Knowledge Management Project:

Please research the following questions and try to gather as many examples as possible. This
part of the work is not analysis (your conclusion is not needed), it is just research about
previous examples, current literature, and practices. It is very important to use references and
citations. Please also try to use academic resources unless there is very interesting material on
websites or online pages.

Questions:
1. What is knowledge? And what are the types of knowledge and their
characteristics?
According to the oxford language dictionary the definition of word knowledge is facts,
information, and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical
understanding of a subject, awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation.
(1)

Think of all the things that you know, or at least think you know, right now.You know, for
example, that the earth is round and that Paris is the capital of France. You know that two plus
two is equal to four And so on.

Looking to the examples just given, we notice they either include geographical, linguistic,
mathematical,aesthetic, ethical, and scientific facts . Given these myriad types of facts we
notice there is something that ties them all together which is the theory of knowledge.

In all the examples of knowledge just given, the type of knowledge in question is what is called
propositional knowledge, in that it is knowledge of a proposition.

A proposition is what is asserted by a sentence which says that something is the case – e.g.,
that the earth is flat, that two plus two is four, and so on, but we should also recognise that it is
not the only sort of knowledge There is, for example, ability knowledge, or know-how. Ability
knowledge is clearly different from propositional knowledge; I know how to swim, for example,
but I do not thereby know a set of propositions about how to swim.

Indeed, I’m not altogether sure that I could tell you how to swim, but I do know how to swim
nonetheless (and I could prove it by manifesting this ability– by jumping into a swimming pool
and doing the breaststroke, say).

Ability knowledge is certainly an important type of knowledge to have. We want lots of know-
how, such as to know how to ride a bicycle, to drive a car,or to operate a personal computer.
Notice, however, that while only relatively sophisticated creatures like humans possess
propositional knowledge, ability knowledge is far more common. An ant might plausibly be said
to know how to navigate its terrain, but would we want to say that an ant has propositional
knowledge; that there are facts which the ant knows? Could the ant know, for example, that
the terrain it is presently crossing is someone’s porch? Intuitively not, and this marks out the
importance of propositional knowledge over other types of knowledge like ability knowledge,
which is that such knowledge presupposes the sort of relatively sophisticated intellectual
abilities possessed that we possess by humans.

Regarding the other types of knowledge expect the tow mentioned above there is so much
disagreement over what are, exactly, the different types of knowledge that an agreed upon
“master list” simply does not exist. This is because knowledge is purely philosophical; debates
span centuries, arguments supersede fact and everyone has a different opinion about what is,
or is not, knowledge.

What follows below can be considered as four other types for knowledge expect propositional
knowledge and ability knowledge.

A priori and a posteriori are two of the original terms in epistemology (the study of knowledge).
A priori literally means “from before” or “from earlier.” This is because a priori knowledge
depends upon what a person can derive from the world without needing to experience it. This
is better known as reasoning. Of course, a degree of experience is necessary upon which a priori
knowledge can take shape.

Let’s look at an example. If you were in a closed room with no windows and someone asked
you what the weather was like, you would not be able to answer them with any degree of
truth. If you did, then you certainly would not be in possession of a prior knowledge. It would
simply be impossible to use reasoning to produce a knowledgeable answer.

On the other hand, if there were a chalkboard in the room and someone wrote the equation 4 +
6 =? On the board, then you could find the answer without physically finding four objects and
adding six more objects to them and then counting them. You would know the answer is 10
without needing a real world experience to understand it. In fact, mathematical equations are
one of the most popular examples of a priori knowledge.

Naturally, then, a posteriori literally means “from what comes later” or “from what comes
after.” This is a reference to experience and using a different kind of reasoning (inductive) to
gain knowledge. This kind of knowledge is gained by first having an experience (and the
important idea in philosophy is that it is acquired through the five senses) and then using logic
and reflection to derive understanding from it. In philosophy, this term is sometimes used
interchangeably with empirical knowledge, which is knowledge based on observation.
It is believed that a priori knowledge is more reliable than a posteriori knowledge. This might
seem counter-intuitive, since in the former case someone can just sit inside of a room and base
their knowledge on factual evidence while in the latter case someone is having real experiences
in the world. But the problem lies in this very fact: everyone’s experiences are subjective and
open to interpretation. A mathematical equation, on the other hand, is law.

Then we are entering the realm of explicit and tacit knowledge. As you have noticed by now,
types of knowledge tend to come in pairs and are often antitheses of each other.

Explicit knowledge is similar to a priori knowledge in that it is more formal or perhaps more
reliable. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that is recorded and communicated through
mediums. It is our libraries and databases. The specifics of what is contained is less important
than how it is contained. Anything from the sciences to the arts can have elements that can be
expressed in explicit knowledge.

The defining feature of explicit knowledge is that it can be easily and quickly transmitted from
one individual to another, or to another ten-thousand or ten-billion. It also tends to be
organized systematically. For example, a history textbook on the founding of America would
take a chronological approach as this would allow knowledge to build upon itself through a
progressive system; in this case, time.

Regarding the tactic knowledge I should note that tacit knowledge is a relatively new theory
introduced only as recently as the 1950s. Whereas explicit knowledge is very easy to
communicate and transfer from one individual to another, tacit knowledge is precisely the
opposite. It is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to communicate tacit knowledge through
any medium.

For example, the textbook on the founding of America can teach facts (or things we believe to
be facts), but someone who is an expert musician cannot truly communicate their knowledge;
in other words, they cannot tell someone how to play the instrument and the person will
immediately possess that knowledge. That knowledge must be acquired to a degree that goes
far, far beyond theory. In this sense, tacit knowledge would most closely resemble a posteriori
knowledge, as it can only be achieved through experience.

The biggest difficult of tacit knowledge is knowing when it is useful and figuring out how to
make it usable. Tacit knowledge can only be communicated through consistent and extensive
relationships or contact (such as taking lessons from a professional musician). But even in this
cases there will not be a true transfer of knowledge. Usually two forms of knowledge are born,
as each person must fill in certain blanks (such as skill, short-cuts, rhythms, etc.).

Now lets go back to our first pair of knowledge theories propositional and non-propositional
knowledge (ability knowledge), and make a deep look at them , both of these knowledges share
similarities with some of the other theories discussed above. Propositional knowledge has the
oddest definition yet, as it is commonly held that it is knowledge that can literally be expressed
in propositions; that is, in declarative sentences (to use its other name) or indicative
propositions.

Propositional knowledge is not so different from a priori and explicit knowledge. The key
attribute is knowing that something is true. Again, mathematical equations could be an
example of propositional knowledge, because it is knowledge of something, as opposed to
knowledge of how to do something.

The best example is one that contrasts propositional knowledge with our next form of
knowledge, non-propositional or procedural knowledge. Let’s use a
textbook/manual/instructional pamphlet that has information on how to program a computer
as our example. Propositional knowledge is simply knowing something or having knowledge of
something. So if you read and/or memorized the textbook or manual, then you would know the
steps on how to program a computer. You could even repeat these steps to someone else in
the form of declarative sentences or indicative propositions. However, you may have
memorized every word yet have no idea how to actually program a computer. That is where
non-propositional or procedural or ability knowledge comes in.

Non-propositional knowledge is knowledge that can be used; it can be applied to something,

such as a problem. Procedural knowledge differs from propositional knowledge in that it is
acquired “by doing”; propositional knowledge is acquired by more conservative forms of
learning.

One of the defining characteristics of procedural knowledge is that it can be claimed in a court
of law. In other words, companies that develop their own procedures or methods can protect
them as intellectual property. They can then, of course, be sold, protected, leased, etc.

Procedural knowledge has many advantages. Obviously, hands-on experience is extremely

valuable; literally so, as it can be used to obtain employment. We are seeing this today as
experience (procedural) is eclipsing education (propositional). Sure, education is great, but
experience is what defines what a person is capable of accomplishing. So someone who
“knows” how to write code is not nearly as valuable as someone who “writes” or “has written”
code. However, some people believe that this is a double-edged sword, as the degree of
experience required to become proficient limits us to a relatively narrow field of variety.

But nobody can deny the intrinsic and real value of experience. This is often more accurate than
propositional knowledge because it is more akin to the scientific method; hypotheses are
tested, observation is used, and progress results.(3)
as well as asking what knowledgeis, it is also possible to ask whether and how knowledge of
various kinds can be acquired: causal knowledge, a priori knowledge, moral knowledge, and so
on. Lets dwell briefly on each of these three points.

First, there is the distinction between personal and impersonal knowledge in other words,
between the psychological concept of knowledge and the social one.

We use the concept of knowledge to describe the cognitive condition of individuals; but we
also use it to describe the progress of scientific and historical research. So for example we can
speak or enquire about the state of knowledge in a particular field of biology or history. And if
we do so, we are evidently not concerned with what anyone in particular knows about, say, the
genetics of fruit flies or the career of Charlemagne, but rather with what the scientific or
academic community knows. Needless to say, there is a close connection between personal and
impersonal knowledge.

2. What kind of knowledge do academic publishers such as Elsevier and Sage publish? And
what are the characteristics of this knowledge?

Elsevier and SAGE both are academic publishing company .

Elsevier is specializing in scientific, technical, and medical content. Its publications include
journals such as The Lancet, Cell, the ScienceDirect collection of electronic journals, Trends, the
Current Opinion series, the online citation database Scopus, the SciVal tool for measuring
research performance, the ClinicalKey search engine for clinicians, and the ClinicalPath
evidence-based cancer care service. Elsevier's products and services also include digital tools for
data management, instruction, research analytics and assessment (4) and SAGE is also a global
academic publisher of books, journals, and a growing suite of library products and services
focuses on publishing impactful research, enabling robust research methodology, and
producing high quality educational resources that support instructors to prepare the citizens,
policymakers, educators .

academic publishers help writers to passed their knowledge to others ,people have always
passed their accumulated knowledge and commercial wisdom on to future generations by
telling stories about their thoughts ,work and experiences.Now, as in the past ,people use face
to face and hands on mehods to convey their know how or tacit knowledge to others
throughout recorded history,some from of written language has been used to document their
know what or explicit knowledge ,pursuits of tacit,explicit and self knowledge ,self renewal and
innovation are timeless,endless and relentless .Historically , capital, raw material and labor
have been considered more valuable than creating and applying knowledge ,The information
age and the knowledge revolution have caused problems for people and
organizations.Demands for imaginative, intuitive, inspirational leaders who can manage human
intellect and convert it into useful products and service continue to grow .People must do more
workin less time .Workers who lack adequate education and training,or explicit
knowledge,struggle to keep up,they rely on their common sence and intuition,or tacit
knowledge,to get through the day,Many companies are using tacit knowledge to augment a
person’s academic learning and experience. (5)

Much of the knowledge used to succeed in school, work, and life is acquired implicitly without
the intention to learn or even the awareness that we have learned something. tacit knowledge
can describe this type of learning ,we always know more than we can tell

Tacit knowledge is often referred to as “know-how” or “street smarts” and is usually defined by
comparing it to explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be expressed,
either verbally or in written form .

In order to be more useful for the users Academic publishers such as Elsevier and Sage using a
multidimensional model of using both explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge in their
publications. (6) while as mentioned above Explicit knowledge- academic knowledge or “know-
what” is the form of knowledge described in formal language, print or electronic media,often
based on established word processes,use people to document approach on the other side Tacit
knowledge is practical ,action-oriented knowledge or “know-how” based on practice,acquired
by personal experience,seldom expressed openly and ofthen resembles intuition.(5)

3. What kinds of knowledge exist in community organizations such as NGOs? How do they
create this knowledge? What do they do with this knowledge?

NGOs engage in a wide range of activities and processes aimed at generating and supporting
knowledge both within the organization itself and externally in wider society.

Some NGDO activities such as advocacy and research are obviously directly linked to
knowledge, but even where goals are not related to knowledge, it is frequently the case that
knowledge is instrumentally essential to attaining them.

In each case, informational, epistemic and conceptual factors are involved, although the three
dimensions are not necessarily of equal significance. Any actual activity will inevitably focus
explicitly on just one or perhaps two dimensions, depending on the purpose of the activity and
assumptions about what is problematic and what is not. If an AIDS NGO wants to communicate
with others about a training workshop for homebased carers they will probably focus on
information provision (when,where, who, how much etc), assuming that the concepts of
training,workshop and home-based care are relatively unproblematic. If they want to open the
workshop to the community to recruit new carers such assumptions may not be valid and effort
may have to be put into explaining what homebased care is, why it matters, and perhaps what
happens in a workshop.

Knowledge failures and problems often arise when assumptions are made that tum out to be
wrong about which dimensions are unproblematic – using terminology that the intended
audience does not understand (failure through assuming unproblematic sharing of concepts),
or sending 'uppers' to ask'lowers' their views (failure through assuming reliable epistemic
process).

The following sections analyse some central informational, epistemic and conceptual roles
highlighted in recent work on NGOs. It needs to be stressed that all real-life activity involves all
three dimensions to a greater or lesser degree. The categorisation employed below is based on
the ultimate purpose of the activity, but is not intended to suggest that information directed
actions, for example, may not also involve conceptual developmentor epistemic judgement;
indeed, they are bound to.

1) Informational Roles

The informational dimension is concerned with the nature, quality and properties of the raw
material upon which knowledge processes operate.

Information activities and their inputs and outputs occupy a central place in the new roles being
adopted by NGOs as project-based work is increasingly displaced by information-based work .
NGDOs are information-rich environments ,having access to sources that are seldom brought
together anywhere else.

They may have close ties to local communities and to grassroots groups while at the same time
being well-informed about the functioning of government and even international organisations
and decision-making processes. At the same time cheap, prolific information and
communication technology (ICT) has broken governments' informational monopolies and
realigned relations with non-state actors including NGOs, for example, by enabling them to
'reach behind' national borders and force governments to become responsive to international
public opinion .

Information is also a strategic resource for NGOs aiming at empowerment of the poor .To be
effective, informational flows need to be a two-way process: on the one hand ensuring the
voices of the poor are heard by policy-makers, and on the other that information about
government, policies, services and benefits reach the poor . Similarly, NGDOs increasingly
participate in two-way exchanges with business, acting as indicators of public opinion while in
return receiving insight into business perspectives.
NGOs' diverse information linkages can make them a valuable resource for local people, as
communities benefit from being able to access a wide range of different information sources .
NGOs increasingly pay attention to informal and locally derived sources such as folk media,
drama, storytelling and voice recording and informal channels . The mixture of formal and
informal sources and communication channels can promote the inclusion and participation of
marginalised groups such as slum dwellers in consultations with government . At the other end
of the spectrum NGOs which operate internationally or which have links at supranational level
can access play a crucial role in local - global information transfer.

2) Epistemic Roles

The epistemic dimension of knowledge is concerned with the individual, organisational and
social processes by which beliefs are formed. Perhaps the most obvious and ubiquitous
epistemic demands on NGDOs are in the processes of planning, executing and evaluating
action. All groups have to have methods for deciding what to do, how to do it and whether it
isworking. Often the methods remain implicit - at least until problems arise.

However, demands from donors and partners, and general requirements for accountability in
the sector, are increasing the need for explicit methods. This is most advanced in the sphere of
monitoring and evaluation (M&E),often perceived as problematic and a source of criticism for
NGDOs, which are generally seen as not being very good at it . Although M&E has traditionally
been seen - and sometimes resented - as a donor imposition, sustainable development work
needs local management and M&E is therefore as important for recipients as for donors . The
area remains fraught, with many commentators pointing out methodological problems,
weaknesses of NGDO evaluation and the difficulties inherent in epistemic decisions such as
what information to collect, how to collect it, who should collect it, how and by whom it should
be processed.

Another epistemic role for NGDOs is facilitating testimony, dialogue and dissent at grassroots
level . Processes of public dialogue are one of the main ways in which social interactions can
facilitate knowledge and NGOs are often key contributors in civic participation and democratic,
dialogic cooperation among parties involved in development . These processes however, are
not unproblematic and NGOs have themselves been criticised for 'an eclectic outpouring of
ideas and views, without organised and coherent debate' and for inability to ensure equitable
participation.

3) Conceptual Roles

At the conceptual level, knowledge analysis is concerned with categorising and sense-making
activities, for example the development of causal, ethical or structural understandings of the
world. This level presents probably the greatest challenges of all knowledge work since it is
here that high-level cognitive skills are most required, such as imagination, synthesis and the
generation of new and possibly contradictory or controversial ideas.

One key area of conceptual activity in NGDOs is advocacy work. Activities such as lobbying,
research, publishing, policy input and helping to draft ethical guidelines and codes of conduct
involve exchanges and networking across boundaries and in some cases explicit attempts to
change others' existing theories of the domain. On the threedimensional analysis presented
above, advocacy requires efforts on all three dimensions. Campaigns have to be backed with
high quality, relevant information, both to plan effectively and to support the arguments being
made. At an epistemic level, advocacy organisations must be trustworthy and seen to be so.
They must present high-quality evidence and argument,and ensure methods are reliable and
transparent. Fundamentally, however,advocacy is about changing conceptual structures such as
underlying values and outlooks, sometimes in ways that run counter to vested interests or
longstandingprejudices. Given these demands it is not surprising that many NGOs have
relatively weak advocacy skills.

The same factors that give NGOs informational advantages can also be a source of conceptual
wealth, for instance the simultaneous attachment to the local and engagement with the global
that characterises many international NGOs . Exploiting these resources can allow NGOs to
bridge conceptual divides and act as 'translators' between different groups. In theory NGOs
should be fertile generators of new conceptual frameworks, both for internal consumption –
reconceptualising their aims and activities for instance - and for ideas to feed into the wider
development community, public understanding and government policy.

In practice, NGOs do not always deal well with conceptual issues, often failing to clarify their
concepts and make meanings clear when this would result in controversy . At a macro level,
there is also the need to question the fundamental assumptions of development itself and to
look for new conceptions. To deal with this NGOs need to develop stronger theoretical bases on
which to ground their identity and actions.

Developing local theoretical capacity is important outside the development community too.

NGOs are obvious candidates for participating in such developments yet, for all the talk of new
knowledge and informational roles,little attention has been paid so far to their potential as
agents of socialtheoretical change.

The knowledge and informational aspects of development work, and specifically of activities
undertaken by NGOs are receiving unprecedented attention. In the realm of service provision
but even more so in their growing advocacy and capacity-building roles, NGOs depend vitally on
information and knowledge, both for their own internal processes and functioning, and as part
of their explicit external goals. This poses a challenge - the need for new skills, for research and
sometimes for high-level conceptual thought. In addition, knowledge goals may be external in
that the NGO may aim to change the external information environment, to bring about a shift in
someone else's conceptual framework, or to change donor-driven methods of evaluation. It is
not enough for NGOs to be good at finding things out themselves; they have to be able to
communicate insights to others and sometimes to persuade others to change their views -
perhaps in opposition to vested interests and long-standing assumptions. Sometimes this may
be a relatively unproblematic matter of information provision within existing categories and
arrived at by well laid down methods. In other cases, it may be much more demanding, and the
categories and methods may themselves be under investigation. A whole range of new skills
and expertise may be required, spanning everything from information acquisition, storage and
dissemination, to methodological evaluation and conceptual development.

At the same time that attention is focusing on their knowledge roles, NGOs are coming under
criticism for failures and errors. It is vitally important to understand why such failures happen,
and to recognise the enormous demands that knowledge roles impose on organizations and
individuals. NGOs generally work under severe internal and external constraints that can
mitigate against effective knowledge development.

Some analytical approach which separates out various key dimensions of knowledge can help in
diagnosing failings and pressure points and suggest ways of improvement. Not all the remedies
lie in NGOs themselves.

For example this can happen by being more open to alternative, locally generated and locally
meaningful forms of monitoring and evaluation .

As well as taking on new roles, NGOs are finding their structures and forms of organization and
association changing. Networking models are gaining increasing recognition, driven partly by
Internet use and partly by the growing emphasis on information and communication work. A
whole layer of intermediary and northern NGOs now exists with the aim of enabling southern,
community and grassroots groups to make more sophisticated use of networking technologies
and applications. Networks,however, are defined by users and their actions, not by technology
alone. A three-dimensional analysis helps to show why and highlights the need to integrate
technological capacity-building into a broader knowledge project involving informational,
epistemic and conceptual development.

Keywords: community-based organizations, community organizations, publications (like

program evaluations, policy briefs, reports), outputs, knowledge, NGOs
Refrences:

1. Definition of knowledge noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/knowledge?
q=knowledge
2. WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE? Duncan Pritchard - What is This Thing Called Knowledge_
(2006)
3. EDUCATIVE PROJECT - Repositorio Universidad de Guayaquil by VF Medina Barreiro ·
2018
4. ELSEVIER'S SCIVAL https://ors.ubc.ca/resources-links/elseviers-scival
5. “The role of tacit and explicit knowledge in the workplace”, Journal of knowledge
management by Elizabeth A.Smith
6. Tacit Knowledge in Academia ,A Proposed Model and Measurement Scale The
Journal of Psychology, NANCY LEONARD ,GARY S. INSCH College of Business and
Economics West Virginia University
7. KNOWLEDGE, NGOS AND NETWORKS Justine Johnstone London School of
Economics; London Metropolitan U1Iiversity, UK