I’m a schizophrenic, and so am I

Back in my university days, learning psychology, we were taught a very important lesson about labels, and the pigeonholing that can occur as a result — because when a psychologist says someone is diagnosed with a mental illness, like schizophrenia, he uses the term to communicate something to other clinicians so they can communicate with patients and their loved ones. Unfortunately, the nuances of meaning are lost and even misunderstood when used outside the profession [1].

I find misunderstandings quite typical of terms created for use taxonomies. Taxonomies carry with them the implicit assumption that the terms created are for specific uses, primarily the communication of specific meaning within a specific community of practice. When used outside the group, the term can loose all meaning.

Loss of meaning is the real problem behind Shawn Callahan’s post on knowledge workers. He suggests that the term is now misused, and carries with it a sense of superiority of knowledge work over other types of work:

“Sadly, when we use the term ‘knowledge worker‘ today we are often unfairly saying one type of job is superior than another. It’s a dark undercurrent and tacitly becomes a basis for discrimination — ‘Our salespeople are knowledge workers but our gas fitters are not.’”

Shawn doesn’t articulate who ‘we’ are, but as a KM practitioner, I know what this term means. I know that many of my colleagues, like Jack Vinson, have argued and debated at length in the past about what this term means so as to better understand and support the associated activities of this sort of worker and his work. Furthermore, the majority of those who have, and continue to use, the term “knowledge worker”, from the likes of Coulson-Thomas, to Drucker, Nomikos, and others, broadly agree that there is a form of work which we might meaningfully categorise as “knowledge work” [2].

This is not to say, though, that arriving at a single and universal definition for the term ‘knowledge worker’ is the goal. Ultimately, the term ‘knowledge work’ and the debate that surrounds it is important because it highlights that there are people who need to consume, create and share knowledge as an integral part of their work, and need the support of policy, process and technology. This was basis of Drucker’s premise of the knowledge economy — the differentiation of the support required for the mechanised work that produces widgets from work that requires support to share and create knowledge.

Sadly, Shawn misses this point about knowledge workers. The term isn’t irrelevant because the term is still important for communication. It carries with it specific meaning to those amongst us who call themselves knowledge managers and practitioners. The term is vital for education of those outside the profession who still don’t understand (or even misunderstand) the importance of what knowledge work actually means in practice. And, despite Shawn’s suggestion of the ubiquity of technology making the term redundant, there are still organisations that are not yet knowledge-intensive [3] but probably will become, so who need to hear how understanding knowledge work can help them.

M

- – - -

[1]. Bellack AS. (2006) Scientific and consumer models of recovery in schizophrenia: concordance, contrasts, and implications. Schizophrenia Bulletin. Jul, 32(3), 432-42.

[2] Collins, D. (1998) Knowledge Work or Working Knowledge?
Ambiguity and Confusion in the Analysis of the “Knowledge Age”. Journal of Systemic Knowledge Management, March. Online at: <www.tlainc.com/article7.htm>, accessed on 24 December 2008.

[3] Håkan WILÉN (2006) Measuring gender differences among Europe’s knowledge workers. Statistics in focus. Science and Technology, 12, 2006.