Meta-semiotics and Practical Epistemology

Williams, Roy

doi:10.1177/0959354305057270

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The pendulum starts to swing out again to more sharing, in communities of practitioners, which are alliances of like minded professionals, trades people, etc, who, share, protect and maintain how they function with their group, how they regulate membership of their group, and how they manage their intellectual assets. Communities of practitioners are similar to discourse communities, in the Foucauldian sense (see Williams, 2005). They typically share a broad strategic framework, and do not necessarily share details of their operational strategies.…”

Section: Knowledge Sharingmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The transcription of ante‐formal information into formalised information and knowledge requires a very particular kind of community (C3), i.e. the community that is “primarily interested in signs which can be separated off from any particular ‘knower’” – what Spender and Marr might call the “objectivist” community, or what has been called the “meta‐semiotic” community (Williams, 2005): i.e. the community that generates information and knowledge that is deliberately stripped of subjects and context, so that it can be communicated, exchanged, tested, used and applied by anyone, anywhere.…”

Section: The Knowledge Process Cycle (Kpc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The epistemology of knowledge and the knowledge process cycle: beyond the “objectivist” vs “interpretivist”

Williams

2008

Journal of Knowledge Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to critique current epistemologies of knowledge and intellectual capital, and provide a way forward within an integrated framework.Design/methodology/approachThe principles of linguistic philosophy and semiotics provide the basis for a rigorous analysis of the production of signs and of knowledge. The Knowledge Process Cycle is used to explore this further, to analyse how different types of communities produce a range of different kinds of information and knowledge, and to formulate a more coherent, theoretically rigorous epistemology.FindingsThe current epistemological confusions can be resolved, by taking into account the arbitrary and conventional nature of signs, and the different epistemological requirements of the different phases of the Knowledge Cycle.Research limitations/implicationsThis research focuses on the confusions around “objectivist” and “interpretivist” epistemologies, and on how an analysis of the articulations of the various phases of the knowledge process cycle can resolve these confusions. A more detailed analysis of strategic knowledge and communities of practice will be explored in further research.Practical implicationsBoth knowledge management (KM) and intellectual capital (IC) will benefit from a resolution of the confusions surrounding the roles of “objectivist” and “interpretivist” epistemologies, and from a more nuanced understanding of the production of knowledge. Reporting on IC would benefit from finer distinctions, and from a more rigorous epistemology.Originality/valueThe paper brings together concepts and analytical tools from different disciplines (KM, IC, applied linguistics, linguistic philosophy, and semiotics) to develop a new approach to the epistemology of knowledge and intellectual capital.

show abstract

Section: Knowledge Sharingmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: The Knowledge Process Cycle (Kpc)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The epistemology of knowledge and the knowledge process cycle: beyond the “objectivist” vs “interpretivist”

Williams

2008

Journal of Knowledge Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The articulation of ante-formal into formal information takes place by a process of objectification in which specific transformations take place, from semiotics to meta-semiotics (Williams, 2005).…”

Section: Objectificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The analysis of subjects, subjectivity, objectivity and objectification (see Williams, 2005, for a fuller theoretical analysis) enables us to explore and analyze the transformations and transcriptions of the articulations of information and knowledge. The tacit/explicit distinction is useful only in as far as it leads into this more complex analysis.…”

Section: Knowledge As Narrativementioning

confidence: 99%

Narratives of knowledge and intelligence … beyond the tacit and explicit

Williams

2006

Journal of Knowledge Management

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to revisit the key terms in knowledge management (KM), particularly tacit and explicit, to develop a better framework for a theoretical and practical understanding of KM.Design/methodology/approach -With the help of concepts like articulation and discourse, borrowed from applied linguistics, the relationships between data, information, the components of information in its various forms, knowledge and narrative are explored, to develop an integrated framework for the understanding of the complexities of the domain of knowledge management.Findings -This study rovides a detailed assessment of the contribution of the tacit/explicit distinction to the KM debate. Develops new distinctions between formal and ante-formal information, procedural information and contextual analysis, a model of the process of developing objective information, and a model of knowledge as an articulation of procedural information and contextual analysis.Research limitations/implications -The usefulness of the framework will only be tested when it is applied in research and in management practice. This will depend on whether the concepts and terms introduced here find their way into more common usage.Practical implications -The study provides a useful framework and set of tools for understanding and managing the various different aspects of information, knowledge, intellectual capital, and competitive intelligence.Originality/value -The paper brings together concepts and analytical tools from different disciplines (KM, applied linguistics, semiotics) to develop a new framework for analyzing how the component elements of KM articulate with each other. In more detail, the paper unpacks the relationships between ante-formal and formal information, procedural information and contextual analysis, the processes of objectification of information and the formation of knowledge, and the notion of knowledge as inherently narrative.

show abstract

Fractured narratives and pop-up diaspora: Re-theorizing the capillaries of power, terror and intimacy

Williams

2015

Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Meta-semiotics and Practical Epistemology

Cited by 6 publications

References 6 publications

The epistemology of knowledge and the knowledge process cycle: beyond the “objectivist” vs “interpretivist”

The epistemology of knowledge and the knowledge process cycle: beyond the “objectivist” vs “interpretivist”

Narratives of knowledge and intelligence … beyond the tacit and explicit

Fractured narratives and pop-up diaspora: Re-theorizing the capillaries of power, terror and intimacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About