11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
Codification of knowledge using discourse analysis
By Trine Schreiber and Camilla Moring
Royal School of Library and Information Science, Denmark.
Abstract
The aim of the paper is to discuss a specific method for a codification of knowledge.
The method is a discourse analysis. Today, the concept of knowledge is defined in
more than one way. In this paper we are looking at the postmodern notion of
knowledge, where knowledge is seen as a social construction. This means that
knowledge is defined as an ongoing process embedded in the communication of
social life. This way of looking at knowledge has implications for how to understand
the concept of codification. In the paper, we hereby propose a postmodern
perspective on codification.
There is in knowledge management an interest in the process of knowledge
interpretation. The specific method, we want to enhance, the discourse analysis, has
in particular its attention on the knowledge interpretations. The paper shows that by
using discourse analysis as a method for analysing how people socially construct
knowledge we establish another perspective on codification This perspective may
also result in another way for the information professional to access the information
needs in the organisation.
Firstly, the paper outlines knowledge management, the modern and postmodern
notion of knowledge, and codification. Secondly, the discourse analysis is introduced
and discussed. Finally, a case study using discourse analysis is presented.
1
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
Introduction
The overall aim of knowledge management (KM) is to establish a framework
optimising the creation, sharing and use of knowledge within an organization. The
premises for this framework are, that different kinds of facilities are established
aiming at making knowledge available to the individual at the organizational level.
We find, that one important facility is to establish codification and interpretation
systems, which serves the purpose of reflecting the discourses within the
organization. The reason for that is, that the creation and sharing of knowledge should
be seen as a process depending on social interaction and communication between
individuals. In continuation of this we will in this paper state that knowledge are a
social construction, defined as an ongoing process embedded in communication and
social life.
The modern and postmodern notion of knowledge
Today we find two co-existing notions of knowledge – a modern and a postmodern.
Within the modern notion of knowledge, knowledge is seen as an object there to a
large extend exist outside, and independent, of the human being. This kind of
knowledge is often given the authority of being explicit and objective knowledge, as
it exists as a separate entity in its own right. The modern notion of knowledge
presupposes that knowledge is made explicit and captured in some kind of medium
e.g. a theory presented in a book. Davenport and Pruzak (1998) describe this as
codified knowledge:
“Codifying knowledge is an essential step in the organization. Codification gives permanence to
knowledge that may otherwise exist only inside an individual’s mind. It represents or embeds
knowledge in forms that can be shared, stored, combined, and manipulated in a variety of ways”
(Davenport and Pruzak, 1998:87).
As a consequence the sharing and communication of knowledge is seen as
transporting knowledge, just like ‘packages’, expecting the receiver to understand
their contain in exactly the same way as the sender intended.
Contrary to the modern notion of knowledge the postmodern notion sees knowledge
as an ongoing process. Knowledge is in its expression a social construction, and can
therefore never be seen as an objective entity. Davenport and Pruzak notes that there
are different approaches to knowledge, and comment on the modern notion by stating
that:
2
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
”The conventions of language force us to discuss knowledge as a “thing” that can be “managed…”,
but they continue:
“We want to emphasize again, that knowledge is as much an act or process as an artifact or thing”
(Davenport and Prusak 1998:52).
The postmodern notion of knowledge has changed the focus from the word
‘knowledge’ into the word ‘knowing’, which emphasise the process perspective. In
the book “The knowing organization” (1998), the author Chun Wei Choo writes, that:
“Organizational knowing combines sensing, knowing, and doing into continuous cycles of
interpretation, innovation, and initiating action” (Choo,1998:224).
When we in the modern notion of knowledge are looking at knowledge as an object,
we could ask, “What knowledge does the organisation need to acquire?” Taking a
postmodern perspective we may have to change our question. Now we should ask:
“How are systems of knowing and doing changing, and how should the organisation
respond?” (Choo, 1998)
Frank Blackler describes how he thinks we shall understand knowledge as a process,
i.e. as the process of knowing. He writes, that knowing is a phenomenon that is:
“(a) manifest in systems of language, technology, collaboration and control (i.e. it is mediated); (b)
Located in time and space and specific to particular contexts (i.e. it is situated); (c) Constructed and
constantly developing (i.e. it is provisional); and (d) Purposive and object-oriented (i.e. it is
pragmatic)” (Blackler, 1995:1039. Cited in Choo, 1998:226).
However, is it possible to exemplify a process of knowing? Unfortunately, Frank
Blackler does not give any examples of how to understand knowing in organisations.
Hence there is no doubt that we have to revise the way we capture and store
knowledge according to the postmodern perspective. It influences our understanding
of the concept of codification as well. It is no longer possible to describe knowledge
as an independent object isolated from the individual or its context. Codification has
rather to be understood as e.g. creating a text in the sense of making a written version
of a specific interpretation of knowing.
Related to the modern view of knowledge Davenport and Pruzak defined the concept
of codification in the traditional way. Codification serves the function as representing
knowledge. The postmodern perspective on codification serves the same function.
But instead we might say that it intentionally represents a process of knowing.
With the acceptance of the postmodern notion of knowledge goes the acceptance of
working with knowledge interpretation as an important element of the KM activities
3
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
at the organizational level. The idea is to make different interpretations visible for the
individuals, and use them as a framework for managing knowledge. Seeing
knowledge as a social construction implies another perspective of creating, sharing
and communicating knowledge. According to this the postmodern notion of
knowledge implies that communication is used as a mean to connect human minds,
and reflecting on the stage of knowledge at a given time. Within this communication
different interpretation system exists and they will change according to the ongoing
process of knowing.
The interaction between individuals through communication is here seen as a kind of
system that exists apart from the individuals themselves. After relationships has been
established, e.g. in a working group, certain patterns will be repeated, as the
relationship becomes more and more stable. The individuals then accept that certain
rules are operating to maintain the system. Using this perspective focus is no longer
on the individual, but on the recurring patterns of interactions, the cycles of
interchanges between the individuals in a work situation. In the following, we will
outline a method for identifying these patterns or cycles. The concept of discourse
and the discourse analysis will be used for that purpose.
The Concept of Discourse
Discourse is a difficult concept, largely because there are so many conflicting and
overlapping definitions formulated from various theoretical and disciplinary
standpoints. Here, discourse is not used as another word for a conversation. Discourse
is characterised by being a kind of interpretation system.
The concept of discourse is here defined as a specific way to talk about and
understand the world - or parts of the world (Jørgensen and Phillips, 1999). It should
be noticed that the words ‘talking’ and ‘understanding’ both have a place in the
definition of discourse. This implies that by looking at a discourse both the
expressions of the language and the meanings of the expressions are embedded in the
concept of discourse. The theory of discourse views communication as the production
and exchange of meanings, or in other words, as the production of meanings in
messages.
The discourses constitute and construct the world in meaning. When people talk and
write they both create and organise their social reality. Hence, the language is neither
conceived as a window through which the world shows itself nor as mirror directly
reflecting our observations. When people communicate with each other, they start a
4
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
negotiation of meanings. In other words, they produce together a construction of
reality through the communication.
Meaning is an active process. Meaning is the result of the communication between
people. When people communicate the number of potential interpretations of each
message is enormous. To reduce this complexity we need some signifying codes.
These codes help people to select an interpretation among the many potential
meanings in a communicative situation. Signifying codes are systems of signs. A
discourse is also a system of signs. However, communication is not only carried by
language. People also communicate through mime or body language. Moreover, not
to communicate is also a way of communication. Therefore, discourse is a system of
signs as well as a mode of action. As a discourse, the system of signs has its
expression in the establishment of social relationships, the use of specific instruments,
the particular kind of practices and, at a macro level, the establishment of institutions.
It is here proposed to use the analysis of discourse as a way to analyse how people
construct their knowledge, i.e. how they together create ´knowing´. Above it was
stated that the communication involves a production of meaning. The production of
meaning is also a production of what people understand as knowledge. A discourse,
also called a discursive formation, consists of ‘rules of formations. That is rules for
the formation of the objects for knowledge, for the formation of what people
understand as truth and for the conceptual frameworks of this knowledge. But it is
also the rules for the formation of the identities and the social relationships of the
subject.
Language has three functions. Firstly, it contributes to the construction of the social
identity, secondly, it contributes to the construction of the social relationships, and,
thirdly, it contributes to the constructions of knowledge and belief. The discourse is
carrying all three functions. The construction of knowledge is of specific interest
here. However, we have to accept that it is mixed with the conception of the social
identity and the social relationships.
A discourse may in the communicative practices be kept up as well as changed.
Communication may all the time produce new discourses or reproduce old ones. Our
ways of understanding the world will be created and maintained through
communication. We have to admit that a discourse means that some actions seem
naturally and others unthinkable, but at the same time, we know that it will always be
negotiated in the ongoing communication.
The constructions of discourses happen all the time. In this way the creation of
messages as well as the use of information may be seen as parts of the construction.
5
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
Tuominen and Savolainen have studied in particular the use of information as ”a
discursive action” (Tuominen and Savolainen 1997). They have the opinion, that the
approach offers new possibilities for analysing how people uses information in e.g.
various kinds of meetings or public debates. As a discursive action people’s use of
information is going to be an integral part of the construction of a discourse.
The Discourse Analysis
The intention of using discourse analysis is to analyse social practices for their way of
producing new understandings of knowledge, identities and social relations or to
reproduce old ones.
In parts of his work, Michel Foucault (Foucault, 1972), whom are often acknowledge
as the founder of discourse analysis, was concerned with different sciences like
medicine and psychiatric. Another theorist, Norman Fairclough (Fairclough, 1995),
has from the discipline of linguistic changed that focus. It is not the scientific point of
departure as such which has the attention, but the social practices at different levels of
the society. As a result, the discourse analysis now focus at areas as a ‘classroom
discourse’, a ‘media discourse’ or for example a ‘project discourse’, a ‘working
procedure discourse’ and so on. Fairclough describes this change in focus, through
Foucault, as a way to:
“operationalize his insights” or ”putting his perspective to work” (Fairclough 1995:38).
In communication, the production and exchange of meanings involves the
development of different codes helping people to understand each other. A discourse
is both the system of codes and the practices related to this system. In an attempt to
find the discourses, the meanings of the communication will be analysed by
investigating the practices.
We may consider the concept of discourse from two perspectives, an analytical and a
structural. Let us first look at the analytical perspective. In the role as the analysts we
decide and select the field within which we want to use the discourse analysis. It is
the analyst who decides – based on investigation – that the social practices he or she
is looking at haves the status of a discourse. In this way the discourse is a
construction of reality made by the analyst.
Secondly, we may consider the concept of discourse from a structural perspective.
From this perspective it is important that the voices of the people investigated
explicitly are given their own space within the analysis.
6
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
However, in communication between people more than one discourse may be active
at the same time. Here it is necessary to introduce the concept ‘interdiscursivity’
(Fairclough, 1995).
Interdiscourse is understood as the structural entity that underlies various discursive
events (Fairclough 1995). The interdiscourse – which Fairclough also called the order
of discourse – has primacy over the particular types of discourses. It is constituted as
configuration of different elements of discourses within, e.g. a social field or a social
institution. The different elements of discourses are called discursive practices. If we
choose a specific organisation for investigation, we may find a number of discursive
practices. It is then an important task to analyse the practices for both their
coordination and conflicts. The interdiscourse is not necessary a harmonious entity.
Often, it may be characterised by incoherence, inconsistency, conflict and dilemma.
In other words, the analysis has two steps. Firstly, we have to sort out the particular
types of discursive practices we find in the chosen field. Secondly, we have to look at
the incoherence and conflicts between these practices as an expression of the
interdiscourse of the field.
By following the dilemmas and conflicts between the discursive practices we can see
how these practices produce or reproduce knowledge, identities and social relations.
By describing the interdiscourse this way we can codify knowledge through the
ongoing process embedded in communication.
A case-study
We have made a discourse analysis of some written communication produced in a
Danish company in relation to their organisational development project. The
company is a production corporation situated in a small town in Denmark. It has
roughly 400 employees. The material is about the different managerial tools used in
the organisation. The particular material we investigated is about Total Quality
Management (TQM), and the learning organisation. The company itself has produced
the material for both internal and external use.
We asked ourselves which discursive practices were used in this material and how did
these practices produce knowledge, identities and social relations. In this paper we
have selected between the observed practices, and have interpreted this material as
containing two discursive practices in the company.
In the material it t is described that TQM has been introduced in the company during
the last 6-7 years. It was implemented to constitute competitive power and to reach
7
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
the decided goal in production as well as in distribution. They have been working
with the five core elements defining the TQM: Focus on facts, on the customer and
the employees, continuous improvements, the engagement of the leader and every
body’s participation. A very important part of TQM is to continuously evaluate assess how far you have come, and then to review, discuss and implement the
improvements that need to be done. They give examples of the performance
measurements used in the company in relation to both the production process and the
sales. They also describe a comprehensive benchmarking project where the company
is evaluated in relation to its competitors. As a part of the TQM idea, a systematic
approach has been introduced to enable the employees to make solutions based on
facts instead of beliefs and feelings.
The elements of TQM have been listed on the walls everywhere in the building of the
company. All the employees are divided in autonomous teams in relation to the
production. Each team has its quality assistants. These teams are request to propose
improvements for the production process. It is the intention that the employees are
placing their proposals for improvements on the local bulletin boards. There have not
been so many proposals as expected. The company hopes there will appear some
more in the future.
During the last three years the company also attempts to introduce the concept of the
learning organisation. The decision about implementing the ideas of a learning
organisation was initiated by a wish to support what they call ‘the collective, mental
process’ which already is assumed to be an essential element within the TQM project.
The company writes in a publication from 1999:
”The leadership has acknowledge, that it is only possible to reach the important structural changes,
which TQM has as its goal, if they are followed up by mental changes”.
The work with the learning organisation is intended to give the employees the
following: an overall understanding, a readiness for changes, a development of the
competences, teamwork education and employee participation. The concept is
understood as being the continuous learning of all the employees to enable
improvements.
On the one side, the learning organisation is seen as a tool to enable the employees to
make the decisions and improvements, which are necessary to the full
implementation of TQM. In this statement the TQM still has the priority, and the
learning organisation is only a mean to develop better TQM-behaviour. On the other
side, the overall aim of the introduction of the learning organisation has been to
institutionalise a change in the company culture. The chief executive’s believes that
8
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
without a change in the culture, and the inherent values and beliefs in this, it is not
possible to make thoroughly improvements in the systems and the techniques. In this
kind of statements the learning organisation is coming to its right. Focus is on values
and beliefs, which are different from the ones presented in TQM. The learning
organisation is about reflection, learning, and letting ideas flow.
In the publications we identified two discursive practices. The first one is constructed
around the TQM as a management tool and get from time to time support from
another tool, the learning organisation. The other discursive practices are the learning
organisation when it is presented as something quite different from TQM. From time
to time the learning organisation is described as something quite new - changing the
culture of the organisation (and in our opinion also the TQM attitude). There are
examples in the material where the learning organisation is described as a tool, which
may result in an effect TQM was not able to produce.
TQM and the learning organisation are two discursive practices, which are both parts
of an interdiscourse of the company. The TQM discourse will produce knowledge as
a result of the measurements, the investigations and the search for facts. Truth is
based on statistics, numbers and diagrams. It has produced social relations and
identities with consideration to the teamwork. The discourse about the learning
organisation also produces knowledge. Knowledge is created through learning
process in the organisation, but also by the different and changing attitudes among the
employees about the company and each other, and in the changes in company values
etc. A change in culture will result in new social relations and new identities among
the employees.
There might be situations where the two discursive practices will conflict. On the
other hand it is possible that one of the practices will dominate the other, and hereby
prevent the conflict or reduce it. However, for the present it seems like both
discursive practices are important elements of the knowledge creation in the
company. These practises represent important knowledge embedded, as a basic
condition, in the communicative and social life within the organisation. These
practices are also representing some of the patterns and cycles of communicative
interaction in the company.
The communication, whether it is written or oral is reflecting the way the company
understand itself and its own situation – it is illustrating the process of knowing. By
describing the discursive practices we will be able to codify some parts of the
communicative knowledge in the company, and we can also get an idea of the
different interpretative systems existing within the company.
9
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
When looking at the discourses, we also find a new basis for understanding the
information needs in the company. The discourses are reflecting areas of specific
interest and these areas will therefore often also reflect related information needs.
Conclusion
The aim of the paper was to discuss the discourse analysis as a method for codifying
knowledge. The way we choose to codify knowledge depends on how we understand
knowledge itself. We have described two co-existing notions of knowledge – a
modern and a postmodern. Within the modern notion of knowledge, knowledge is
seen as an object existing outside, and independent of the human being. Contrary to
this the postmodern notion sees knowledge as an ongoing process. Knowledge is in
its expression a social construction, and can therefore never be seen as an objective
entity. Related to this the modern, or traditional, understanding of codification is
concerned about representing knowledge as an object, while the postmodern
perspective of codification hold the possibility of representing the process of
knowing. The postmodern perspective implies a focus on communication, as
communication is the mean to connect human minds through interaction. The concept
of discourse is of relevance if we want to ‘capture’ the communication for
codification use. The discourse sees communication as the production of meaning in
messages. The discourse analysis is presented as the method to use for identifying
discursive practises within a communicating system, i.e. an organisation. As
mentioned in the introduction the establishing of codification and interpretation
systems is an important activity within knowledge management, and that is what the
discourse analysis is about - investigating the social and communicative practice for
different meanings and interpretations.
Although, through the use of discourse analysis the information professional also gets
a framework for the identification and consideration of the information needs in the
organisation. By making a written version of the interpretation of the discursive
practices this framework is made visible for the organisation enabling a response
concerning the interpretation. A written version of the interpretation of the process’ of
knowing in the organisation has at least two functions. Firstly, for the information
professionals, it may give inspiration working with the explicit knowledge in the
organisation i.e. for constructing classification systems or a thesaurus. It may
argument how to manage the explicit knowledge. Secondly, for the employees, it may
guide and animate the use of this knowledge. The discourse analysis and the written
version of its results might be a kind of facility aiming at making the individuals more
aware of the knowing process´ at the organisational level. In this way the discourse
analysis should be seen as an important contribution to knowledge management.
10
11th Nordic Conference on Information and Documentation
Reykjavik, Iceland, May 30-June 1 2001
References
Blackler, Frank (1995). Knowledge, knowledge Work and Organizations: An
Overview and Interpretation. In: Organization Studies, 16/6:1021-1046.
Choo, Chun Wei (1998). The Knowing Organization. How Organizations Use
Information to Construct Meaning, Create Knowledge, and Making Decisions.
Oxford University Press.
Davenport, Thomas and Pruzak, Laurence (1998). Working Knowledge. How
Organizations Manage What They Know. Harvard Business School Press.
Fairclough, Norman (1995). Discourse and Social Change. Polity Press.
Foucault, Michel (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge. Tavistock Publications
Limited.
Jørgensen, Marianne Winther and Phillips, Louise (1999). Diskurs Analyse som Teori
og Metode. (Discourse Analysis as Theory and Method). Roskilde
Universitetsforlag/Samfundslitteratur.
Tuominen, Kimmo and Savolainen, Reijo (1997). A Social Constructionist Approach
to the Study of Information Use as Discursive Action. In: Vakkari, P.; Savolainen, P.
and Dervin, B. (ed) Information Seeking in Context. Taylor Graham and Contributors.
11