This paper argues for a social capital approach to system analysis, based on the failure of KM 1.0 to acknowledge the importance of factors such as community ties and belonging to motivate and stimulate knowledge sharing. Intoducing sociotechnical approaches to design, the authors stress the need to understand “infoculture” (providing the motivation) in addition to infrastructure (opportunity) and infostructure (ability). These correspond to the relation-based, structural and cognitive dimensions of social capital respectively.

Design approaches that concentrate on structural aspects are criticised as technologically deterministic, and more socially determined design approaches are needed to better adapt technology to the real ways that people interact.

Written as it was before the meteoric rise and mainstreaming of social networking and web 2.0, the paper shows its datedness through some of the examples cited. But many of the principles expressed, such as the need for ethnography and pattern recognition are highly relevant today.

The hypothesis closes the paper – that better social alignment of IT will reduce the need for sociotechnical brokers – has probably not been borne out despite the popularising of the social web. Though perhaps these roles are becoming more devolved to “normal users” today.

This paper presents exploratory research around the topic of wisdom, exploring how it has been defined in the literature – both eastern and western – and what it means to postgraduates of information and library studies and information technology.

In their literature review, Rowley and Slack give a range of conceptions of wisdom, some more dependant than others on having knowledge as a foundation, with most seeing a role for action, judgement and foresight. Wisdom in organisations is also discussed, with the interesting idea of “Kairos time” being mentioned, or the ability to take the right action at the critical moment. Organisational strategy and wisdom is further linked with CSR, in that wise decision making today is made more complex by the ethical and social considerations of a globalized and networked world.

In a simple exploratory research design, the authors asked postgraduates to complete the sentence “wisdom is..”, then undertook content analysis on the responses to draw out key elements of the concept as understood by that population. Many – but interestingly far from all – conceptions included knowledge or knowing, experience and a sense of action or application.

At first I found it difficult to see the value of this work beyond the core concept analysis, which though interesting in its own right, didn’t seem all that useful. But I think it is in the relation to organisational learning that this work can be interestingly extended, through the characterisation of “wise” decision making and perhaps though contrasting the conceptions given here here to newer models such as crowd wisdom on the social web.

Blackler compares more traditional organisational learning (KM) approaches to knowledge to newer theories of knowing and comes out rather in favour of the latter.

He starts by discussing theories that see knowledge as some version of : encultured, embrained, embodied, embedded or encoded. He argues that knowledge is seen as either belonging to people (through personal knowledge or know-how), social groups and processes or being encoded in symbols and that each of these is needlessly reductionist and cannot stand alone. He goes on to relate these to the knowledge economy and types of organisations, noting a shift toward embrained (knowledge intensive) and encultured (communication – intensive) types.

The discussion also covers the transformative nature of technology, not unlike earlier technological revolutions. Just as writing seemed to “kill living eloquence”, Blackler notes how ICT disrupts the traditional significance of traditionally valued types of knowledge. In a quite graphic metaphor, he states how technology is leading organisations to simultaneously implode into electronic codes and to explode into global networks.

The paper quotes reviews of theory emerging from anthropology, ethnomethodology and activity theory, and notes that knowledge is always constructed and transformed in use. Cognitions are likewise situated and collective. As such, the author thinks it is better to talk about knowing as a multidimensional phenomenon.

Blackler sees activity theory as a potentially useful in understanding this version of knowledge. The theory sees knowledge as dynamically interconnected and constructed from social interaction and practical collaboration. The work of Orr and Englestrom are quoted. Englestrom’s model of socially distributed activity systems are discussed :

Engestrom’s distributed activity system

The triangles represent the tensions and interactions that the individual deals with, and learns to cope with.

Blackler concludes that it is not helpful to focus on what types of knowledge are needed, but on how systems and activities are evolving to and changing as a result of globalisation and the march of technology. Interestingly, the communal narrative aspect of expanded, distributed activity systems, has relevance today in the uptake of social technologies. In this respect Blackler has shown a measure of foresight.