I recently read a paper, The Nonsense of "Knowledge Management" T.D. Wilson. In it, Wilson seems to describe information as the external representation of thought, the representation that we have access to. He describes knowledge as internal mental processes that vary within everyone so it cannot be managed. Since Wilson dismisses any investigation related to his definition of knowledge, he implies that these internal thought processes are not something we can study. This position appears to dismiss the field of cognitive psychology and I would take exception to this. Our science is not perfect and relies on inferences but I think it is a legitimate field of study. Cognitive psychologists certainly find that everyone interprets "reality" and information differently, as Wilson states, but that does not mean you cannot attempt to study internal thought processes, as Piaget and many others have done. In fact, Jerome Bruner attempted to look at how people go "beyond the information given."
An alternative, and practical, distinction between information and knowledge relates to Bruner's quest. As a number of people have written, knowledge involves using information used to solve problems. Available information is analyzed based on the knowledge of the individual problem solver. Knowledge management has certainly been subject to many misuses and has been treated as a fad by too many. The term itself, is a difficult one but a replacement has not emerged. However, the legitimate practitioners of knowledge management have tried to see how you can cultivate and share the knowledge that people have gained, the knowledge that allows them to use information to effectively solve problems. It is not an easy task, but one with a worthwhile goal, a goal that would benefit the world.
Have a good New Years.
Comments