{"id":1863,"date":"2012-04-27T12:30:13","date_gmt":"2012-04-27T17:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/\/"},"modified":"2018-11-19T17:24:03","modified_gmt":"2018-11-19T22:24:03","slug":"k-and-stands-for-what-exactly","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/onthinktanks.org\/articles\/k-and-stands-for-what-exactly\/","title":{"rendered":"K* (and * stands for what exactly?)"},"content":{"rendered":"
Knowledge management sounds as if we are controlling knowledge. Knowledge facilitator sounds as if we are not getting involved. Knowledge translator sounds as if we are just using google translate. Knowledge transfer? Intermediary? Etc. All that and more is the subject of the\u00a0K* event being organised in Canada this week<\/a>.<\/p>\n I’ve heard about this for some time already but am still not sure what it is supposed to be about, although every one seems to be in on it. (Even Appleton Estate rum.)<\/p>\n Dr. Alex Bielak<\/a>\u00a0is the main proponent of this idea\/event and has shared some ideas on the\u00a0GDNetblog<\/a>. In a post titled\u00a0What is KStar Initiative and why do we need\u00a0it?<\/a>\u00a0he says:<\/p>\n er… he doesn’t really define it. Instead:<\/p>\n What was important to us was \u201cgetting on with it\u201d, and not letting the terminology \u2013 important as it might be \u2013 get in the way<\/p>\n Ultimately I don\u2019t think we should be spending a lot of time debating what we call specific elements<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I am unfair.\u00a0He has a video in which he tries to describe what K* is<\/a>. K* is an attempt to stop the expansion of meaningless but interrelated terms to describe similar activities\/roles. Instead of having lots of different groups, let’s have one, in other words. I agree with this. Jargon can be addictive. But it feels a bit contradictory that to get rid of jargon the proponents of K* have created more jargon.<\/p>\n I do not disagree with any of these two statements but it feels, however, that dedicating a whole conference to the concept of K* is kind of ironic -to say the least. It also feels a bit odd that one of the conference’s objectives is to help practitioners demonstrate their impact. So is it not clear that they are important yet?<\/p>\n But back to the concept.\u00a0Alex Bielak does offer some guidance in the form of a framework (diagram) that points at what he means by K*<\/a>. There is more in the\u00a0Green Paper<\/a>\u00a0but I warn you that it is full of jargon (and, granted, lots of interesting literature). Let us see:<\/p>\n There is another worry I have. This focus on K* distracts us from the fact that this is already happening all around us. There are several institutions (and specific organisations) that fulfil all these * functions on a daily basis and by design. What we should be doing is focusing on them and strengthening their capacities rather than trying to relabel them or individuals within them.<\/p>\n Think tanks (if they do their job properly) act between academic and policy (and between others too). The media acts between the public and the public interest. The civil service acts between politicians and the public (including NGOs, researchers, etc.). Political parties aggregate evidence, values, interests, and other forces; then they act between politics, policy, and other actors. Etc. These institutions, whether we like them or not, are impossible to replace -unless we do away with our political systems (and in that case new institutions would be necessary).<\/p>\n My opinion is that if donors want to make a real difference they ought to fund these institutions and not attempt to create new ones. Fund the media (and journalism schools); political parties (and political science and public policy faculties while you are at it); fund civil service reform (and the necessary professional cadres: economists, sociologists, managers, etc.); fund professional associations and chambers of commerce (the unsung heroes of intermediaries: this is where research, policy, and practice comes together).<\/p>\n Above all, focus on people. When a competent medical doctor from Malawi meets a competent medical doctor from Canada and they talk about what each other knows there is not need for intermediaries. A competent engineer from Germany will have no problem sharing his or her knowledge with a competent engineer from Zambia. And a competent economist from the United States will not have any problems reading a paper by a competent Vietnamese economist. And the same is true within a country: a good economics professor will have no trouble talking to a good economics journalist, and he or she will find it easy to have a conversation with an economist in the treasury<\/p>\n This is what professions do: they use a common language to ensure that their members can talk to each other regardless of where they are. When the right people talk to each other they need no toolkits and not K* practitioners.<\/p>\n Don’t fund websites that republish what others have worked hard to produce (this is probably illegal -unless they were of course not getting paid to do it), don’t wast money on short term workshops to train people on how to use quick-fix tools or make them aware of new frameworks; don’t get too exited by new fads and all encompassing ideas (when have they ever worked?).<\/p>\n I won’t be able to follow the K* conference but will have a look at what it has been published after its done. I hope to learn more about:<\/p>\n Any contributions are welcome.<\/p>\n\n
\n
Comments from the old site<\/h2>\n
\n- \n
\n- \n
\nIan Thorpe<\/a><\/div>\n
I\u2019ve been following the conference online and share a few of your questions\/concerns but at the same time there are a couple of reasons why the K* discussions are important:<\/p>\n
1. There are lots of people working in areas related to K* often in their own networks using different technologies and approaches to do similar things, and often not talking to or learning from each other \u2013 so it\u2019s valuable in itself to bring people together who work in the knowledge sharing\/brokering\/translation to sit down together and compare perspectives and learn from one another.
\n2. In a related point \u2013 you are right about some groups not needing intermediaries, but it\u2019s also clear that other groups do need them, and brokering\/translating (or whatever you call it) is needed to connect different groups that don\u2019t speak a common language, are not in touch with each other but would need to be brought together in some way in order to collaborate for improved decision making. At the same time it\u2019s also clear that there isn\u2019t any silver bullet on how to do this effectively and so it\u2019s useful again to bring people together to learn from each other on this.<\/p>\n
Perhaps my main concern in this process is that much of the focus has been about connecting \u201cacademic\u201d knowledge and evidence to policy, and perhaps not enough has been placed on bringing the \u201ctacit\u201d knowledge of beneficiaries and practitioners to the policy table, but the conference discussions have been quite encouraging so far on this point.<\/p>\n