“Context determines what we are willing to accept as knowledge” (Gregg, 1984).
Social knowledge is the result of the reciprocal relationship between rhetoric and the community in which it occurs. The blog and the micro-blog promulgate social knowledge by looping the rhetoric of the thought community, i.e. the organization, back to the community by providing the members of the community a forum to speak to one another.
A continuously strengthened common paradigm, one of the three dimensions of social capital, as defined for my research, will be reflected in the ongoing rhetorical activity, which, in turn, will strengthen the common paradigm. A contextual filter, based on the organizational culture and the existing common language and understanding of processes renders the rhetoric used in the blog and micro-blog comprehensible and meaningful. The blog, mainly controlled by the organization’s leadership and the micro-blog, predominantly controlled by the employees, have the potential to aide in the formation of a common social knowledge that results in the building of community reinforcing the formation of cognitive social capital by increasing the common paradigm within the organization.
Each short message, each act of writing and reading, increases an individual’s understanding of what counts as knowledge and the rhetorical requirements to disseminate knowledge successfully in the context of the organization. Newcomers to the organization are able to peruse conversations between employees on the micro-blog much faster than when relying on f2f encounters.
The process of learning what information counts as acceptable data is made visible, searchable, archivable.
Community can potentially be built faster, leading to more efficient exchange of knowledge and, thus, more efficient work processes and, most importantly, to an increased ability to innovate.
The blog and the micro-blog perpetuate a framework of knowing.
One thought that comes to mind is that the users establish the context and the fact that “Each short message, each act of writing and reading, increases an individual’s understanding of what counts as knowledge and the rhetorical requirements to disseminate knowledge successfully in the context of the organization.” In other words, if one were to implement the same type of blog and micro-blog in two different organizations, the dynamics, including direction, language style, length, frequency, etc., might be rather different, albeit the benefits and overall purpose would likely be extremely similar.
That the blog and micro-blog (B/M-B) are archiveable is very important to the benefit and use that you discuss. As you noted, newcomers (be it new employees or just those new to a given project or discussion) can peruse these recorded conversations and get up to speed on specific and general topics far more quickly than going person-to-person, as one had to do in the past. Actually, in this B/M-B situation, one can partake in a conversation that he or she might never have even known about had it occurred at time when that individual was not present. However, “what information counts as acceptable data” is established by the group and may become somewhat fixed, because it “is made visible, searchable, archivable.” I am not sure if you see this as a positive or negative feature, but it just seems that once a certain rhetorical level, style, situation is set, those might not diverge too much from this.
Overall, this is huge, though. “Community can potentially be built faster, leading to more efficient exchange of knowledge and, thus, more efficient work processes and, most importantly, to an increased ability to innovate.” It is all there, archived and searchable. An employee has (potentially) an extremely rich, full, complex, and complete single resource to obtain information. Additionally, the author of each post is presented, so one has a linked resource to gain further knowledge (in-person or through other direct communication means) from an individual.
Time, I agree with your first contention, i.e. that depending on corporate jargon, corporate culture, etc. the rhetoric used to communicate might be different. However, with the increasing blurring between the private and professional personas all of us represent, there might also a number similarities that transcend social and professional communication tools as well as corporate virtual communities.
You also touch on Levy’s notion of the human as a ‘bundle of knowledge’, a vast resource of learned facts, information, knowledge, experiences, beliefs, etc. No two ‘bundles’ are exactly alike, i.e. one can always learn from the other. This is one of the most fascinating aspects of these new communication technologies – access to collective knowledge, collective intelligence, the ability to crowdsource, the power of connecting the knowledge seeker with the knowledge owner. The technology as the knowledge broker is an attractive metaphor that I want to continue to explore in my research.