Meta-KM: A Program and A Plea

Opportunities for the Knowledge Management movement to undertake the direction of its own development process are explored from different perspectives. The potential of reflexive knowledge (i.e. knowledge about knowledge) as a prerequisite for that undertaking is examined. Some historical instances where knowledge users studied their own knowing practices are recalled. From the metaknowledge standpoint, a self-examination of the KM movement or Meta-KM is introduced. First, a general framework for establishing the epistemological and scientific foundations of KM is laid out, with key examples. Second, a reference is made to contemporary efforts to further innovation practices through a similar reflexive pattern. Third, some conditions for the social evolution of the KM profession are discussed. Finally, the potential impact of a community of reflexive knowledge professionals upon the emergence of a global consciousness is assessed. Introduction: Déja Vu I hope that the title of this paper has rung a bell for some readers. It paraphrases the title of Stevan Dedijer’s 1966 seminal paper [1] on the Science of Science Movement, where he urged us to apply the scientific method to the understanding of science. In other words, he was advocating a reflexive act of creating knowledge about knowledge. I believe that by looking at his proposal we understand several dimensions of Meta-KM. “The first program for the science of science was outlined by Lord Francis Bacon, who was the first man to take for his province not just all substantive knowledge but also all the problems of the promotion and use of knowledge” [1, P. 489]. In the Baconian tradition, Dedijer [idem] reestablished a continuity in the process by which Natural Science grows conscious of itself as a human endeavor. He was part of a plenitude of brilliant and passionate science researchers such as Conant [2], Bernal [3], Barber [4], de Solla Price [5], Merton [6] and Goldsmith [7], to cite only some of the most prominent. Dedijer stressed the extent to which Bacon’s program was in force: When Bacon identified and proposed solutions to the problem of science policy of his time, he also for the first time identified what may now be regarded as the three KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION: JOURNAL OF THE KMCI VOLUME ONE, NO. TWO, JANUARY 15, 2001 © 2001 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 28 major tasks of the science of science: first, the study of the factors –including social factors– involved in the art of discovery; second, the study of the social impact of discoveries, and third, the study of the art of promoting the sciences and their use. [Ibid. ] Thus, when Dedijer declares: “The model which I present here is based on earlier programs. The first was produced 350 years ago and the second during the past five years”, he is acknowledging the roots of the Science of Science movement in Bacon’s foundation of modern scientific method and meta-method. These two moments, in turn, are parts of continuous human efforts to understand humanity's own way of knowing as a means to improve the fruits of its understanding. This reflexive potential of knowledge about knowledge can be traced back to the origins of documented philosophical thinking. We can distinguish the ancient tradition of philosophical inquiry on the nature of human knowledge from its modern counterpart of applying scientific method to the understanding of science. This is the subtle distinction between traditional Epistemology as the “Science of the Sciences” [8] and contemporary studies of science as the “Sciences of Science” [9]. If Knowledge Management claims in any way to be the supreme human practice in understanding knowledge and capitalizing on it, it would be doing itself a poor service if it ignored major human efforts in the past to achieve the very same generic goal, their successes as well as failures. One of the aims of this paper is to exemplify how the development process of the KM profession may benefit from some lessons learned in earlier, but similar, moments of human intellectual history. If we interpret Dedijer’s summary of Bacon’s program from the above quotation, we can identify three major tasks for Meta-knowledge: § to understand the conditions under which knowledge occurs (scientific dimension) § to apply the prior understanding to the creation of social value (technological dimension) § to leverage the potential of society to capitalize on the scientific and technological dimensions (political dimension). If we relate the three generic tasks of a scientific metaprogram with a more recent formulation of the Science of Science ideal, we can realize how much Bacon’s Program still prevails. In 1985, John Ziman in his report “Science Studies and Science Policy” [10] proposed the following categories to organize the issues for study (table One). Table One -“Issues for Study” in Science Studies (From Ziman [10]) KNOWLEDGE AND INNOVATION: JOURNAL OF THE KMCI VOLUME ONE, NO. TWO, JANUARY 15, 2001 © 2001 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CONSORTIUM INTERNATIONAL, INC. 29 • What are the objectives to be achieved? What are the practical or intellectual questions for which scientific answers might be sought? How urgently are these answers needed? • What resources are available? How much is known about these questions already? Do we have the skilled people and specialized facilities to make further progress? What will it cost? • What structures are appropriate, for formulating policy and for carrying it out? How should science be organized and managed, at various levels, for various purposes? • What are the processes by which science makes progress? How are the objectives of policy turned into research problems? What do scientists put into their jobs –and get out of them? • What are the outcomes? How should the results of a research project or the output of a scientific enterprise be evaluated? By what criteria can a science policy be judged effective and efficient? It does not take much to translate those issues into KM relevant issues. Even if a specific meta-knowledge program for KM has to be made explicit in its own terms, capitalizing on reflexive knowledge in the history of human ideas would constitute good KM practice. Ziman’s program echoes other mid 80’s reports on Science Studies [11], [12], which indicate how ripe the international intellectual milieu at the turn of the century has been to meta-knowledge. The Science of Science movement is alive and well today and the KM profession could gain in self-understanding by establishing links with its contemporary siblings: the European Association for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) and the Society for Social Studies of Science (4S). A glimpse of recent issues in Science of Science can be obtained from the web site of the joint 4S/EASST Conference 2000, Worlds in Transition: Technoscience, Citizenship and Culture in the 21 Century held in Vienna, September 27-30 [13]. So far, current efforts to provide Knowledge Management with its own framework and articulate its scientific, technical and political foundations as a discipline have not capitalized on this inheritance. This intellectual inheritance is even richer since there are several other reflective traditions and contemporary counterparts of meta-knowledge. More important than selecting or advocating specific programs, I want to stress that the KM profession needs to become aware of its legacy with regard to reflective human understanding. Once conscious about the conditions that can either enhance or prevent its own development, it can take the actions necessary to master its destiny.