Summary: We need processes, concepts and standards for providing supportive and useful responses as we see other's processing struggles with knowledge-making efforts. I would also suggest that we must take pains to show our knowledge-making efforts, not just our finished products.
A klog is, as I have argued, either demonstration of knowledge or demonstration of the processing (struggle) while knowledge is being acquired, or it is both. I don't find standards or models for the struggle/processing part of klogging. This observation applies both to the knowledge-maker and to the informal or formal correspondent who might be in a position to support those efforts.
Connectivity: Spike Hall's RU Weblog
"Hacking the Definition of Klog ( comments and amendments are solicited):
"First, A k-log (knowledge log) is a weblog, meeting the definitional requirements of weblog. Second, a klog also demonstrates/documents a knowledge claim and/or it documents and illustrates the dynamic individual process of a quest for knowledge."
Thoughts on klogging and knowledge-making:
The pure klog can serve to document an individual's struggle to make knowledge. In an augmented klog, such as that allowed by Radio Userland, the presence of a news reader, automatic google searches on the klog title, links to source(s) and something like Mark Pilgrim's 'further reading' [which shows commentary from reactors to a klog entry] will, I believe, accelerate the knowledge-making process. The augmented klog's structure and linkages enhance the likelihood of accelerated learning not only on the part of the writer but of the ad hoc community (see S. Paquet and references) that is drawn to and subsequently follows through on the klog writer's lead. Klog and links accelerate the knowledge-making of first one and then others who return the favor through substantive processing of the topic in their own klog items and linkages. (See, for example, Matt Mower's "learning right in front of you" klogging style .) ..."
It seems easier to demonstrate and be confident after you've 'got it right'. We seem better prepared to defend our finding, once we have it, than we are to defend or accept help with the our struggles to find it. I believe most need and are ready to accept the well-crafted, respectful and intelligent piece of support their efforts during the processing/floundering/struggling phase of knowledge-making.
I have a couple of questions with regard to the tendency NOT to show one's struggles. My question amounts to: "If we know more will we be readier to accept help and more capable of giving it?" First piece of the question: Do we de-emphasize, or cover, our struggles due to the lack of understanding of the general importance and functional legitimacy of the struggling part of klogging? Second piece of the question: Is de-emphasis, or covering, also due to our lack of a)models of competent knowledge-building processes, on the one hand, and, further, b) a lack of models of and standards for the provision of support to others during their knowledge-making struggles?
Addendum and cautionary note: This klog demonstrates my point. I'm quite sure sure that there is much more to learn from more thinking and a more extended excursions in the paper and electronic 'stacks' -- thus I am in the midst of my knowledge-making struggle.
My klogging is more frequent, [far more frequent] than my research. I haven't conscientiously wrung every drop of information out of paper and electronic respositories of authoritative information. I'm being thoughtful, yes, but also off the cuff. The klogged notion of the process of knowledge-making can have an advantage = you've got this note now instead of in six months or more. Also, however, it may be at disadvantage: after six months I might have found and passed on the full text of the "how to give and accept support literature" that I haven't now found OR I might have found a most excellent counter argument backed with strong data and dropped my argument altogether.
I present you my process as product. Caveat emptor. Support is welcome.
