Information Research Weblog

Our mutual friend, Frank Miller, sent my a very good book recently: 'Death sentence', by Don Watson (Knopf, 2003). Not a mystery, in spite of the title, but, as the subtitle indicates, an essay on "the decay of public language".

Don's thesis is that encroachment of managerialist language upon the public sphere is leading to a numbing of the language. The managerialist jargon of 'enhancements', 'going forward', 'customer-orientation', etc., etc. has leaked from business into government, local government and academia, with dreadful results. A gem from the Victoria State Government in Australia:

In defining our values, we have formed a range of acceptable and non-acceptable behaviours, which contribute to the success of implementation. Behaviours which indicate that we are complying with values and contra which indicate that we are not. For example, a key contra behaviour, that we are currently focusing on that was identified through our values, is employees displaying disrespectful behaviour towards clients and/or other staff members.... etc., etc., etc. apparently interminably.

Instead of, simply, "All staff are asked to behave with appropriate respect towards clients and colleagues."

Consider also this from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in Australia:

Funding for legal aid is increasingly meeting less of the demand, but allocating additional funds on a one-off basis without a specific reason may be seen as an admission by the Government that funding is insufficient.

What is it saying? "Funding for legal aid is insufficient, but we daren't admit it."

Watson calls this stuff, "turgid sludge" and he occasionally discovers examples from various documents on 'knowledge management' and notes:

Political correctness and its equally irritating twin, anti-political correctness; economic rationalism; dope-smoking; Knowledge Management - wherever cults exist the language inclines to the arcane or inscrutable.

Throughout the book there are examples in the page margin of the good and the bad, sometimes nicely contrasted:

From Penelope Lively we have:

"Language tethers us to the world; without it we spin like atoms"

and from the 2nd Annual Conference on Government Portals,

"Achieve a user-centric portal framework."

My favourite quotations include:

"They risk-taked all day." (AFL Coach)

"They said, 'You have a blue guitar,
You do not play things as they are.'
The man replied, 'Things as they are
Are changed upon the blue guitar."
(Wallace Stevens)

"The trouble with the French is they have no word for entrepreneur." (attr. to G.W. Bush)

And from the author, paraphrased here, because I can't locate it readily in the text:

"Never in history have so many sensible human beings found it so difficult to say something simple."

Buy this book, read it carefully and you will understand, at least, the basis of some of my criticism of 'knowledge management' - the authors write in such appalling technological, turgid sludge. Pick the bones from the trash and you are left with very little that is worth bothering about. In addition, and more importantly, you will have more reasons for distrusting the language of politicians and organizational managers.

As a journal editor, one of my aims is that the papers in Information Research should be intelligible to all - that aim is not always achieved, but looking at the rest of the professional press I suspect I'm the last editor who actually edits :-) This book makes me even more determined to try to maintain standards.

As everyone knows, Information Research uses the Atomz.com search engine - which is made freely available. I've just been experimenting with restricting the pages that are scanned, but it didn't work out. However, in the process I had to ask for the site to be re-indexed (this normally happens automatically every Sunday night) and the log for the indexing tells me that 417 pages have been indexed containing 1,546,605 words.

Wow - 1.5 million words - I had no idea that we'd published as much as that. Now, that includes contents pages (which I was trying to mask) and the editorials but, nevertheless, that's a lot of words. And, given the volume of hits, it seems that people find them useful words.

While I was at it, I checked on the language used in the searching: here are the search strings used last month:

Frequency	Search string
18	knowledge management
12	information management
11	data mining
8	electronic resources
8	information conciousness
7	cko and failure
7	communication
7	digital library
7	information retrieval
7	management
6	cko
6	e publishing
6	information literacy
6	information seeking behaviour
6	online public access catalog
6	outsourcing
6	pattern of communication adopted by marketing department in industrial goods sec
6	search engine
5	company libraries

Some of this strikes me as odd and must be the result of some people clicking on the 'Go' button more than once.

A couple of items come to my notice today. The first is an item from the excellent Current Cites, on the use of RSS feeds by the Library of the National Cancer Institute to augment their catalogue and to provide services to members of the staff. It's published in the Library Journal, which is worth keeping an eye on. Here's a quotation to whet your appetite:

At the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD, we have used RSS both to integrate Internet content into the NCI library system and to make content from the library system available on our intranet in the form of RSS news feeds. This new content makes our library system a more useful and timely resource, allowing us to better 'feed' the information appetites of our clients, whose jobs require that they keep up with cancer and healthcare news, events, research, and politics. After the initial investment of time and technology, the information flows without requiring hands-on staff effort.

The other is from the Internet Scout Report (which has been going for years), which directs us to the Peter Drucker archive. I think that Drucker was the first to talk about the 'knowledge society', in his book 'The age of discontinuity', back in 1968. I imagine that today's 'knowledge society' enthusiasts will be astonished by the date - 'You mean we've been living in the knowledge society for almost 45 years?' And they think they invented it a couple of years ago :-) Actually, Drucker believed that we'd already been in the 'knowledge society' for some years, even in 1969.

The site has quite a wealth of information on it but not much in the way of electronic documents - properly speaking it is a guide to the archives. However, can anyone tell me why a Web designer would choose to use a very small point-size, sans-serif fount on a grey background? It is desperate to read, so I recommend Opera's zoom feature, which allows me to blow it up to 150% to make it readable. Even then it is necessary to discover the source address of the pop-up articles so that you can load them separately into a new browser page - messy. In fact it was only in this way that I discovered that one of the buttons at the bottom of the page is a fount-enlargement button!

Does no one pay attention to the usability gurus? Here's one of Jakob Nielsen's Top Ten Web-Design Mistakes of 2002

Style sheets unfortunately give websites the power to disable a Web browser's "change font size" button and specify a fixed font size. About 95% of the time, this fixed size is tiny, reducing readability significantly for most people over the age of 40.

Respect the user's preferences and let them resize text as needed. Also, specify font sizes in relative terms -- not as an absolute number of pixels.

[PS: why am I using 'fount'? Because it has been that way in English since 1683. "fount A complete set or assortment of type of a particular face and size. Also fully, fount of letter or type. (OED)]

This is actually from Wido Bosch:

The difference in a knowledge worker and a traditional worker is the main resources he or she is using to perform his or her job. Toffler wrote in 1980 a book, called "the third wave", in which he argues that we moved from the agricultural age in the industrial age and that we now are moving from an industrial age into an information age. In the industrial age the main source for a worker was his labour skills, phisical work. Of course he had to use his knowledge to perform but the physical element of his work was larger than the knowledge part, which made him easier to replace (see for this the power industrial giants had in managing their human assets). In the third wave, information age (or knowledge society as you wish), for a lot of employees the main resources for their work is their knowledge, their brains. These so called knowledge workers form the largest part of the value of the organization nowadays. In defining the value of an organization we used to sum up the assets (capital, machines, physical assets, and so on) but nowadays the organizations value is much higher but with less physical assets. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young for example is an organisation which has a high value but they have no assets (they lease everything). When their employees walk out the door at five and don't come back there is no organization left. And unfortunately a traditional worker in the sence that I mean it is easier to replace than a knowledge worker.

Last example, industrial companies are outsourcing the work which has low knowledge intesivity to countries with lower costs on loans, but they leave the knowledge intensive work in the western world. Philips is stating that they trade knowledge and not goods. Knowledge intensivity is increasing enormously. For more informatoin on knowledge workers and the shift in thinking in this area I recommend the following books: "The knowledge creating company" by Nonaka and Takeuchi, "weightless wealth" "Value based knowledge management" and "Zero space" by Tissen and research performed by Gartner, Xerox and McKinsey. The book "weightless wealth" might be a good start since it is easy to read and provides a good profound insight in the evoluating economy/society.

I agree with you that for all work, no matter how mundane, some knowledge is required but I disagree with the statement that this obviates the term knowledge worker.

I also do not think that knowledge optimalisation (or the use and sharing of knowledge) should be narrowed down as a function for HR only. Since knowledge management is about creating a culture in which people act and behave based on the fact that they recognize that sharing knowledge implies increased value adding, because sharing does not mean dividing but multiplying. If I share 1 dollar with you, we both have 50 cents, if I share my knowledge with you we both have this knowledge and I don't lose 50%. So when we create and stimulate a culture in which knowledge sharing is common and accepted, organizations can create a differential advantage. But to achieve this, new ways of organizational structure is needed. To share knowledge people need to have trust, a common goal or shared ambition, high attraction to the company, and a fitting rewarding system (amongst others..), but they way we organizate now we lack all of these aspects (due to short sighted management, rewarding systems based on hours in the office, lack of trust due to reorganizations and so on). It is in this context that I mean that we don't structure our organizations well, or in other words, we don't structure our organizations to achieve sustainable advantages.

Focussing on only staff knowledge is too narrow, since (as you state) for all work knowledge is requires, so it would be a focus which is too limited. Secondly, focussing on HR implies that they are responsible for knowledge sharing, which will lead to institutionalisation (not invented here syndrome).

When I posted this issue I was concerned on two things, the place (is IR the right platform to talk about KM) and the form (these topics require face to face conversations since there is yet no consensus on knowledge managemement and the basic assumptions and paradigms). Seen the nature of the discussion now, I assume face to face conversation would increase the benefit and seen the number of reactions (1) I feel confirmed in the fact that this topic does not fit the nature of this platform, which is IR.

In sincerely apologize for the inconvenience I caused.

Many Regards, Wido Bosch

And was in reply to:

Hello Wido,

Firstly, I was wondering if you could clarify for me the difference between a knowledge worker and a traditional worker? It seems to me that most jobs, no matter how mundane, require some knowledge to perform them, obviating the need for the term 'knowledge worker'.

I don't think there is a need to restructure organisations to make knowledge management successful. Knowledge Management (or Knowledge Optimisation as I would prefer to call it) should just happen in organisations that that are committed to a particular governance model that includes optimising the knowledge held by their staff. Ideally it would happen through the HR area, just as training usually does,

Bob Jackman

It's interesting to see how, at the technology end of the 'km' spectrum, 'knowledge management' has seamlessly segued in 'content management' or, sometimes, 'enterprise content management'. What does this mean? Two things, probably - first, the tech boys have finally figured that, in their bailiwick, 'km' brings them more scorn than cash and, secondly, that it won't be too long before the money men are asking, 'What is 'content', other than data and information?' And, before you know where we are, the next big thing will be 'information retrieval' - what comes around, goes around :-)

Ever been totally turned off by the jargon of the management consultancy? And, worse, by those in your organization who have adopted that jargon and made it all their own?

If so - help, and a little humour, are to hand - just a click of the mouse will take you to The S.P.E.W. Factor, a labour of love from Frank Miller.

Read, enjoy and let Frank have the gems you have collected yourself.

This sounds very interesting. It certainly describes me.

I've mentioned Michael Quinion's site previously, World Wide Words. This is from a section of the site entitled Turns of Phrase and refers to recent terms, or at least they were recent when the article for the word was written. Some of the words are "ancient" (i.e. up to seven years old).

The one that caught my attention today was Technorealist, which our words guru describes as something along the lines of someone who doesn't believe in techno-utopianism (that technology is good and will solve all ills), nor are they a neo-luddite (one who sees all technology as retrograde and evil).

And there's a site for technorealism!

Moderates of the world rejoice (if you can be bothered). And that's one of the problems, isn't it? Being "balanced" is not exciting or sensational, and doesn't tend to attract those with an abundance of energy.

I think the problem with this much repeated, so-called hierarchy, is that no one can actually find anything to do with it. It is quoted time after time, often in ways that lead one to think that the writer assumes s/he has invented it, but, in the end, the only parts of the hierarchy that have any practical significance are 'data' and 'information' - in fact, since information is so difficult to define, one could probably remove that and claim that virtually all so-called information systems are simply data processing systems. And no matter who the writer may be, once the hierarchy has been quoted, s/he gets down to the practicalities of data processing or information systems.

Bellinger, et al., who wrote this piece are a prime example of the problem - where does it lead? Nowhere as far as I can see. Or am I being too unkind?

No, not the body part, the punctuation mark. It has always puzzled me why practice in the USA is to use a capital letter after the colon, which is not a full stop. British and, I think, International English, practice is to use a capital letter only after a full stop, although I believe that Oxford University Press also allow capitals if the colon introduces a list. Information Research (I say this for the benefit of future authors) allows a capital letter only after the full stop. One colleague told me that he had been told, in all seriousness, that it was because the colon was two full stops, one on top of the other, and therefore stronger!

Where did the US practice come from? My thoughts on this were prompted by a link from The Scout Report to Bartleby.com which is home to various editions of works on English usage.

So, I checked on US works, and we find that the Columbia Guide to Standard American English (1993) says:

This punctuation mark (:) can (1) signal a forthcoming list, as in He sold sundries: needles, thread, pins, buttons, and thimbles; (2) introduce a further amplification or a summary of what has just been said, as in After years of work, he finally had it: the championship; (3) let one clause explain another, as in He was late: his car had broken down; (4) lead into a long quotation, as in Jefferson wrote: When in the course of human events,…; and (5) do such separating tasks as these: Henry IV, Pt. I, II:iv:122; Dear Sir:; New York: Longman, 1987; and 11:15 A.M.

Only two of those use a following capital - introducing a quotation, which is fine, and introducing whatever follows 'Dear Sir:'

Strunk's 'Elements of style' (1918) says only that the colon is used to introduce a quotation

So, can anyone enlighten me as to where current practice comes from?

The BBC style guide style guide will interest those with a concern for the use of English.

Thanks to Lockergnome for this one.

See Dict.org, a site that provides definitions from a wide range of open access dictionary resources from Webster's Unabridged of 1913 to the Internet dictionary project.

A range of client software plugins for the project is also available.

An excellent website that I have been enjoying for some months now is produced by Michael Quinion.

If you want to know correct use of the English language (at least as the English speak it), then this is the place to look. If he doesn't have an answer to your question on his site, then send him an email.

But the site doesn't deal exclusively with British English usage. Mention is frequently made of American English usage and Australian and New Zealand English usage.

It's an excellent site on which to perform a search for a word or phrase, or perhaps enjoy the "surprise me" function (as I have been).

I was browsing my e-mail and found my usual World Wide Words newsletter, with an intriguing item on 'lipograms' - you'll probably have to wait a day or two before the newsletter is on the Web site and you can find out why the following is a lipgram:

A jovial swain may rack his brain,
and tax his fancy's might,
To quiz in vain, for 'tis most plain,
That what I say is right.

Occasionally I receive a message telling me that Information Research, or one of the other resources at InformationR.net has been linked to from another site. I usually take a look to find out what is there. On this occasion, yesterday, it was from Keith Hamilton, who runs a site called Nature IQ, which provides links to all kinds of information resources on all kinds of subjects. Now, you might ask, What is the point of this, when so many directories exist? I think the answer is that a personal view on what is available, which you have selected according to your own quality guidelines, probably has something going for it, which a simple directory, based on spiders running around the Web looking for possible additions, does not.

One of the things it guided me to was the Online Dictionary of Library and Information Science - a pretty impressive piece of work. Slow to load, because it is all one big page, but useful for newcomers.

Well - take a look for yourself and see what you think. The interface is pretty basic and rather ugly, but...

I don't know how many of you may have read 'The Liar', by Stephen Fry, but towards the end there's a statement that Frank Miller might enjoy (or at least be prepared to argue with):

Trefusis took in a deep lungful of Gold Leaf.

'We can be fairly certain,' he said, 'that animals do not lie. It has been both their salvation and their downfall. Lies, fictions and untrue suppositions can create new human truths which build technology, art, language, everything that is distinctly of Man. The word "stone" for instance is not a stone, it is an oral pattern of vocal, dental and labial sounds or a scriptive arrangement of ink on a white surface, but man pretends that it is actually the thing it refers to. Every time he wishes to tell another man about a stone he can use the word instead of the thing itself. The word bodies forth the object in the mind of the listener and both speaker and listener are able to imagine a stone without seeing one. All the qualities of stone can be metaphorically and metonymically expressed. "I was stoned, stoney broke, stone blind, stone cold sober, stonily silent," oh, whatever occurs. More than that, a man can look at a stone and call it a weapon, a paperweight, a doorstep, a jewel, an idol. He can give it function, he can possess it.'

A very helpful site for finding definitions is http://www.onelook.com/ which has links to a vast number of dictionaries and is fairly well laid out and reasonably easy to use (ie, I've had an amount of success using it). :-) Of course, if you want to search the web, including for defintions, http://www.google.com is a site I highly recommend - no better web browser (in my opinion). I'm sure many of you are aware of this, but there may be a newbie or two out there. (And it adds to the blogs ...)

Frank Miller has drawn my attention to a Web site with some interesting content relevant for the discussion on IR-DISCUSS about information-meaning-knowledge. It is a short paper on 'General Semantics' - a school of thought developed by Alfred Korzybski and can be found at http://www.general-semantics.org/Institute/GD_AKGS.shtml.

In a nutshell: "For a ‘general semanticist’, communication is not merely words in proper order properly inflected (as for the grammarian) or assertions in proper relation to each other (as for the logician) or assertions in proper relation to referents (as for the semanticist), but all these, together with the reactions of the nervous systems of the human beings involved in the communication."

General Semantics has been described as a fad, and a cult and, taken into gestalt psychology it seems to have some of those characteristics. However, the essence of Korzybski's ideas was developed by S.I. Hayakawa in his 'Language in action' (later, 'Language in thought and action'), which, again, Frank recommended to me.

Anatol Rapoport noted of the relationships between the two: "It [Hayakawa's book] clarified the basic ideas in Korzybski's magnum opus, Science and Sanity, retaining their full strength but trimming away the author's narcissistic posturing and obscure verbiage. I read Science and Sanity in Alaska in 1943 and at the time dismissed it as pompous nonsense. But soon afterward I stumbled on Hayakawa's miniature masterpiece and changed my mind." (Source: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/6760/still.htm - the author of this site appears to wish to remain anonymous, so how much trust can be placed in his writing is open to question.)

It seems that Hayakawa was able to distil from Korzybski the useful essence of his ideas, while the 'fashion-makers' went for the more outlandish applications.

Tom