1. There are several arguments summarized in the paper (20, 37, 38, 40-42) which argue that data is meaningless and discrete without interpretation, but can physical processes such as tides or physical measurements such as height of a mountain truly lack meaning without observation?
2. Knowledge is defined in several places as structed use of information. Choo (25) in particular is noted that “information becomes knowledge through the process of belief structuring or the formation of justified, true beliefs about the world.” How does one enter systems of knowledge that quite genuinely believe things that are empirically unprovable or untrue? Are these systems classifiable as “knowledge?”
3. Wisdom is both the most hotly and least frequently debated topic in the paper. Rowley quotes Bellinger et al. that “due to the inherent ethical aspect of wisdom, computers do not and never will have the ability to possess wisdom…” Many humans follow ethical systems which they do not question or examine. Are these humans not possessed of wisdom? Is wisdom a constant human state or an occasional one?
In response to #3, I'd argue that wisdom is an inherently internal process requiring constant striving, question, and reevaluation (i.e. it is not a static state). Under those terms, conforming to external ethical systems is not "wise" as such -- even if, in practice, that external ethical system leads a person to do the same things they would do if they had gathered the wisdom to create an internal ethical system of their own. This is admittedly a philosophical argument rather than a systematic one, though.
1 - While reading Rowley, I was continually reminded of Watson, the computer that competed on Jeopardy. One of the primary issues in the development of Watson was teaching a computer to either ignore or interpret contextual information in clues that may have been irrelevant or a red herring to the discussion. So, in the grand scheme of the DIKW hierarchy, where do ideas such as "critical thinking" and "context" fit? (Also, here's article about Watson, for those who are unfamiliar: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/ibms-watson-jeopardy-computer-comes-to-chm/)
2 - Does everyone have access to all of these levels all the time? Is there a certain amount of expertise required to participate fully in each level, and if so, is Information School designed to give us this expertise, regardless of the type of data, information, knowledge and wisdom we may be managing?
3 - I would like to posit that information and knowledge management specialists "view wisdom as being beyond their remit" (174) because most, if not all, wisdom is "tacit" wisdom. That is, wisdom requires the human mind to process and make sense of knowledge, and since it cannot be recorded as part of the human mind (172), it's difficult to quantify or "manage" in the same way.
1. In this article, Rowley discusses earlier knowledge hierarchies and specifically notes the differences between the models put forth by Zeleny and Ackoff (167-8). Both scholars include an extra tier in the hierarchy – Zeleny, enlightenment, and Ackoff, understanding. While I feel that “enlightenment” was probably rightfully excluded from later hierarchies due to its natural subjectivity, I wonder if “understanding” might deserve a place on the modern pyramid. As Rowley points out in her article, many of the textbooks used in her review link knowledge and understanding (172-4) rather than giving “understanding” its own tier on the pyramid. However, are knowledge and understanding truly so closely linked that they can so easily be collapsed into the other? Isn’t it true that someone can know a piece of information (have it memorized, etc…) yet not really understand what that information means? If so, should information have its own place on the hierarchy, as Ackoff suggests?
2. In her review, Rowley delineates the boundaries of her study: she used only recently published, readily available (among other criteria) textbooks in order to compare the definitions of the terms on the knowledge hierarchy (169). Rowley explains that she chose textbooks because they were more likely to have a consistent definition of the terms than other sources, such as “readers or collections of articles” (169). However, do you think that Rowley limited her scope for the review too narrowly? Were there other sources she should have included besides textbooks that would have offered a valuable perspective on her study?
3. Rowley’s” most significant observation” during her study was the discovery that only three of the textbooks used contained a definition of “wisdom” (174). Rowley provides scholarly evidence that suggests that the lack of discussion concerning wisdom may be due to the fact that wisdom is so subjective and so firmly tied to personal beliefs ( 175-7). My question: if wisdom is so subjective and depends so much on an individual’s use of their own knowledge; if, as Jashapara claims, wisdom involves ethics (174), should it even be included on the hierarchy? Zeleny’s “enlightenment” was not included on later models – doesn’t wisdom share a similar level of subjectivity and, in some cases, impossibility? If so, why is it even there?
1. On page 176-177 Rowley cites differing notions of wisdom including Bellinger's view that "computers do not have and never will have the aility to possess wisdom: 'Wisdom is a uniquely human state, or as I see it, wisdom requires one to have a soul, for it resides as much in the heart as in the mind'." This notion reminded me of the Turing test which proposes a method to measure whether a machine exhibits some type of intelligence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/). If machines could accurately imitate human intelligence is that imitation enough to warrent the label of "wisdom"?
2. Rowley states "Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge, but there is less consensus in the description of the processes that transform elements lower in the heiracrchy into those above them., leading to a lack of definitional clarity." In what ways can our field help facilitate the information transformation process and is there a downside to doing so?
3. Constructivist learning theory suggest that meaning is a personally constructed phenomena. Based upon Rowley's discussion is she likely to agree or disagree that because wisdom is also personally constructed that all wisdom is conditional?
1) The article acknowledged a relative paucity of discussion of “wisdom” in information science texts. Rowley seems to challenge the notion that discussing wisdom is outside the purview of information science, but this point seems undercut by the fact that the article acknowledges wisdom as a human quality rather than a systematic one (174). What might a discussion of information systems gain by defining and integrating wisdom?
2) While the article suggests overturning the DIKW pyramid into a funnel (with wisdom as the most distilled form of data/information/knowledge), it still assumes a relatively unidirectional transformational flow from data through to wisdom. It might be important to consider the effect of the higher (or more distilled) “levels” on the gathering of data and the synthesis of knowledge—for instance, the fact that a “wiser” researcher will have an easier time distilling information than one who is starting from a smaller wisdom base.
3) If wisdom is in fact a human quality, “requir[ing] one to have a soul” (177), then how does one define organizational wisdom? Can an organization be wise on its own terms, rather than merely being comprised of wise individuals?
1. Although writers give different definitions to the key elements of DIKW hierarchy, they all seem to agree with the lower-to-higher transformation order. However, I think that sometimes this theory could not be properly applied on individuals. An example is teaching and learning process. People can gain knowledge immediately from asking and learning knowledge to others. How do we explain it with the data-based transformation process?
2. Boddy points out that the notion of meaning is subjective, and that what one person sees as valuable information another may see as data with no particular significance(171). Does this same analogize happen in higher levels? Would it be possible for knowledge to become information or data, as there may be wrong or useless knowledge?
3. Is tacit knowledge equal to wisdom? Their definitions are very similar. The definitions of tacit knowledge are as follows: 'know how' and 'personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involving intangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and values'(173). Meanwhile, wisdom is defined as 'accumulated knowledge, which allows you to understand how to apply concepts from one domain to new situations or problems' and 'the ability to act critically or practically...based on ethical judgement related to an individual’s belief system'(174).
1. While defining data, Rowley points out that it lacks meaning and value. If any measurement, example the height of a mountain or a tower is a datum,then isn't the result a value? The meaning is the 'height'. These meanings and values when organized yield information.
2.The technicality in the terms 'data' and 'information' is not present in 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' as they are focused on a more intellectual base. In that case, how can knowledge be on the continuum between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge? It has to be processing of explicit knowledge by tacit knowledge.
3. Rowley defines wisdom as 'The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behavior, taking into account what is known (knowledge) and what does the most good (ethical and social considerations) '. This definition vaguely defines wisdom. Should she consider explaining more about knowledge which itself is social, ethical and goal driven?
1. "Prior knowledge is used to make sense of received information, and once accepted for inclusion, internalizes the new insights by linking with prior knowledge." Based on this quote, all previously held knowledge has the potential to become more valuable with the acceptance of any knew piece of knowledge. Has there been any research into the potential that any one piece of knowledge will then make prior knowledge more valuable? Would research like that even be possible?
2. Jashapara says that wisdom is "...based on ethical judgement(s) related to an individual’s belief system." I'm not sure I agree that wisdom has a basis in belief systems. To me, wisdom may have implications to ones system of beliefs but I do not think that wisdom comes solely from a belief system or from the ethics of an individual.
3. Rowley writes, "...structure differentiates data from information...". I think that there has to be a value placed on information by the individual consuming the information for it maintain its status as information. Without a value, the information falls back down the hierarchy as just more data. I think there needs to be something other than structure that keeps information higher than data.
1. Perception of data. Essentially, data can be used to form a conclusion or thought (information) and then that conclusion (information) can be used as data for another basis; there is both upward and downward movements between data and information. Does this blurring of the lines again between data and information affect their definitions? If so, then can data be a matter of opinion - information for some, but from another perspective used as data? One man's trash is another man's treasure etc. Jashapar is quoted to state "It is the receiver of the data that determines whether a message is data or information [...] Meaning in data often occurs through some form of association with experience or relationships with other data [39, p. 16].
2. After reading this article it reminded me that other languages have different words for the same concept - for example, Greek for love and Eskimo for snow. Are data, information, knowledge and wisdom just different English words for a similar concept? Could it be compared to the above examples? Do other languages experience the same difficulty in defining these terms - "to the extent that it is not clear whether there are in fact three distinct concepts." ? p.13
3. With information and particularly knowledge so hard to define, is it possible to develop best practices for knowledge transfer? Particularly now while we are in a time with the largest population retiring from the work field?
1. Rowley states that in the textbooks she reviewed only three tried to define wisdom and the others clearly show wisdom comes from knowledge. With the differing definitions of information and knowledge can there ever be a true understanding and definition of wisdom?
2. How does Cleveland’s definition and perception of information fit into the DIKW hierarchies described by Rowley?
3. How does Rowley’s article hold up when put to the standards provided by Webster and Watsons requirements for a literature review?
1. In her article, Rowley discusses different definitions for knowledge and how, along a spectrum of sorts, we would arrive at that knowledge. Most of the processes from information to knowledge involve experience. But I could know something and not have experienced it. For instance, I could know where the Sistine Chapel is and who painted it, but I wouldn't know how it would feel to stand in the Sistine Chapel and experience its beauty. Is knowledge really definable by experience or is it something entirely separate? Is knowing something the same as being knowledgable even if one word is built off another?
2. At one point, Rowley addresses the differences between tacit vs. explicit knowledge. But if we are to accept that tacit knowledge comes from more intangible concepts such as belief structuring and experience (among other things), and that all knowledge is built on information, and, in turn, data, then couldn't someone justify or refute any idea or belief based on this hierarchy? Are data and knowledge interchangeable at that juncture?
3. Rowley, along with many other authors, have cited T.S. Eliot's "The Rock" as being the basis for the wisdom hierarchy. Now I'm by no means a poetry expert, but I read the opening stanza of T.S. Eliot's "The Rock", and I was confused. Unless I am being too literal, it's a poem speaking of how this glut of information is taking us further away from GOD. How is something so often cited as being the original thought behind the wisdom hierarchy, actually preaching the antithesis of what the Information field is about?
1. Rowley summarized the definitions of date in page 170, it refers to "Data has no meaning or value because it is without context and interpretation". However here rises a conflict, in real world so many organization tried to collected relevant data. How can we explain this situation? 2. When defining information, Jashapara and Boddy both agree that human receiver determines whether a message is data or information. Is it too subjective？ It eliminate the boundary between data and information and the defining is totally up to human receiver. 3. During talking about relationship between definitions, Rowley regards both data and information as inputs to knowledge. How can data act as input to knowledge? When we talk about the hierarchy, data create information, information create knowledge.
Given that information can be defined by the system or person handling it at a moment in time does there need to be a concrete meaning of the word information to understand the fundamental nature of information? If so, would the answer simply come from the etymology of the word(e.g. the Latin word informo, informare, informavi, informatus meaning to shape, form, fashion, form an idea of) would information then be considered any data that could be shaped or formed into a usable entity?
In Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus” he describes a philosopher as a midwife of knowledge and truth. This implies that knowledge is born of information that has been mulled over within a human mind and combined shaped into a unified idea. The consensus given by Rowley presents such a broad definition that knowledge in effect mirrors information in its expansive nature. So then what exactly constitutes the benchmark of knowledge given that kind of definition?
After reading this article it seems as though the most we can agree on is that a hierarchy does exists involving data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Defining these terms in a concrete manner makes for an arduous task and one that I believe only serves to make a case for the fluidity of the entire pyramid structure. Would it be better to simply acknowledge that each of the four levels bleeds into one another to such a degree that it becomes a sort of Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” moment when dealing with the DIKW hierarchy?
1. When speaking about the first two tiers of the DIKW hierarchy, a common approach is to have the two define each other in some way. Data is seen as lacking the qualities of information, and information has all the qualities of data and more. This leads to a fluctuating definition of knowledge (where the author chooses to either define it in relation to information, or completely separate. How much of a contributing factor do you think this is to lack of an established definition for any of the four hierarchies?
2. Why was the pool of textbooks for this project all from such a short time period? By having them all from the year 2003 or so, aren't you just looking at a bunch of textbooks that were influenced by the same articles of material (which might explain the similarities in wording)? Wouldn't a larger pool help paint a better picture of how the definitions of these terms have evolved?
3. In section 5.4, the authors document the schism between defining knowledge in relation to information, or completely separate. Is it possible there might be some cultural explanations for the split?
1. Jashpara says that wisdom is aligned with ethics and that “it is the ability to act critically in any given situation. It is based on ethical judgement related to an individual’s belief system” (173). I don’t agree. Rather I think that wisdom is more the ability to present data, information, or knowledge with confidence because you have internalized or had enough exposure to something that you are able to convey that wisdom to someone else with little doubt you might be wrong. Wisdom has nothing to do with ethics because everyone has a different moral compass. A belief system, wisdom, and ethical decisions can all vary wildly for a person and when different circumstance arise which could challenge all those things.
2. Rowley says that amongst other authors that “data, information, and knowledge are to be defined in terms of each other… and that consensus reaffirms the concept of a hierarchy that links the concepts of data, information, and knowledge” (173). Why is wisdom not included in this consensus? Data, information, and knowledge definitely contribute to gaining wisdom. Also, if these concepts are defined in terms of each other, is there really a need for a hierarchy where wisdom is at the top? Should all the terms be equal or arranged in a different type of chart?
3. Throughout this article it seems that wisdom is a hard concept to define. However, I agree with Bellinger who says that “wisdom is uniquely human state” (176). Do you think that wisdom is a more human state one reaches by different milestones or life experiences (say, giving “sage advice”) or is wisdom gained more systematically through the DIKW hierarchy?
In this article the author goes through great lengths to define the levels of the DIKW pyramid. As the author was going up the pyramid defining each term it seemed that it became more difficult to come to a consensus of what these levels meant. Is it possible that the reason behind this difficulty is that as you go from data to wisdom you travel from a concrete idea to a cognitive process inside the body that is difficult for us to observe?
Th author of this article mentions the concept of signals that some researchers think are beneath data in the DIKW hierarchy. They argue that signals that we receive from the outside world are the origins of data. Should the methods by which data is transmitted be a part of this hierarchy?
Over the course of this article the author mentions several different models of the DIKW that have a fifth level of organization. These two are Zeleny's enlightenment and Jashapara's truth. While the author does not explain what Jashapara means by truth she does explain enlightenment as "going further and attaining the sense of truth, the sense of right and wrong, and having it socially accepted, respected and sanctioned." This definition seems similar to many different explanations of wisdom except for the fact that it includes a social aspect. Is it possible for some fifth level of the DIKW pyramid to exist of are these levels attempts to broaden the wisdom level to an organizational level?
1.When the author talks about the nature of knowledge,Palto defined it as 'justified true belief' and others suggest that knowledge 'can be conceived as information put to productive use'. I think both of them are right and wrong. For example, that the Earth is like a ball is a justified true belief. It can be regard as information and also as knowledge. Sometimes information and knowledge are the same thing,but sometimes they are total different. So can we really give a concept to knowledge since it is intangible?
2.The author says that data is programmable and wisdom is non-programmable. I don't agree with that. For example,the intelligent robots,which is designed by computer language and designed to have wisdom. What do you think about that?
3.Rowley says that data has no meaning or value. Is that ture? I think everything in our world has meanings. If it exists,it will have value. At least the value of data is to form information.
1 When the author cited the early mention of hierarchy by Ackoff in 1989, did the word "data" have a different meaning from now--the information age? The article says that data were defined as symbols that represent properties of objects, events and their environment. Then why not people at that time chose data instead of facts, factor or observation?
2 According to the article in page 8, when choosing certain criteria of textbooks, did the author take the geology factor into account yet not just choosing textbooks written in English to ensure the breadth of the research?
3 In 5.3, the author talked about the definition of information by textbooks. It seems like that all of the textbooks agree that information is data that endowed with meaning, relevance and purpose. How could we decide whether a information has a meaning to different people with various background. And how could pi is a meaningless data to most of people but of great importance to people who learn mathematics?
1. Since information is organized or structured data, is organized or structured data is information? I guess when data being organized but have no meaning,it can't be information. All data in information systems and in our minds has some structure, but the data has any structure can turn into information?
2. In author's opinion, the distinction between knowledge and information is less defensible because understanding must be necessary to achieve meaning. I don't think so. For example, a piece of news or advertisement can be information, but cannot be knowledge. Should understanding be necessary to achieve meaning? I think it's probably more like the opposite.
3. Actually, there are too many discussion on DIKW, I wonder if there will be a final answer? Is it so meaningful for us to dig out the final answer? Maybe it shows us the anticipation of wisdom management? Does artificial intelligence is(or will be) a kind of wisdom management?
-Does knowledge truly differ from information? How might the concepts of explicit knowledge and information be roughly synonymous? -The wisdom hierarchy suggests that, “wisdom is only attained after much processing of data, information and knowledge and the process starts with data.” Can the development of wisdom be conceptualized as more than just an ordered hierarchy? Can wisdom exist without the process building up from data? -The wisdom hierarchy also suggests that there is more data than information, information than knowledge and knowledge than wisdom, but (especially if we break out of the idea that wisdom can only come up from the bare bones of data) is this truly the stagnant state of DIKW or possibly a reflection of the current situation?
1. When discussing knowledge, the author differentiates between the two ways in which information is converted to knowledge, calling them "the processes" and "the added ingredients." Are the two categories really that different?
2. Webster and Watson's article explains how to write a successful review. Does this review by Rowley follow all of Webster and Watson's suggestions?
3. Rowley's article compares texts from knowledge management and information systems. In what ways do the two disciplines differ and how do those differences affect the ways in which the disciplines characterize data, information, knowledge and wisdom?
Why are the representations of the hierarchy in two dimensions when some descriptions of information and knowledge overlap? What about a three-dimensional concept such as a sphere in which wisdom, knowledge, and information are like chemical chains that have overlapping elements but behave differently?
1. Explicit knowledge is recorded, whereas tacit knowledge is in the mind. Are the lines between these two concepts ever blurred?
2. There seems to be a human factor within many of the definitions of knowledge, data and information. Rowley writes, even, that a "human receiver determines whether a message is data or information". In class, many people seemed to agree that it's all very subjective. Therefore, can there ever be a really solid, concrete definition for these concepts and does there need to be?
3. I was interested in the concept that data is a property of things, whereas knowledge is a property of people. Do you guys agree with this statement? Is knowledge more explicitly human?
1. A mass of related questions: In the ‘Findings’ section of this paper (on pg 173, to be precise), one of the definitions for knowledge caught my eye. ‘Knowledge is information combined with understanding and capability; it lives in the minds of people.’ Does this mean knowledge does not live in computers or in books or in art? Wouldn’t that mean that anything knowledge-like that we find outside of a person is just information? And how do we find knowledge in a person? Through conversation? Through a teaching/learning experience? What I’m getting at is that this definition claims that not only is knowledge the work of a human mind, but that it can’t be passed off through technological means. It can only live in our heads: It can only be transferred from person to person. This is not, actually, that dissimilar from Cleveland’s colleague’s idea of wisdom: “Wisdom has to do with personal chemistry and slow osmosis.” What are the implications of these definitions?
2. And one more question: In section 6.3, Rowley proposes that maybe the solution to “limited effectiveness of knowledge management initiatives [51], coupled with the complexity of contemporary management and the complexity and hyper-turbulence of organizational environments” is, essentially, more wisdom. I don’t see how this conclusion follows from her research. Furthermore, is she not simply telling us that if we were wiser we would be better at things?
1. In thinking about defining, contextualizing, and processing elements of the DIKW framework, I can't help but question the extent to which it inherently promotes cultural bias? 2. When discussing any element of the DIKW pyramid, what and who determines meaning and what's meaningful? Is there a way to measure meaning? 3. Since there aren't universally agreed upon definitions for DIKW--how useful are these terms, really, in information conversations? Since it's challenging to define what's being discussed, is it even helpful to give it a name?
1. Rowley's article highlights the paucity of information and research on "wisdom" in the fields of information and knowledge studies. Given the general trends in definitions of terms within the hierarchy (information is organized or descriptive data, knowledge is actionable information) and the degree to which human judgment is a factor in the implementation of wisdom (that is, wisdom is more an individual, rather than shareable, experience), should wisdom really be the concern of information and knowledge professionals? Is the classification and categorization of wisdom, in the sense that information and even knowledge can be understood and organized, a suitable pursuit in the realm of information studies, or is it a task best left to professionals in other fields or specialties?
2. An issue I've had with the very linear flow of data to information to knowledge to wisdom is that it doesn't seem to account for the variety of contexts in which data are collected or information is interpreted. Neither does it answer the question of misinformation, incomplete data, or flawed knowledge based on limited or false information. Rowley's article left me questioning what importance is placed or research is conducted in understanding misinformation.
3. Rowley concludes that the DIKW hierarchy is either implicitly or explicitly constructed in each of the publications she reviewed. However, with the amorphous nature of both the concepts themselves (without standard definitions) and their relation to one another, of what use is the hierarchy? What does it add to our understanding of the world, and how might it help us effect change outside the classroom?
1. In the paper, Rowley discussed a variety of definitions concerning information, knowledge and wisdom. I'm not going to say that this work is meaningless, but one thing in my mind is what is the point of discussing the definitions of information or knowledge? Due to so many definitions from various perspectives introduced in the paper, is it possible that there is no solid or universally agreed definition about information exists due to the ambiguity of the word 'information' itself?
2. Zeneny's idea is interesting in the paper. He described DIKW as Know Nothing, Know What, Know How and Know Why. In this case, it seemed there are no overlapped spaces among Information, knowledge and wisdom. However, it's hard to explain some nowadays phrases like 'Information Technology' or 'Information Economic'. How can information, if it is merely a fact, create values and constitute the foundation of rapidly developing world? I mean, giving definitions to a word is pretty easy but the hard thing is that such definitions are fitting the context of the word.
3. To explain the lack of definitions on wisdom, the author indicated that wisdom is an elusive concept from others like information and knowledge, whereas he also agreed that wisdom is a higher abstraction level of knowledge. So, think further, why the author believe wisdom is the top of the information pyramid? Can wisdom have a higher abstraction level? If not, why?
1.This article helped to clarify for me what the difference is between information and knowledge. I particularly found useful Rowley’s summary of Despres and Chauval’s explanation that information becomes knowledge happens when you “establish links with already existing knowledge” (pg 173) and that the input of information is understood by a person through their knowledge. Although it leaves out an explanation of where the first knowledge of a person came from if you need knowledge to create knowledge, it makes sense to me that the difference between information and knowledge is that the latter requires personal experience to understand and evaluate new information. In thinking of how information and knowledge are described in this article, is it really possible for large organizations to employ knowledge management processes? If knowledge exists in someone’s mind, constructed and connected from their information how can it be passed along? If someone records their knowledge and shares it with another person, does their knowledge not regress to information to be evaluated by the other person?
2.Rowley writes that some companies try to foster wisdom as an alternative to knowledge management. How would this work?
3.Rowley explained the difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom in theoretical terms without an examples of what each would be. Can the same fact or statement be data, information, knowledge and wisdom if placed in different settings?
1.This article helped to clarify for me what the difference is between information and knowledge. I particularly found useful Rowley’s summary of Despres and Chauval’s explanation that information becomes knowledge happens when you “establish links with already existing knowledge” (pg 173) and that the input of information is understood by a person through their knowledge. Although it leaves out an explanation of where the first knowledge of a person came from if you need knowledge to create knowledge, it makes sense to me that the difference between information and knowledge is that the latter requires personal experience to understand and evaluate new information. In thinking of how information and knowledge are described in this article, is it really possible for large organizations to employ knowledge management processes? If knowledge exists in someone’s mind, constructed and connected from their information how can it be passed along? If someone records their knowledge and shares it with another person, does their knowledge not regress to information to be evaluated by the other person?
2.Rowley writes that some companies try to foster wisdom as an alternative to knowledge management. How would this work?
3.Rowley explained the difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom in theoretical terms without an examples of what each would be. Can the same fact or statement be data, information, knowledge and wisdom if placed in different settings?
1. There are several arguments summarized in the paper (20, 37, 38, 40-42) which argue that data is meaningless and discrete without interpretation, but can physical processes such as tides or physical measurements such as height of a mountain truly lack meaning without observation?
ReplyDelete2. Knowledge is defined in several places as structed use of information. Choo (25) in particular is noted that “information becomes knowledge through the process of belief structuring or the formation of justified, true beliefs about the world.” How does one enter systems of knowledge that quite genuinely believe things that are empirically unprovable or untrue? Are these systems classifiable as “knowledge?”
3. Wisdom is both the most hotly and least frequently debated topic in the paper. Rowley quotes Bellinger et al. that “due to the inherent ethical aspect of wisdom, computers do not and never will have the ability to possess wisdom…” Many humans follow ethical systems which they do not question or examine. Are these humans not possessed of wisdom? Is wisdom a constant human state or an occasional one?
In response to #3, I'd argue that wisdom is an inherently internal process requiring constant striving, question, and reevaluation (i.e. it is not a static state). Under those terms, conforming to external ethical systems is not "wise" as such -- even if, in practice, that external ethical system leads a person to do the same things they would do if they had gathered the wisdom to create an internal ethical system of their own. This is admittedly a philosophical argument rather than a systematic one, though.
Delete1 - While reading Rowley, I was continually reminded of Watson, the computer that competed on Jeopardy. One of the primary issues in the development of Watson was teaching a computer to either ignore or interpret contextual information in clues that may have been irrelevant or a red herring to the discussion. So, in the grand scheme of the DIKW hierarchy, where do ideas such as "critical thinking" and "context" fit? (Also, here's article about Watson, for those who are unfamiliar: http://www.computerhistory.org/atchm/ibms-watson-jeopardy-computer-comes-to-chm/)
ReplyDelete2 - Does everyone have access to all of these levels all the time? Is there a certain amount of expertise required to participate fully in each level, and if so, is Information School designed to give us this expertise, regardless of the type of data, information, knowledge and wisdom we may be managing?
3 - I would like to posit that information and knowledge management specialists "view wisdom as being beyond their remit" (174) because most, if not all, wisdom is "tacit" wisdom. That is, wisdom requires the human mind to process and make sense of knowledge, and since it cannot be recorded as part of the human mind (172), it's difficult to quantify or "manage" in the same way.
1. In this article, Rowley discusses earlier knowledge hierarchies and specifically notes the differences between the models put forth by Zeleny and Ackoff (167-8). Both scholars include an extra tier in the hierarchy – Zeleny, enlightenment, and Ackoff, understanding. While I feel that “enlightenment” was probably rightfully excluded from later hierarchies due to its natural subjectivity, I wonder if “understanding” might deserve a place on the modern pyramid. As Rowley points out in her article, many of the textbooks used in her review link knowledge and understanding (172-4) rather than giving “understanding” its own tier on the pyramid. However, are knowledge and understanding truly so closely linked that they can so easily be collapsed into the other? Isn’t it true that someone can know a piece of information (have it memorized, etc…) yet not really understand what that information means? If so, should information have its own place on the hierarchy, as Ackoff suggests?
ReplyDelete2. In her review, Rowley delineates the boundaries of her study: she used only recently published, readily available (among other criteria) textbooks in order to compare the definitions of the terms on the knowledge hierarchy (169). Rowley explains that she chose textbooks because they were more likely to have a consistent definition of the terms than other sources, such as “readers or collections of articles” (169). However, do you think that Rowley limited her scope for the review too narrowly? Were there other sources she should have included besides textbooks that would have offered a valuable perspective on her study?
3. Rowley’s” most significant observation” during her study was the discovery that only three of the textbooks used contained a definition of “wisdom” (174). Rowley provides scholarly evidence that suggests that the lack of discussion concerning wisdom may be due to the fact that wisdom is so subjective and so firmly tied to personal beliefs ( 175-7). My question: if wisdom is so subjective and depends so much on an individual’s use of their own knowledge; if, as Jashapara claims, wisdom involves ethics (174), should it even be included on the hierarchy? Zeleny’s “enlightenment” was not included on later models – doesn’t wisdom share a similar level of subjectivity and, in some cases, impossibility? If so, why is it even there?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete1. On page 176-177 Rowley cites differing notions of wisdom including Bellinger's view that "computers do not have and never will have the aility to possess wisdom: 'Wisdom is a uniquely human state, or as I see it, wisdom requires one to have a soul, for it resides as much in the heart as in the mind'." This notion reminded me of the Turing test which proposes a method to measure whether a machine exhibits some type of intelligence (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/turing-test/). If machines could accurately imitate human intelligence is that imitation enough to warrent the label of "wisdom"?
ReplyDelete2. Rowley states "Typically information is defined in terms of data, knowledge in terms of information, and wisdom in terms of knowledge, but there is less consensus in the description of the processes that transform elements lower in the heiracrchy into those above them., leading to a lack of definitional clarity." In what ways can our field help facilitate the information transformation process and is there a downside to doing so?
3. Constructivist learning theory suggest that meaning is a personally constructed phenomena. Based upon Rowley's discussion is she likely to agree or disagree that because wisdom is also personally constructed that all wisdom is conditional?
1) The article acknowledged a relative paucity of discussion of “wisdom” in information science texts. Rowley seems to challenge the notion that discussing wisdom is outside the purview of information science, but this point seems undercut by the fact that the article acknowledges wisdom as a human quality rather than a systematic one (174). What might a discussion of information systems gain by defining and integrating wisdom?
ReplyDelete2) While the article suggests overturning the DIKW pyramid into a funnel (with wisdom as the most distilled form of data/information/knowledge), it still assumes a relatively unidirectional transformational flow from data through to wisdom. It might be important to consider the effect of the higher (or more distilled) “levels” on the gathering of data and the synthesis of knowledge—for instance, the fact that a “wiser” researcher will have an easier time distilling information than one who is starting from a smaller wisdom base.
3) If wisdom is in fact a human quality, “requir[ing] one to have a soul” (177), then how does one define organizational wisdom? Can an organization be wise on its own terms, rather than merely being comprised of wise individuals?
1. Although writers give different definitions to the key elements of DIKW hierarchy, they all seem to agree with the lower-to-higher transformation order. However, I think that sometimes this theory could not be properly applied on individuals. An example is teaching and learning process. People can gain knowledge immediately from asking and learning knowledge to others. How do we explain it with the data-based transformation process?
ReplyDelete2. Boddy points out that the notion of meaning is subjective, and that what one person sees as valuable information another may see as data with no particular significance(171). Does this same analogize happen in higher levels? Would it be possible for knowledge to become information or data, as there may be wrong or useless knowledge?
3. Is tacit knowledge equal to wisdom? Their definitions are very similar. The definitions of tacit knowledge are as follows: 'know how' and 'personal knowledge embedded in individual experience and involving intangible factors such as personal belief, perspective, and values'(173). Meanwhile, wisdom is defined as 'accumulated knowledge, which allows you to understand how to apply concepts from one domain to new situations or problems' and 'the ability to act critically or practically...based on ethical judgement related to an individual’s belief system'(174).
1. While defining data, Rowley points out that it lacks meaning and value. If any measurement, example the height of a mountain or a tower is a datum,then isn't the result a value? The meaning is the 'height'. These meanings and values when organized yield information.
ReplyDelete2.The technicality in the terms 'data' and 'information' is not present in 'knowledge' and 'wisdom' as they are focused on a more intellectual base. In that case, how can knowledge be on the continuum between explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge? It has to be processing of explicit knowledge by tacit knowledge.
3. Rowley defines wisdom as 'The capacity to put into action the most appropriate behavior, taking into account what is known (knowledge) and what does the most good (ethical and social considerations) '. This definition vaguely defines wisdom. Should she consider explaining more about knowledge which itself is social, ethical and goal driven?
1. "Prior knowledge is used to make sense of received information, and once accepted for inclusion, internalizes the new insights by linking with prior knowledge." Based on this quote, all previously held knowledge has the potential to become more valuable with the acceptance of any knew piece of knowledge. Has there been any research into the potential that any one piece of knowledge will then make prior knowledge more valuable? Would research like that even be possible?
ReplyDelete2. Jashapara says that wisdom is "...based on ethical judgement(s) related to an individual’s belief system." I'm not sure I agree that wisdom has a basis in belief systems. To me, wisdom may have implications to ones system of beliefs but I do not think that wisdom comes solely from a belief system or from the ethics of an individual.
3. Rowley writes, "...structure differentiates data from information...". I think that there has to be a value placed on information by the individual consuming the information for it maintain its status as information. Without a value, the information falls back down the hierarchy as just more data. I think there needs to be something other than structure that keeps information higher than data.
1. Perception of data. Essentially, data can be used to form a conclusion or thought (information) and then that conclusion (information) can be used as data for another basis; there is both upward and downward movements between data and information. Does this blurring of the lines again between data and information affect their definitions? If so, then can data be a matter of opinion - information for some, but from another perspective used as data? One man's trash is another man's treasure etc. Jashapar is quoted to state "It is the receiver of the data that determines whether a message is data or information [...] Meaning in data often occurs through some form of association with experience or relationships with other data [39, p. 16].
ReplyDelete2. After reading this article it reminded me that other languages have different words for the same concept - for example, Greek for love and Eskimo for snow. Are data, information, knowledge and wisdom just different English words for a similar concept? Could it be compared to the above examples? Do other languages experience the same difficulty in defining these terms - "to the extent that it is not clear whether there are in fact three distinct concepts." ? p.13
3. With information and particularly knowledge so hard to define, is it possible to develop best practices for knowledge transfer? Particularly now while we are in a time with the largest population retiring from the work field?
1. Rowley states that in the textbooks she reviewed only three tried to define wisdom and the others clearly show wisdom comes from knowledge. With the differing definitions of information and knowledge can there ever be a true understanding and definition of wisdom?
ReplyDelete2. How does Cleveland’s definition and perception of information fit into the DIKW hierarchies described by Rowley?
3. How does Rowley’s article hold up when put to the standards provided by Webster and Watsons requirements for a literature review?
1. In her article, Rowley discusses different definitions for knowledge and how, along a spectrum of sorts, we would arrive at that knowledge. Most of the processes from information to knowledge involve experience. But I could know something and not have experienced it. For instance, I could know where the Sistine Chapel is and who painted it, but I wouldn't know how it would feel to stand in the Sistine Chapel and experience its beauty. Is knowledge really definable by experience or is it something entirely separate? Is knowing something the same as being knowledgable even if one word is built off another?
ReplyDelete2. At one point, Rowley addresses the differences between tacit vs. explicit knowledge. But if we are to accept that tacit knowledge comes from more intangible concepts such as belief structuring and experience (among other things), and that all knowledge is built on information, and, in turn, data, then couldn't someone justify or refute any idea or belief based on this hierarchy? Are data and knowledge interchangeable at that juncture?
3. Rowley, along with many other authors, have cited T.S. Eliot's "The Rock" as being the basis for the wisdom hierarchy. Now I'm by no means a poetry expert, but I read the opening stanza of T.S. Eliot's "The Rock", and I was confused. Unless I am being too literal, it's a poem speaking of how this glut of information is taking us further away from GOD. How is something so often cited as being the original thought behind the wisdom hierarchy, actually preaching the antithesis of what the Information field is about?
1. Rowley summarized the definitions of date in page 170, it refers to "Data has no meaning or value because it is without context and interpretation". However here rises a conflict, in real world so many organization tried to collected relevant data. How can we explain this situation?
ReplyDelete2. When defining information, Jashapara and Boddy both agree that human receiver determines whether a message is data or information. Is it too subjective？ It eliminate the boundary between data and information and the defining is totally up to human receiver.
3. During talking about relationship between definitions, Rowley regards both data and information as inputs to knowledge. How can data act as input to knowledge? When we talk about the hierarchy, data create information, information create knowledge.
Given that information can be defined by the system or person handling it at a moment in time does there need to be a concrete meaning of the word information to understand the fundamental nature of information? If so, would the answer simply come from the etymology of the word(e.g. the Latin word informo, informare, informavi, informatus meaning to shape, form, fashion, form an idea of) would information then be considered any data that could be shaped or formed into a usable entity?
ReplyDeleteIn Plato’s dialogue “Theaetetus” he describes a philosopher as a midwife of knowledge and truth. This implies that knowledge is born of information that has been mulled over within a human mind and combined shaped into a unified idea. The consensus given by Rowley presents such a broad definition that knowledge in effect mirrors information in its expansive nature. So then what exactly constitutes the benchmark of knowledge given that kind of definition?
After reading this article it seems as though the most we can agree on is that a hierarchy does exists involving data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. Defining these terms in a concrete manner makes for an arduous task and one that I believe only serves to make a case for the fluidity of the entire pyramid structure. Would it be better to simply acknowledge that each of the four levels bleeds into one another to such a degree that it becomes a sort of Supreme Court “I know it when I see it” moment when dealing with the DIKW hierarchy?
1. When speaking about the first two tiers of the DIKW hierarchy, a common approach is to have the two define each other in some way. Data is seen as lacking the qualities of information, and information has all the qualities of data and more. This leads to a fluctuating definition of knowledge (where the author chooses to either define it in relation to information, or completely separate. How much of a contributing factor do you think this is to lack of an established definition for any of the four hierarchies?
ReplyDelete2. Why was the pool of textbooks for this project all from such a short time period? By having them all from the year 2003 or so, aren't you just looking at a bunch of textbooks that were influenced by the same articles of material (which might explain the similarities in wording)? Wouldn't a larger pool help paint a better picture of how the definitions of these terms have evolved?
3. In section 5.4, the authors document the schism between defining knowledge in relation to information, or completely separate. Is it possible there might be some cultural explanations for the split?
1. Jashpara says that wisdom is aligned with ethics and that “it is the ability to act critically in any given situation. It is based on ethical judgement related to an individual’s belief system” (173). I don’t agree. Rather I think that wisdom is more the ability to present data, information, or knowledge with confidence because you have internalized or had enough exposure to something that you are able to convey that wisdom to someone else with little doubt you might be wrong. Wisdom has nothing to do with ethics because everyone has a different moral compass. A belief system, wisdom, and ethical decisions can all vary wildly for a person and when different circumstance arise which could challenge all those things.
ReplyDelete2. Rowley says that amongst other authors that “data, information, and knowledge are to be defined in terms of each other… and that consensus reaffirms the concept of a hierarchy that links the concepts of data, information, and knowledge” (173). Why is wisdom not included in this consensus? Data, information, and knowledge definitely contribute to gaining wisdom. Also, if these concepts are defined in terms of each other, is there really a need for a hierarchy where wisdom is at the top? Should all the terms be equal or arranged in a different type of chart?
3. Throughout this article it seems that wisdom is a hard concept to define. However, I agree with Bellinger who says that “wisdom is uniquely human state” (176). Do you think that wisdom is a more human state one reaches by different milestones or life experiences (say, giving “sage advice”) or is wisdom gained more systematically through the DIKW hierarchy?
In this article the author goes through great lengths to define the levels of the DIKW pyramid. As the author was going up the pyramid defining each term it seemed that it became more difficult to come to a consensus of what these levels meant. Is it possible that the reason behind this difficulty is that as you go from data to wisdom you travel from a concrete idea to a cognitive process inside the body that is difficult for us to observe?
ReplyDeleteTh author of this article mentions the concept of signals that some researchers think are beneath data in the DIKW hierarchy. They argue that signals that we receive from the outside world are the origins of data. Should the methods by which data is transmitted be a part of this hierarchy?
Over the course of this article the author mentions several different models of the DIKW that have a fifth level of organization. These two are Zeleny's enlightenment and Jashapara's truth. While the author does not explain what Jashapara means by truth she does explain enlightenment as "going further and attaining the sense of truth, the sense of right and wrong, and having it socially accepted, respected and sanctioned." This definition seems similar to many different explanations of wisdom except for the fact that it includes a social aspect. Is it possible for some fifth level of the DIKW pyramid to exist of are these levels attempts to broaden the wisdom level to an organizational level?
1.When the author talks about the nature of knowledge,Palto defined it as 'justified true belief' and others suggest that knowledge 'can be conceived as information put to productive use'. I think both of them are right and wrong. For example, that the Earth is like a ball is a justified true belief. It can be regard as information and also as knowledge. Sometimes information and knowledge are the same thing,but sometimes they are total different. So can we really give a concept to knowledge since it is intangible?
ReplyDelete2.The author says that data is programmable and wisdom is non-programmable. I don't agree with that. For example,the intelligent robots,which is designed by computer language and designed to have wisdom. What do you think about that?
3.Rowley says that data has no meaning or value. Is that ture? I think everything in our world has meanings. If it exists,it will have value. At least the value of data is to form information.
1 When the author cited the early mention of hierarchy by Ackoff in 1989, did the word "data" have a different meaning from now--the information age? The article says that data were defined as symbols that represent properties of objects, events and their environment. Then why not people at that time chose data instead of facts, factor or observation?
ReplyDelete2 According to the article in page 8, when choosing certain criteria of textbooks, did the author take the geology factor into account yet not just choosing textbooks written in English to ensure the breadth of the research?
3 In 5.3, the author talked about the definition of information by textbooks. It seems like that all of the textbooks agree that information is data that endowed with meaning, relevance and purpose. How could we decide whether a information has a meaning to different people with various background. And how could pi is a meaningless data to most of people but of great importance to people who learn mathematics?
1. Since information is organized or structured data, is organized or structured data is information? I guess when data being organized but have no meaning,it can't be information. All data in information systems and in our minds has some structure, but the data has any structure can turn into information?
ReplyDelete2. In author's opinion, the distinction between knowledge and information is less defensible because understanding must be necessary to achieve meaning. I don't think so. For example, a piece of news or advertisement can be information, but cannot be knowledge. Should understanding be necessary to achieve meaning? I think it's probably more like the opposite.
3. Actually, there are too many discussion on DIKW, I wonder if there will be a final answer? Is it so meaningful for us to dig out the final answer? Maybe it shows us the anticipation of wisdom management? Does artificial intelligence is(or will be) a kind of wisdom management?
-Does knowledge truly differ from information? How might the concepts of explicit knowledge and information be roughly synonymous?
ReplyDelete-The wisdom hierarchy suggests that, “wisdom is only attained after much processing of data, information and knowledge and the process starts with data.” Can the development of wisdom be conceptualized as more than just an ordered hierarchy? Can wisdom exist without the process building up from data?
-The wisdom hierarchy also suggests that there is more data than information, information than knowledge and knowledge than wisdom, but (especially if we break out of the idea that wisdom can only come up from the bare bones of data) is this truly the stagnant state of DIKW or possibly a reflection of the current situation?
1. When discussing knowledge, the author differentiates between the two ways in which information is converted to knowledge, calling them "the processes" and "the added ingredients." Are the two categories really that different?
ReplyDelete2. Webster and Watson's article explains how to write a successful review. Does this review by Rowley follow all of Webster and Watson's suggestions?
3. Rowley's article compares texts from knowledge management and information systems. In what ways do the two disciplines differ and how do those differences affect the ways in which the disciplines characterize data, information, knowledge and wisdom?
Why are the representations of the hierarchy in two dimensions when some descriptions of information and knowledge overlap? What about a three-dimensional concept such as a sphere in which wisdom, knowledge, and information are like chemical chains that have overlapping elements but behave differently?
ReplyDelete1. Explicit knowledge is recorded, whereas tacit knowledge is in the mind. Are the lines between these two concepts ever blurred?
ReplyDelete2. There seems to be a human factor within many of the definitions of knowledge, data and information. Rowley writes, even, that a "human receiver determines whether a message is data or information". In class, many people seemed to agree that it's all very subjective. Therefore, can there ever be a really solid, concrete definition for these concepts and does there need to be?
3. I was interested in the concept that data is a property of things, whereas knowledge is a property of people. Do you guys agree with this statement? Is knowledge more explicitly human?
1. A mass of related questions:
ReplyDeleteIn the ‘Findings’ section of this paper (on pg 173, to be precise), one of the definitions for knowledge caught my eye. ‘Knowledge is information combined with understanding and capability; it lives in the minds of people.’ Does this mean knowledge does not live in computers or in books or in art? Wouldn’t that mean that anything knowledge-like that we find outside of a person is just information? And how do we find knowledge in a person? Through conversation? Through a teaching/learning experience? What I’m getting at is that this definition claims that not only is knowledge the work of a human mind, but that it can’t be passed off through technological means. It can only live in our heads: It can only be transferred from person to person. This is not, actually, that dissimilar from Cleveland’s colleague’s idea of wisdom: “Wisdom has to do with personal chemistry and slow osmosis.” What are the implications of these definitions?
2. And one more question:
In section 6.3, Rowley proposes that maybe the solution to “limited effectiveness of knowledge management initiatives [51], coupled with the complexity of contemporary management and the complexity and hyper-turbulence of organizational environments” is, essentially, more wisdom. I don’t see how this conclusion follows from her research. Furthermore, is she not simply telling us that if we were wiser we would be better at things?
1. In thinking about defining, contextualizing, and processing elements of the DIKW framework, I can't help but question the extent to which it inherently promotes cultural bias?
ReplyDelete2. When discussing any element of the DIKW pyramid, what and who determines meaning and what's meaningful? Is there a way to measure meaning?
3. Since there aren't universally agreed upon definitions for DIKW--how useful are these terms, really, in information conversations? Since it's challenging to define what's being discussed, is it even helpful to give it a name?
1. Rowley's article highlights the paucity of information and research on "wisdom" in the fields of information and knowledge studies. Given the general trends in definitions of terms within the hierarchy (information is organized or descriptive data, knowledge is actionable information) and the degree to which human judgment is a factor in the implementation of wisdom (that is, wisdom is more an individual, rather than shareable, experience), should wisdom really be the concern of information and knowledge professionals? Is the classification and categorization of wisdom, in the sense that information and even knowledge can be understood and organized, a suitable pursuit in the realm of information studies, or is it a task best left to professionals in other fields or specialties?
ReplyDelete2. An issue I've had with the very linear flow of data to information to knowledge to wisdom is that it doesn't seem to account for the variety of contexts in which data are collected or information is interpreted. Neither does it answer the question of misinformation, incomplete data, or flawed knowledge based on limited or false information. Rowley's article left me questioning what importance is placed or research is conducted in understanding misinformation.
3. Rowley concludes that the DIKW hierarchy is either implicitly or explicitly constructed in each of the publications she reviewed. However, with the amorphous nature of both the concepts themselves (without standard definitions) and their relation to one another, of what use is the hierarchy? What does it add to our understanding of the world, and how might it help us effect change outside the classroom?
1. In the paper, Rowley discussed a variety of definitions concerning information, knowledge and wisdom. I'm not going to say that this work is meaningless, but one thing in my mind is what is the point of discussing the definitions of information or knowledge? Due to so many definitions from various perspectives introduced in the paper, is it possible that there is no solid or universally agreed definition about information exists due to the ambiguity of the word 'information' itself?
ReplyDelete2. Zeneny's idea is interesting in the paper. He described DIKW as Know Nothing, Know What, Know How and Know Why. In this case, it seemed there are no overlapped spaces among Information, knowledge and wisdom. However, it's hard to explain some nowadays phrases like 'Information Technology' or 'Information Economic'. How can information, if it is merely a fact, create values and constitute the foundation of rapidly developing world? I mean, giving definitions to a word is pretty easy but the hard thing is that such definitions are fitting the context of the word.
3. To explain the lack of definitions on wisdom, the author indicated that wisdom is an elusive concept from others like information and knowledge, whereas he also agreed that wisdom is a higher abstraction level of knowledge. So, think further, why the author believe wisdom is the top of the information pyramid? Can wisdom have a higher abstraction level? If not, why?
1.This article helped to clarify for me what the difference is between information and knowledge. I particularly found useful Rowley’s summary of Despres and Chauval’s explanation that information becomes knowledge happens when you “establish links with already existing knowledge” (pg 173) and that the input of information is understood by a person through their knowledge. Although it leaves out an explanation of where the first knowledge of a person came from if you need knowledge to create knowledge, it makes sense to me that the difference between information and knowledge is that the latter requires personal experience to understand and evaluate new information. In thinking of how information and knowledge are described in this article, is it really possible for large organizations to employ knowledge management processes? If knowledge exists in someone’s mind, constructed and connected from their information how can it be passed along? If someone records their knowledge and shares it with another person, does their knowledge not regress to information to be evaluated by the other person?
ReplyDelete2.Rowley writes that some companies try to foster wisdom as an alternative to knowledge management. How would this work?
3.Rowley explained the difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom in theoretical terms without an examples of what each would be. Can the same fact or statement be data, information, knowledge and wisdom if placed in different settings?
1.This article helped to clarify for me what the difference is between information and knowledge. I particularly found useful Rowley’s summary of Despres and Chauval’s explanation that information becomes knowledge happens when you “establish links with already existing knowledge” (pg 173) and that the input of information is understood by a person through their knowledge. Although it leaves out an explanation of where the first knowledge of a person came from if you need knowledge to create knowledge, it makes sense to me that the difference between information and knowledge is that the latter requires personal experience to understand and evaluate new information. In thinking of how information and knowledge are described in this article, is it really possible for large organizations to employ knowledge management processes? If knowledge exists in someone’s mind, constructed and connected from their information how can it be passed along? If someone records their knowledge and shares it with another person, does their knowledge not regress to information to be evaluated by the other person?
ReplyDelete2.Rowley writes that some companies try to foster wisdom as an alternative to knowledge management. How would this work?
3.Rowley explained the difference between data, information, knowledge and wisdom in theoretical terms without an examples of what each would be. Can the same fact or statement be data, information, knowledge and wisdom if placed in different settings?