|
Evening in Arcady (Thomas Coles,
1843)
Storytelling and Knowledge Integration
In my last two blogs, I analyzed the
role of storytelling in problem solving, describing both its important
positive role and its limitations. In our KLC framework, knowledge
processing includes problem recognition, problem solving (or knowledge
production), and once knowledge is produced, Knowledge Integration, the
process that presents this new knowledge to individuals and groups
comprising the organization, becomes the focus of knowledge processing.
It distributes the organization's objective knowledge to individuals
and groups and in doing so initiates the individual and group level
KLCs that represent their reaction to Knowledge Integration and that
produces changes in the Distributed Organizational Knowledge Base
(DOKB). See my earlier post, "Organizational Problem Solving", for a
more detailed description of Knowledge Integration, and the references
there for much more detail.
Knowledge Integration has four sub-processes: Knowledge and Information
Broadcasting (KIB), Searching and Retrieving, Teaching, and Sharing.
All four may be performed either electronically or interpersonally. In
KIB, an individual or group, holding previously produced organizational
knowledge initiates transmittal of such knowledge to those who are
unaware of it. In searching and retrieving individuals and groups
actively gather previously produced organizational knowledge. In
teaching, individuals recognized as intellectual authorities both
transmit organizational knowledge to others and are the focus of
inquiries about their knowledge from others. In sharing, individuals
and groups use peer-to-peer communications to express organizational
knowledge. With the foregoing as background let's examine where
storytelling fits.
- Knowledge and Information Broadcasting
People can present the codified knowledge and information of the
organization to others by sending or telling them stories in the
absence of specific requests for them (i.e. "broadcasting").
Storytelling supporters in KM believe that stories are more effective
than other tools of expression for doing this. Perhaps they are. But
the criterion for effectiveness being used seems to be a story's
utility in providing a stimulus that the person receiving it can use to
comprehend the lesson the storyteller is trying to communicate.
Sometimes those using stories talk about the receivers co-creating the
story in their own terms. This is certainly the way Steve Denning
describes the "springboard" story. However, it's clear that
storytelling proponents don't mean the co-creation of the story in such
a way that the receiver comes to reject the lesson being presented or
implied in it.
So "co-creation" seems to refer to a process where a receiver comes to
understand a story in his/her own terms, but not in such a way that
this co-creation leads the receiver to believe that the story is false.
This raises the question of whether stories are more useful than other
techniques of communication in conveying understanding of the knowledge
claims they are asserting, or whether they are simply more useful at
manipulating agreement with those knowledge claims. Of course, if it is
the second, that would call into question whether stories are really
more effective than other tools in helping organizations to adapt.
I think these considerations may be most relevant where interpersonal
(and not electronic) methods of storytelling are used since by all
accounts, interpersonal delivery of stories is the most effective way
of using them to elicit rapid understanding of the concepts underlying
a story. In other words, are stories least effective in helping
organizations to adapt, where they are most successful in bringing
about quick agreement with the vision presented in a story? I think
that someone's answer to this question will, in part, depend on how
much faith one has in rapid, but uncritical comprehension of knowledge
claims, which storytelling sometimes seems to elicit, as a foundation
for more effective action.
Stories play no material role in electronic searching and retrieving,
but in interpersonal searching for information the person looking for
it from someone else can often help her/his informant by clarifying
what's needed through a story. We may not run into too many situations
where we need to tell a story to clarify what information we're looking
for, but it is precisely in those situations where we can't name or
easily summarize the nature of that information that we need a story.
We need a story that will state our problem, and in doing so, narrow
down, for our informant, the possible answers, or the places
(libraries, books, periodicals, documents, the internet, people, etc.)
where answers might be found.
Of course, stories are a favorite technique in teaching. Every time we
describe a situation to illustrate a point, we tell a story. Sometimes
we tell it well, sometimes not so well. But teaching is frequently
about telling stories to illustrate general points by describing cases,
or to give histories, or to explain why an event occurred in the way
that it did, or for many other reasons. We rely on stories constantly
in teaching most subjects. We may rely on them less in formal subjects
such as logic, mathematics and statistics, but even there we need
stories to convey complex ideas and to help understanding. When we
teach general theories in biology, physics, psychology, and other
sciences we often use stories to illustrate theories. When we teach
history or political science or anthropology we often use stories to
explain particular events or circumstances without relying on the
pattern inherent in a story to create understanding. What would
teaching be without stories? Nothing but a set of abstractions that
only very few among us could understand.
Much of the excitement surrounding storytelling in KM has centered
around its use in knowledge sharing, by which people normally mean any
attempt by one person to communicate data, information, or knowledge to
another, rather than the specific formulation of it as peer-to-peer
sharing of explicit knowledge. I've already discussed broadcasting, and
teaching, which are types of knowledge sharing in the broader sense of
the term, and have indicated the importance of stories to performing
them well. Peer-to-peer knowledge sharing is similar to the other two
sub-processes in its dependence on stories. Much of the time, we really
can't do it well without writing, communicating, or telling stories.
In spite of the importance, approaching necessity, of stories in
knowledge integration, it is important to emphasize that stories,
alone, are not sufficient for good knowledge integration. Where models
and other formal knowledge need to be integrated, stories may be used
to illustrate, but to show how models work, it is necessary to explain
the structure and operation of the model itself. Further, when we have
general normative theories to teach, stories again have an illustrative
role. One of the most important areas where stories alone won't work
for knowledge integration is the area of the outcome of knowledge claim
evaluation of stories themselves. Unless we consider the record of
analysis of a story for veracity a story itself, it seems clear that
stories don't have much of a role in this kind of knowledge integration.
Finally, one of the problems involved in evaluating the role of stories
in knowledge integration and other areas of knowledge processing as
well, is the generality of the idea of stories. On Steve Denning's web
site www.stevedenning.com, there is a section devoted to "Storytelling
in the News". At the end of the section Steve comments on the question
whether a narrow or broad definition of "story" should be used in
looking at storytelling in the news. He argues for a broader view on
grounds that it is difficult to make a viable distinction between
stories and "straight news", and also because the "soft, squishy,
emotional stuff" is everywhere in the news stories.
On the other hand, if we look at every narrative that describes an
event, occurrence, or happening, as a story, then it is a trivial
conclusion that stories are very important in knowledge processing and
knowledge integration. That is, basically our modes of expression come
down to generalizing models or explanations and stories. So, of course,
both will have important roles to play in the various areas of
knowledge processing. Things become much more interesting however, when
we either (a) use a much more narrow notion of stories, or (b) divide
the general category of stories into types. As I indicated in a
previous blog post on this subject, Steve Denning and Larry Prusak have
offered typologies of stories. This suggests more illuminating analyses
for the future that will analyze which types of stories are most useful
for each of the sub-processes of knowledge processing.
10:31:03 AM
|
|
|