Knowledge management (KM) has been an important management movement for nearly ten years. As KM and librarianship have a lot in common, it is of interest to study their relationship more closely. Our society has focus on life-long learning, both formal and informal, and this might mean new challenges to the librarians. How do we facilitate knowledge sharing and knowledge creation among the users? We are good at providing information, but how do we become knowledge partners in an informal learning environment such as the public library?
Ikujiro Nonaka and Etienne Wenger are the pioneers of KM- theory. Nonaka views knowledge creation as a continuous and dynamic interaction between tacit and explicit knowledge. As explicit knowledge is easily codified and expressed, it is convenient to view it as identical to information. No doubt, as librarians we are experts in information organization and retrieval. Tacit knowledge is obviously a different matter. It is highly personal and unvoiced. To deal with this aspect of knowledge, it is not enough to “collect”, we need to “connect”.
While Nonaka presents a learning process called the knowledge spiral, Wenger is occupied with communities of practice. In his opinion knowledge is not to be managed, but cultivated. In my paper, I relate these theories to a case-study. A few years ago I spent time with a cross cultural group of immigrant teenager-girls attending weekly meetings at Torshov Public Library in Oslo. I revisited the group in 2004, while I was writing this theme paper as a part of my master study. My conclusions are based on observations as well as interviews with the librarian, who has been responsible for cultivating the group of girls for ten years.
The librarian at Torshov Public Library has greatly succeeded in creating an informal learning environment. Without being conscious of the KM-theories herself, she meets all the demands of a successful knowledge partner. She has managed to create an arena for socialization, where the girls develop new knowledge through observation and imitation. She has also succeeded in the externalization stage by stimulating the girls to reflection and dialogue through both reading and writing. The combination stage means sharing information also with non-members of the group, and that is taken care of through Internet. When it comes to internalization, it seems quite clear that the girls make use of new knowledge and change their behaviour. They develop self esteem and become more involved both at school and in the community. This means a lot to each individual, but also has an impact on the group as a whole. The knowledge spiral is in motion.
As librarians we have possibilities of becoming more than information providers, but cultivating communities of practice is challenging. Great personal devotion and an interdisciplinary social network seem to be keys to success.
Most organisations concentrate on the first issue, as dealing with tacit knowledge is more complicated. Because of this, I choose to concentrate on tacit knowledge. I pay no attention to knowledge management within the library organisation itself. Instead I focus on external activities. In business organisations knowledge resources include customers and business associates (Holsapple, 2003:94). In public libraries it is of interest to include users and collaborators. For these reasons I aim at answering the following question: How can public libraries facilitate knowledge sharing among the users and how do librarians become knowledge partners rather than information providers alone (Koenig, 2000:210)?
To be able to answer this question, I will first have a look at the difference between information and knowledge. It is also necessary to present strategies for knowledge sharing as well as possible tasks librarians need to undertake if they want to facilitate knowledge sharing within the library context. To illustrate how this can be done, I will briefly present activities at Torshov Public Library, a branch of Deichmanske Bibliotek in Oslo.
Discussions about the term knowledge usually start with Michael Polanyi, who introduced the term tacit knowledge back in i 1958. Tacit means personal, context-independent and hard to articulate. Tacit knowledge is unknown even to the possessors. We are unconscious of its existence and take it for granted. Following this, Polanyi claims that we know more than we can tell. In 1967 he presented three theses about knowledge (Hildreth, 2002):
1. True discovery can not be accounted for by a set of articulated rules or
algorithms.
2. Knowledge is public but also to a large extent personal.
3. The knowledge that underlies explicit knowledge is more fundamental; all
knowledge is either tacit or rooted in tacit knowledge.
I will return to the public aspect later. At this stage it is of importance to bear in mind that explicit knowledge is incomplete and superficial. What we express in words and numbers represents only the tip of the iceberg (Nonaka, 1995:60). It rests upon more fundamental knowledge, and for that reason it is of great importance to focus on the tacit aspect.
The theory of Polanyi is a starting point for Professor Ikujiro Nonaka, who is one of the pioneers of knowledge management. As many others, Nonaka views knowledge as "justified true belief" (Krogh, 2001:20). Accordingly, knowledge is a dynamic human process, not an absolute, static and objective truth residing outside the human mind. Knowledge is a construction, and it involves emotions and conceptions we are often unaware of. Keywords are beliefs and commitment.
As opposed to knowledge, information is static and easy to copy and distribute. Information is obtained, codified, quantified and stored, but has in itself no meaning. Individuals must interpret and recreate meaning. This indicates that identical information will result in different meanings, depending on each individual and the context of interpretation (Miller, 2002). Knowledge received from information is not identical to the knowledge causing the information (Wilson, 2002). We may say that knowledge is information put into practice. Knowledge is information internalized to such a degree that we are able to make use of it. Information brings new elements to our knowledge and this leads to reconstruction and new knowledge. As Nonaka puts it; "[…] information is the flow of messages, while knowledge is created by that very flow of information, anchored in the beliefs and commitment of its holder" (Nonaka, 1995:58).
Theoretically tacit knowledge is of great importance within knowledge management. In real life however, most organisations concentrate on information, as this is much easier to handle, not at least with the help of new technology. To make a clear distinction, I prefer in my preceding writing to use the term information when it comes to explicit knowledge. This is in accordance with authors like Al-Hawamdeth (2002) and Wilson (2002). Wilson claims that explicit knowledge is synonymous with information, while Al-Hawamdeth argues that information is knowledge that has left the brain. This distinction is appropriate, not at least within the concept of this paper. A central issue of this paper is to discuss how public libraries, which traditionally concentrate on information, may expand their field of interests and meet new goals. This brings us to the next question; how is it possible to share knowledge that is concealed even to the possessors?
1. socialization (from tacit to tacit knowledge)
2. externalization (from tacit to explicit knowledge (information))
3. combination from (explicit to explicit knowledge (information))
4. internalization (from explicit (information) to tacit knowledge)
Socialization (1.) is a process of sharing experiences without using language, but through observation, imitation and practice. This happens for instance in a relationship between master and apprentice, where tasks are solved through common practice. Nonaka also mentions Japanese "brainstorming camps" as an example. Here participants exchange ideas, share experiences and enhance mutual trust. Externalization (2.) is a process of articulating tacit knowledge through dialogue and collective reflection, often in the shape of metaphors, analogies, concepts, hypotheses and models (ibid, s. 64). In this way it is possible to associate and reason out new connections. Nonaka claims that externalization is the key to knowledge creation, and points to metaphors as a very important communication mechanism. In this process tacit knowledge becomes explicit and therefore information. Combination (3.) is a process of systematizing information by sorting, adding, combining and categorizing it into documents, computer networks or meetings. Formal education usually takes this form. Internalization (4.) is a process related to “learning by doing". Experiences through socialization, externalization and combination are internalized into the tacit knowledge of each individual. In this process an individual transformation and reconstruction takes place.
If an organization is to create new knowledge, the tacit knowledge accumulated by the individuals needs to be socialized with other members of the organisation. Nonaka calls this process the knowledge spiral, because the process is a matter of continuous progress both for the individuals and the organisation as a whole. Each individual develops new knowledge through interpersonal activity. At the same time new individual knowledge becomes an important asset for all members of the community. The knowledge spiral depends on both dialogue and action, and concerns individual knowledge as well as public.
From these articles, one is led to think that librarians are self-evident participants when it comes to combination, have a potential when it comes to externalization, but have no contribution to make when it comes to socialization and internalization. The two last processes are connected to tacit knowledge. If librarians are of no use in this matter, it is tempting to state that we are unfit to deal with knowledge. We have to limit our activities to information, as before. Consequently it is of interest to further examine challenges connected to externalization, socialization and internalization.
To make the knowledge spiral move it is necessary to establish an arena for group activities (Nonaka, 1995:73). The next step is to facilitate dialogue and externalization. It is further important to systematize and share new information. The last step means making use of new knowledge (ibid:71). The processes result in four different types of knowledge.
1. socialization leads to sympathized knowledge
2. externalization leads to conceptual knowledge
3. combination leads to systematic knowledge
4. internalization leads to operational knowledge
In this light, it is of interest to study the public library as an arena for informal learning. It is also of interest to have a closer look at the role of the librarians at his arena. Is it possible for public libraries to:
1. encourage sympathized knowledge by creating an arena for common practice?
2. encourage conceptual knowledge by accommodating dialogue and collective reflection?
3. encourage operational knowledge by making it possible to put new knowledge
into practice?
4. Communities of Practice (CoP)
Public libraries are neutral meeting places, but this alone is not enough to ensure knowledge sharing and knowledge creation among the users. Common activities and dialogue are needed. Before I look closer at the role of the librarians, I want to present a kind of social community capable of promoting informal learning.
Like Nonaka, Etienne Wenger bases his theory on a perspective where knowledge is becoming more and more important as a competitive element in the business sector. This does not mean that the theories are useless in situations outside the business world. His starting point is that interaction is required if tacit knowledge is to be shared (Wenger, 2002:9). We all have ways of understanding the world, and as members of communities of practice (CoP) we can discuss, share and develop our views (Wenger, 1998:48). Communities of practice are defined as “[…] groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, 2002:4).
CoP can be very different, but they have three fundamental elements in common; a domain of knowledge, a community of people and shared practice. The domain defines a set of issues and creates a common ground that constitutes the purpose and value of the community (ibid:27). It gives the members a sense of common identity by defining the topic to focus on. The domain does not need to be a production goal, but rather problems that members commonly experience. By community Wenger means a group of people who interact regularly and develop a shared understanding. In the process they build a sense of belonging and mutual commitment. The third element, shared practice, concerns frameworks, ideas, tools, language, stories and documents that the members have in common (ibid:29). It is a body of shared knowledge and resources that the community develop and maintain. Shared standards and common approaches create a basis for action, communication and problem solving. All three elements must function well together to form an ideal social structure for sharing and creating knowledge.
Commitment is important to all communities of practice. Without, the community is nothing but a group of friends. Wenger points out that CoP also are different from project teams. People are assigned to team-work and teams often have goals established by people not on the team. Teams also have authority relationships determined by others than the members themselves, and the teams have a predetermined ending. On the contrary, communities of practice are self- recruited and formed around practice. They are not established to meet a production goal, but to generate knowledge. The main purpose is to create, expand and exchange knowledge as well as to develop individual capabilities (Wenger, 2002:42). Authority emerges through interaction around expertise. Passion, commitment and identification is the glue that holds the group together. The community evolves organically and lasts as long as it has relevance. If the domain is clearly defined and practice established, members may come and go without harming the community.
Healthy communities of practice do not depend on the leadership of one single
person. “Too much dependence on the activity of a coordinator or on the
charisma of a leader makes the community vulnerable to their departure”
(Wenger, 2002:146). It is important to spread leadership and share responsibilities.
The coordinators must bring people together and make it possible for the community
to find its own internal direction, character and energy. Wenger calls this
cultivation, and presents a guide of seven principles to make this possible
(ibid:51).
1. Design for evolution.
Community design is like life-long learning, where elements are redesigned as
time go. CoPs are not created from scratch at a certain starting point. They
must be able to evolve and change as new members enter the scene. There is no
predictable outcome.
2. Open a dialogue between inside and outside perspectives.
Bringing in information from the outside opens new possibilities and gives a
clearer view.
3. Invite different levels of participation.
Communities of practice often have a small core group, but most participants
are less active. Participants at all levels must be allowed to feel like full
members.
4. Develop both public and private community spaces.
Usually there are open meetings for all members, but it is also wise to encourage
contact one-on-one independent of public events. The coordinator needs to work
the private space between meetings to strengthen the relationships.
5. Focus on values.
The value of a community is seldom apparent when the community is formed. Later
on it is possible to raise awareness through discussions, and this might help
members understand the real impact of the community.
6. Combine familarity and excitement.
Successful communities offer familiar comforts, but exciting and varied events
are needed to facilitate a different kind of contact.
7. Create a rhythm for the community.
The community develop its own rhythm, but key projects and special events might
be needed to give a sense of movement and liveliness. There is no right beat
and the rhythm is likely to change as the community envolves.
Over the years there have been periods where the librarian has been without co-workers, but at the moment she is collaborating with the public child welfare service in the area. She also gets help from the webmaster at Center for Anti-Racism to design and maintain a homepage for the girls on the Internet. Already we can state, not only that public libraries are important meeting places in our multicultural society, but also that interdisciplinary networking is of great value, both when it comes to competence and funding.
The domain, which defines the focus, is not necessarily a set of concrete problems, but rather activities that directly influence the behaviour of the members. The girls’ group does not focus on problem solving, but has wider goals. The intention is to create a safe arena where girls, independent of cultural background, can get to know each other and find support in learning from each others experiences (Hallen, 2004). As a consequence the focus is on building relationships. One also hopes to support the girls in their efforts to learn Norwegian language as well as other school subjects. This has been the goals since the group started in 1994. In spite of this consistency, the tools have changed over the years. The same has the name of the group. In 1994 the group had a name that signalled that literature and conversations were important tools. The name later changed and drew attention to Internet instead of conversations. Today they simply call themselves Jentegruppa, the girls’ group. As I see it, this development is a quite obvious. Literature, conversations and Internet are means, not goals. They are tools that help the group improve both linguistically and socially, but as time go the tools change to better suit the needs of new members. The goals are not to learn certain skills or deliver a product, but to create, develop and exchange knowledge based on the girls own needs and wishes. This indicates that the librarian has managed to let the group evolve without too much interference. She has encouraged participation, but has not tried to control the activities.
A community of people meets regularly, build relationships and enables informal
learning. The girls meet for four hours every Thursday when the library is closed
to other users.
The girls enter the scene with a sense of pride and ownership. They are trusted
and this clearly makes them grow and take responsibility. Usually 20-30 girls
show up, and they represent 13 different nations. As members of cultural and
religious minorities they have a lot in common, and this alone creates a sense
of mutual recognition and community. Both in 2002 and 2004 I saw a new girl
arrive, and both were met with such an open interest that they immediately decided
to return. Still, the group has changed. In 2002 many of the girls had problems
they preferred to discuss with the librarian alone. As I see it, the group was
quite vulnerable, because they were highly dependent on the librarian as a supervisor.
They were less assembled as a group (Sandberg, 2002). These girls now feel too
old to remain in the group, but some of them still show up quite often to talk
privately with the librarian. The rest of the group now discuss problems in
the presence of others. They also write short-stories that they discuss and
later publish on the Internet. The girls also know how to make use of each other
in everyday life. For this reasons, the members now seem more confident and
willing to trust and help each other. They are more independent of leadership
and supervision, and as a CoP they function better than the group did two years
ago.
Shared practice is a kind of mini-culture, which makes a framework for communication
and behaviour. Even if old members disappear and new members arrive, the group
exists in a historical and social context, where stories are passed on. Established
standards create structure and meaning, and new girls quickly adapt without
experiencing uniformity.
Some has instrumental needs and wants help doing homework. Some prefer to learn
digital photo editing, while others just like to talk. The group has their own
homepage at Internet, and this provides new possibilities when it comes to publishing
short-stories, reviews and photos. It also makes communication with other girls
easier. In December 2004 there were more than 80 members of Jentegruppa.net
(2004), which is far more than the number of girls attending the meetings every
week. Through Internet peripheral participation is possible to a greater extent
than before.
It is quite obvious that Torshov Public Library has succeeded in creating an arena for common practise among girls in their teens belonging to cultural and ethnic minorities. The group functions as a community of practice. I have already mentioned that the librarian does not control the activities, but let the group find its own direction. It is of interest to have a closer look at her work.
I have also mentioned that the librarian invites the girls to engage at different levels of participation (principle 3). Some girls meet regularly, others drop in once in a while or stay in touch through Internet. Contact is made both in the public and private space (principle 4). Many girls meet outside the library and the librarian does not hesitate to talk with the girls whenever she is wanted. The second principle is about ensuring a dialogue with the world outside the group. The librarian use literature and newspaper articles to make it easier to talk about sensitive subjects. The group communicates with others both through Internet and by attending a yearly youth festival for girls. They have been involved both in the planning and the show, and this means new ways of discovering their own capabilities. The festival is also a yearly mile-stone that provides excitement and variation (principles 6 and 7).
2. To make tacit knowledge externalized, the librarian use newspaper-articles and literature. In this way tacit knowledge might come to the surface in discussions. She also encourages writing to develop conceptual knowledge further.
3. The librarian also succeeds in helping the girls internalize knowledge to such a degree that it is possible for them to reach new operational knowledge. The girls change behaviour and find interest in new activities. A girl who did not like reading two years ago, today walks out of the library with no less than 500 pages under her arm. The festival is another example of how the girls develop self esteem and find courage to do things they earlier would only dream of doing.
These changes mean a lot to each individual, who discovers new possibilities, but they also have an impact on the group as a whole. Through socialization one starts a new spiral movement of knowledge creation.
My study shows how librarians have possibilities of doing more than organize information. Public libraries are neutral arenas suitable for both ”collecting” and ”connecting”, and librarians may succeed as knowledge-activists. Jentegruppa at Torshov is an example of a community of practice, where knowledge creation takes place through socialization, externalization, combination and internalization. The librarian has a knowledge vision, mobilises other knowledge-activists, leads conversations and makes sure new information is communicated to non-members. Without being conscious of the KM-theories herself, she meets all the demands of a knowledge partner in a community of practice.
As a last point I need to mention that cultivating informal learning seems to be a great challenge. The librarian at Torshov acts with genuine interest and commitment, letting the girls invade even her private time and space. On top of this, she has studied pedagogy and migration, which clearly is advantageous. Regardless of commitment and education, it is a fact that she has felt the responsibility overwhelming at periods without co-workers. For this reason, one might ask if public libraries ought to undertake tasks like this. If so, extended collaboration seems to be of extreme importance.
Capurro, Rafael (2004). Sceptical Knowledge Management. – S. 47- 57. In: Knowlegde Management : Libraries and Librarians Taking Up the Challenge / Hans-Christoph Hobohm. - München : IFLA Publication
Davenport, Elisabeth (2004). Organizations, Knowledge Management and Libraries : Issues, Opportunities and Challenges. – S. 81-89. In: Knowlegde Management : Libraries and Librarians Taking Up the Challenge / Hans-Christoph Hobohm. - München : IFLA Publication
Hallen, Marit (2004). Foredrag om Jentegruppa [online]. – URL: http://www.indvandrerbiblioteket.dk/konsulenter/dokumenter/Konferenceindlaeg/kolding/FOREDRAG%20OM%20JENTEGRUPPA.doc
Hegge, Liss (1996). Deichmanske på Torshov/Sandaker hyllet som Årets bibliotek [online]. – Oslo: Aftenposten. – URL: http://www.mediearkivet.no
Hildreth, Paul M. (2002). The duality of knowledge/ Paul M. Hildreth and Chris Kimble [online]. In: Information Research. - Vol. 8, no. 1, paper no. 142. – URL: http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper142.html
Holsapple, Clyde W. (2003). A Knowledge Management Ontology / Clyde W. Holsapple and K. D. Joshi. - s. 89- 121. In: Handbook on Knowledge Management 1 : knowledge matters. - Springer
Jacobson, Alvin L (2004). Corporate bunker or cyber café : rethinking the strategic role of the library in the corporation - a case study / Alvin L. Jacobson and James M. Matarazzo. S. 213-220. In: Knowlegde Management : Libraries and Librarians Taking Up the Challenge / Hans-Christoph Hobohm. - München : IFLA Publication
Jentegruppa.net (2004). – URL: http://www.jentegruppa.net/
Koenig, Michael (2000). Knowledge management. – S. 193-221. In: Librarianship and information work worldwide / redigert av Maurice Line. – London : Bowker-Saur
Krogh, Georg von (2001). Slik skapes kunnskap : Hvordan frigjøre taus
kunnskap og inspirere til nytenkning i organisasjoner / Georg von Krogh, Kazuo
Ichijo og Ikujiro Nonaka.
Oslo : NKS Forlaget. – 311 s.
Miller, F. J. (2002). I=0 (Information has no intrinsic meaning) [online]. In: Information Research. – Vol. 8, no. 1. – URL: http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper140.html
Nonaka, Ikujiro (1995). Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation / Ikujiro Nonaka og Hirotaka Takeuchi. - S. 56- 94. In: The Knowlegde Creating Company. – New York : Oxford University Press.
Sandberg, Anita (2002). Praksisrapport fra Torshov filial av Deichmanske bibliotek [online]. – URL : http://www.stud.hio.no/~s109596/praksis/hoveddel.htm
Wenger, Etienne (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. - Harvard Business School Press. – S. 1-64; 139-160
Wilson, Tom D. (2002). The nonsense of “knowledge management” [online]. In: Information Research. – Vol. 8. no. 1. – URL: http://InformationR.net/ir/8-1/paper144.html