thing: that I know nothing" (originally from Latin: "ipse se nihil scire id unum sciat",[1] a possible paraphrase from a Greek text; also quoted as "scio me nihil scire" or "scio me nescire";[2] later back-translated to Katharevousa Greek as "[ἓν οἶδα ὅτι] οὐδὲν οἶδα", [hèn oîda hóti] oudèn oîda), sometimes called the Socratic paradox, is a well-known saying that is derived from Plato's account of the Greek philosopher Socrates. This saying is also connected and/or conflated with the answer Socrates is said to have received from Pythia, the oracle of Delphi, in answer to the question "who is the wisest man in Greece?
". In Plato[edit] The saying, though widely attributed to Plato's Socrates in both ancient and modern times, actually occurs nowhere in Plato's works as is.[3] Two prominent Plato scholars have recently argued that the claim should not be attributed to Plato's Socrates.[4] where the translation is roughly: See also[edit] There are known knowns. "There are known knowns" is a phrase from a response United States Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave to a question at a US Department of Defense News Briefing in February 2002 about the lack of evidence linking the government of Iraq with the supply of weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups.[1] Rumsfeld stated: Reports that say there's -- that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things that we know that we know.
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know. —Donald Rumsfeld, United States Secretary of Defense The statement became the subject of much commentary and derision.[2] [edit] The Plain English Campaign gave Rumsfeld its Foot in Mouth Award[3] Rumsfeld named his autobiography Known and Unknown: A Memoir. In popular culture[edit] See also[edit] References[edit] SEP = Knowledge. 1–10 of 1377 documents found It is common in epistemology to distinguish among three kinds of knowledge. There's the kind of knowledge you have when it is truly said of you that you know how to do something—say, ride a bicycle.
There's the kind of knowledge you have when it is truly said of you that you know a person—say, ... Jeremy Fantl The objective of the analysis of knowledge is to state conditions that are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for propositional knowledge. Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa and Matthias Steup Value of knowledge has always been a central topic within epistemology.
Duncan Pritchard and John Turri A proposition A is mutual knowledge among a set of agents if each agent knows that A. Peter Vanderschraaf and Giacomo Sillari In philosophy, ‘self-knowledge’ commonly refers to knowledge of one's particular mental states, including one's beliefs, desires, and sensations. Brie Gertler Martine Nida-Rümelin Ali Hasan and Richard Fumerton Timothy Chappell Helen Longino T.
5 reasons why streams of knowledge run dry and methods have to change. Why do people persist in trying to quantify what people “know?” The idea that we can put a number on an individual, as a representation of their knowledge, map them against all others in the organisation and, from there, determine their value is nothing short of ridiculous. This week I have been involved in two projects that in the past have attempted to map what they call, their “streams” of knowledge. Both of these organisations are now struggling with knowledge flows (surely a “stream” is designed to flow) and both have suffered workforce adjustments over the last three years that have reduced knowledge availability and, therefore, capability.
I admit, I have reached a point of personal conflict. I can either remain true to my values and speak out against poor practice, risk upsetting people and possibly lose business or I can play it safe and not upset the applecart. Your knowledge cannot be generalised. There you have it. Please, take the time to share... The duality of knowledge. Abstract Knowledge Management (KM) is a field that has attracted much attention both in academic and practitioner circles. Most KM projects appear to be primarily concerned with knowledge that can be quantified and can be captured, codified and stored - an approach more deserving of the label Information Management.Recently there has been recognition that some knowledge cannot be quantified and cannot be captured, codified or stored.
However, the predominant approach to the management of this knowledge remains to try to convert it to a form that can be handled using the 'traditional' approach.In this paper, we argue that this approach is flawed and some knowledge simply cannot be captured. A method is needed which recognises that knowledge resides in people: not in machines or documents. We will argue that KM is essentially about people and the earlier technology driven approaches, which failed to consider this, were bound to be limited in their success. Introduction While, Conclusions. ☢️ Taxonomy. Tacit knowledge. Tacit knowledge (as opposed to formal, codified or explicit knowledge) is the kind of knowledge that is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalizing it.
For example, stating to someone that London is in the United Kingdom is a piece of explicit knowledge that can be written down, transmitted, and understood by a recipient. However, the ability to speak a language, knead dough, use algebra,[1] or design and use complex equipment requires all sorts of knowledge that is not always known explicitly, even by expert practitioners, and which is difficult or impossible to explicitly transfer to other users. While tacit knowledge appears to be simple, it has far-reaching consequences and is not widely understood. Definition[edit] The term “tacit knowing” or “tacit knowledge” was first introduced into philosophy by Michael Polanyi in 1958 in his magnum opus Personal Knowledge.
Tacit knowledge is not easily shared. Tacit knowledge vs. Transmission models[edit] Tacit Knowledge. RSK666-0000060.