Developing an Understanding of Knowledge ...

Developing an Understanding of Knowledge Management (KM) Mediums

Developing an Understanding of Knowledge Management (KM) Mediums Philip W. Sisson* and Julie JCH Ryan George Washington University, Washington, District of Columbia March 2016

Author Note Philip W. Sisson, [email protected]* Julie JCH Ryan, [email protected]

1


2

Abstract In researching Knowledge Management (KM) competencies from a new viewpoint, people and institutions, and then information, were recognized as knowledge containers. That opened the door to examining mediums as vehicles for storing and communicating knowledge and mediumacy as the general competency for doing both. It encompasses mediums that represent and store and/or communicate knowledge. Media ecology considers media as environments and addresses a wide range of topics to include media theory. Cultural literacy, media related literacies, and mediology are discussed in confirming the need for mediumacy and mediums as new terms. Mediumacy is one of the three competencies identified by the Unified Theory of KM. In this paper, media theory taxonomy models are examined in the development of mediumacy. Then media taxonomies and other categorizations are reviewed leading to a preliminary taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. Inputs from KM competencies sources were combined to construct summary categories that informally showed that mediumacy generalizes KM representation, storage, and communication competencies, and with the other two competencies, is sufficient in terms of addressing KM competencies. An example of applying media ecology concepts to KM mediums is presented. Suggestions for future research are identified. This paper provides a look into the breadth of KM mediums and rationale for some mediums selected for the preliminary taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. Keywords: knowledge management, media ecology, media theory, mediumacy


3

Developing an Understanding of Knowledge Management (KM) Mediums The middle of the twentieth century gave birth to two previously loosely related fields: media ecology and knowledge management. The term media ecology is often credited to Postman in 1968 who in turn credits McLuhan (Scolari, 2012, p. 205, citing Lum). From this paper’s perspective, Altheide and Snow’s (1979) statement “a medium is any social or technological procedure or device that is used for the selection, transmission, and reception of information” (p. 11) sets the stage for Knowledge Management (KM) interest with media ecology. Lambe (2011) attributes the start of KM to KM classics published between 1993 and 1998 (p. 176), but asserts the roots can be traced back to the 1960s and “Fritz Machlup, Kenneth Arrow, and Everett Rogers” (p. 178) to name three. How the need for the concept of mediumacy was recognized and the discovery of its relationship to media ecology is explained in the background section. Next, different media literacy terms are examined to see why they do not suffice for KM competency terms and new terms are needed. Third, existing classifications and taxonomies are brought forth as inputs for a taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. Fourth, initial categories of the taxonomy are identified and the model is matured looking at the Chicago School of Media Theory student Media Taxonomy Models ("Media Taxonomy Models," 2003-4) and related conceptual classifications. How mediumacy and the other two competencies postulated by the Unified Theory of KM were checked for completeness is mentioned. Finally, areas for future research are discussed and key points are restated. STIPULATED DEFINITIONS The terms in Table 1 set the stage for discussion of mass media ecology and their potential use in clarifying mediumacy as a KM competency.


4

Table 1 Definitions of key Terms Term

Definition

Media

Media is "a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression; especially medium" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Academic Edition), 2001, media). For McLuhan, (and Altheide and Snow), "media include not only radio and TV, but also written words, clothing, money, and so on" (Chen, 2003, p. 451). “A medium is any social or technological procedure or device that is used for the selection, transmission, and reception of information” (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 11).

Mass media

Mass media is "the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively" (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010-2015, media) also “magazines ... and Internet sites that purvey news, information, misinformation, and all shades of opinion” (A Dictionary of Public Health, 2007, mass media). Mass media also includes “large-scale organizations which use ... these technologies” (Scott & Marshall, 2009, mass media, sociology of).

Medium

A medium, from a KM context, is “a means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information” ("media vs. medium," 2014) - representations of knowledge. The authors suggest mediums as multiple medium(s) for mediumacy; as opposed to media with its often mass media connotation.

Media ecology

Media ecology is the notion (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media ecology) and "study of media as environments, the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs” (Strate, 1999; "What is Media Ecology?," 2014, President's Message).

Mediacy

Mediacy (media literacy) (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media literacy (mediacy)), (also media education) “refers to the knowledge, skills, and competencies required in order to use and interpret media” (Buckingham, 2003, p. 36; Hobbs, 2005, p. 866; Kamerer, 2013, p. 5; Sisson & Ryan, 2015a, p. 5).

Cognitacy

“Cognitacy is thinking about” - the use of knowledge and reasoning about it (Sisson & Ryan, 2015a, pp. 3, 5; 2016, p. 4).

Kennacy

“Kennacy is about thoughts management, building muscle memory in people, proposition management in artificial intelligence, and people and artifacts in organizations.” It “is the accumulation and organization of knowledge.” (Sisson & Ryan, 2015a, pp. 3, 5; 2016, p. 4)

Mediumacy Mediumacy is skill with the representation in and the storage and/or communication of knowledge through mediums (knowledge containers) (Sisson & Ryan, 2015a, p. 3 & 5).


5

BACKGROUND In 1968, Postman introduced the term media ecology - “the study of media as environments” (1970) (Strate, 2002, p. 1), “what we can see, say and do” (Scolari, 2012, p. 205). The Media Ecology Association (MEA) restates this and also highlights Strate and Nystrom. Like some peoples’ preoccupation with Information Technology in the KM field, Strate, as cited by the MEA, has a technology bent; although, MEA mentions human affairs, other media topics, and McLuhan Studies (including cultural studies). Nystrom (per MEA) brings forward the idea of media ecology as a metadiscipline. Postman’s views are amplified with human interaction aspects ("What is Media Ecology?," 2014). Scolari (2012) presents the idea of a historical technology emphasis when he says, “As every communication scholar knows, the media ecology tradition and thinkers such as McLuhan, Postman, and Innis have been found guilty of technological determinism” (p. 219). More generally from a different perspective, media environment is "a metaphorical concept framing the media as environing and invisibly shaping human life” (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media environment); while, "media ecology is ‘loosely, a synonym for media culture’” (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media ecology). “Knowledge Management (KM) simply stated is the accumulation and organization of knowledge – by example, the process of obtaining phone numbers and writing them in a book.” Structurally it can be viewed as three competencies: kennacy, cognitacy, and mediumacy (Sisson & Ryan, 2016).1 Mediumacy is competency with storage and communication of representations of knowledge - "containers of knowledge” (McElroy, 2002, pp. 2, 12, 13 & 19). The media of media ecology and mediumacy of KM is where the two fields overlap.

1

These names were coined for KM as “names were coined for literacy (1880) (OED, 2011-2015), numeracy (1959) (Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2008), and oracy (1965) (A dictionary of education, 2009; OED, 2011-2015; Wilkinson, 1970)” (Sisson & Ryan, 2016, p. 1).


6

MOTIVATION KM has an abundance of definitions and KM models, and while all of them reveal elements of KM, the KM community has long recognized that a general model was needed. As Holsapple and Joshi (2004) stated, that in a decade of effort, “KM researchers have not provided a well-integrated framework to the community that would help unify this discipline” (p. 593). Beesley and Cooper (2008) and Lambe (2011) restated the need. Still others continue to decry the lack of a solution as Dalkir (2013) reports Davenport and Prusak did as far back as 1998. The Unified Theory of Knowledge Management KM competencies, cognitacy, kennacy and mediumacy, were suggested as an answer. Cognitacy was found in Bloom’s Educational Taxonomies and the need for kennacy in educational objectives and guidelines. (Sisson & Ryan, 2016) Mediumacy was another new construct needed for completeness and also needed amplification. Exploratory research beginning with media and media literacies concepts in the search for KM competencies led to selecting mediums instead of the word media to use in KM contexts. Terms found during developing a system model of KM led to other sources used in identifying KM mediums (Sisson & Ryan, 2016). This paper explores such mediums and the breadth they encompass. MEDIA LITERACIES The literacy landscape is complex. “Media literacy” “overlaps with many other types of literacy … including information literacy, digital literacy, scientific literacy, visual literacy, and cultural literacy" (Scheibe, 2007, p. 526). In this section, some of these terms plus mediology and computer, information and communication technology are discussed and why they do not suffice to stand for mediumacy is stated. Information management is included because of its close relationship to information literacy and the technical literacies. Another reason this last


7

topic is included is that the graphic from the Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM) (2014) provides good examples of storage media. Media Literacy Media is "a medium of cultivation, conveyance, or expression; especially medium" (Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Academic Edition), 2001, media). For McLuhan, and Altheide and Snow, "media include not only radio and TV, but also written words, clothing, money, and so on" (Chen, 2003, p. 451) – words like food, heat, bodies, geometry, memory, Atari cartridges, windchimes, breathmints, carrier pigeons, ingredients, etc. ("Media Taxonomy Models," 2003-4, student models). However, in the common vernacular ("media vs. medium," 2014), and in much of the literature, media stands for mass media. Mass media is "the main means of mass communication (television, radio, and newspapers) regarded collectively" (Newman, 2014, para. 1; Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010-2015, media)2; it is also magazines “and Internet sites that purvey news, information, misinformation, and all shades of opinion” (A Dictionary of Public Health, 2007, mass media). Mass media also includes “large-scale organizations which use these technologies (Scott & Marshall, 2009, mass media, sociology of). Mass media literacy is much of what media literacy is about. Media Literacy (mediacy) (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media literacy), in the United States, is called media education “in the United Kingdom” (Kamerer, 2013, p. 5). At its core, it “refers to the knowledge, skills, and competencies that are required in order to use and interpret media” 3 (Buckingham, 2003, p. 36; Hobbs, 2005, p. 866; Kamerer, 2013, p. 5; Sisson & Ryan,

2

As of October 12, 2015, “(broadcasting, publishing, and the Internet)” (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010-2015, media). 3 “Media literacy certainly includes the ability to use and interpret media; but it also involves a much broader analytical understanding” (Buckingham, 2003, p. 38).


8

2015a, p. 5). Media literacy includes representing, storing, and communicating, but it also includes interpretation, analysis and use - cognitacy. Mediacy is not useful as a term for a KM competency because it is too narrow (mass media impressions and definitions) ("media vs. medium," 2014). It is also too narrow in that it “is [also] seen to consist of a series of communication competencies” (NAMLE, 2014, para. 1). It is too broad as it overlaps with the other media related literacies, as already mentioned. (Marcum, 2004, p. 229; Martin, 2013, pp. 115 - 117; Tyner, 2007) Mediology A variation of Debray’s word mediology was considered because the roots of the word imply the study of media. However, Debray and Rauth (1995) take “the term mediology to designate the study not of different forms of media per se but of the mediations through which an idea or visual representation [une imagerie] becomes a material force.” – “of making people believe” (pp. 530 - 531). They discuss mediaspheres as ways and limits of visual interpretations (p. 532). Mediologacy as a mediology competence would address skill in analysis of “institutions of transmission,” how technology is embedded in culture (Irvine, 2006-2014), and while not over- focusing on mass media (Melinda, 2009), it is not suitable for mediumacy. Cultural Literacy The term cultural literacy has many viewpoints beginning with what everyone should know which includes canonical works, significant historical events, social schema, iconic images (Chandler & Munday, 2011, cultural literacy), assumptions, beliefs, “principles, norms, unwritten rules,” procedures, (Dave, 1998, p. 144), “values, attitudes, beliefs, and predispositions” (Xu, 2010, p. 168), and “code of behavior” (Kinnucan-Welsch, 2010, p. 240). It includes "the knowledge and skills needed to succeed within a culture” (Xu, 2010, p. 168).


9

Although, the definitions address cultural literacy competency, overall, in these meanings, cultural literacy mostly misses the needed implication of skill in the ongoings of both people and institutions with regards to them as knowledge containers. With regards to KM and mediumacy, beliefs, attitudes, etc., and basic understandings of these are important. Besides structure, cultural interpretations (meanings and symbology) from cultural content are important in knowledge transfer and relevance setting - story telling as an example. KM in people and institutional mediums requires competency in cultural literacy. Culture is important in determining meaning. However, people mediumacy is sufficiently different from institutional4 mediumacy to not be able to state one key competency of KM is cultural literacy (implying both people and institutions). Organizational Learning (OL) makes that evident. OL is said to consist of individual, group, and organizational learning (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Crossan, Lane, & White, 1999, p. 523). Organization memory consists of retrievable (Kim, 1993, p. 43) artifacts and information (“‘brains and paper’” (Walsh & Ungson, 1991, p. 63) crediting (Pondy & Mitroff, 1979, p. 19). People and artifacts have different attributes leading to the conclusion that cultural literacy has at least two types of mediums: people and groups of people (including institutions). The idea of cultural literacy leads to people and institutional mediums, but cultural literacy is not a hierarchical collection point for either. Information Literacy Information literacy holds a place in the education system similar to media education because information is facts (data) (Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Academic Edition), 2001, information) and news in addition to representations of knowledge and a measure of 4

Argyris and Schön (1978) say an institution is, among other things, “a cognitive artifact made up of individual images and public maps” (p. 12).


10

communication capacity (Puddlefoot, 2003, p. 455). From a communication perspective, Ruben says “information is a coherent collection of data, messages, or cues organized in a particular way that has meaning or use for a particular human system’ (Ruben, 1988, p. 19)” (as cited in Schement, 2002, p. 422). Information literacy addresses recognizing a need, identifying, accessing, evaluating, organizing and using information (Harmon & Symons, 2002, p. 526; Huling, 2002, p. 870; Marcum, 2004, p. 228) as well as preparing communications with foci on understanding content and media use. TFPL (1999) clarifies with creating and adds sharing (TFPL, p. 11). Like mediacy, information literacy is too narrow and too broad. Computer, Information and Communication Technology Computer Technology, Information Technology (IT), and “Information and Communication Technology (ICT)” (Buckingham, 2003, p. 95) often address similar concepts. From a media perspective, ICT is “an umbrella term for all of the various media employed in communicating information: for example, in an educational context ICT may include computers, the internet, television broadcasts, and even printed or handwritten notes” (Chandler & Munday, 2011, information and communication technology (ICT)). From a computing, communications industry worker’s viewpoint (as well as some educational viewpoints), ICT is IT. IT is currently the principle implementation vehicle for information management - often thought of in a computer sense (OED, 2011-2015, information technology). It has been broadened to include electronic means (Law, 2009, information technology). Computer literacy has a breadth of meanings from simple use (Tidline, 2002, pp. 161-162), choosing and using the correct application appropriately (Kamerer, 2013, p. 13), comprehending “physical devices and software”, purchase and management (Hughes, 2004, pp.


11

77-78), through actual programming (Sterne, 2003, p. 165). Computer literacy involves cognitacy, kennacy, kinestheticacy5 with also technologies, devices, and software and management approaches that can all be considered mediums in at least one aspect. Aspects of these literacies do provide indications of mediums that can be considered. Headrick (2003) provides a list of historical storing and transmitting technologies: language, writing, postal systems, printing, optical telegraphy, electrical telegraphy, telephony, radio telegraphy, broadcasting, recording media, motion pictures, and data processing. There are seven media layers in the “OSI reference model”: “application layer, presentation layer, session layer, transport layer, network layer, data link layer, and physical layer” (Ince, 2013, OSI Reference Model). Bretz (1971) identifies seven classes of media in telecommunications (transport) and recording (storage) media, including picturephone, telewriting, teletype, and punched paper tape to list non-mass media ones (p. 66). ICT includes many media, but using ICT literacy as the term for the concept would omit mediums from the other literacies. Information Management Information management literacy can be viewed as a subset of information literacy. It is "the functions of controlling the acquisition, analysis, retention, retrieval, and distribution of information" ("ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010-12-15 Systems and software engineering -Vocabulary," 2010, p. 174). While included in information literacy, it under-emphasizes the critical analysis of the content and interpreting of the meaning, message, etc. Information

5

Kinestheticacy is another term developed “In Pursuit of Kennacy.” It comes from Bloom’s Psychomotor Domain and the Bodily-Kinesthetic intelligence in Gardner’s multiple intelligences. Kinestheticacy is about competence in bodily-kinesthetic areas (think of athletes). “In Pursuit of Kennacy” has more on Bloom’s taxonomies and competencies in this vein (Sisson & Ryan, 2015b, p. 5 and 8) and “Improving Educational Guidelines” (Sisson & Ryan, 2015a, p. 5) for other competency terms that should be included in policy statements.


12

management also includes informatics/information science and sometimes,6 but not usually, information theory.7 Information management is included here in the sequence of literacies because it provides additional insight into IT storage media. AIIM (2014) asserts that “focus of IM is the ability of organizations to capture, manage, preserve, store and deliver ... information” (para. 3). The visualization on the same web page presents threescore of individual areas: such as rich media, OCR, XML, RAID, film, syndication, fax, etc. which are mediums for capturing, storing or sharing information. For the most part, all of the storage media addressed are different representations of information mostly stored today in computer memory or output media. Literacies Summary All of these “literacies” address some combination of representation, storage, and/or communication of knowledge. Some of them address more. Some focus on one over the other. Some already have other meanings. None are suitable for the meaning the authors are trying to address. MEDIA ECOLOGY AND THEORY Media ecology is the notion (Chandler & Munday, 2011. media ecology) and "study of media as environments, the idea that technology and techniques, modes of information and codes of communication play a leading role in human affairs” (Strate, 1999; "What is Media Ecology?," 2014, President's Message). Sometimes it is clearly focused on communications

6

Informatics is information science (Oxford Dictionary of English, 2010-2015, informatics) ; it is "the scientific study of information, its storage, and its processing" (Park & Allaby, 2013, informatics); and it is "the study of information and the ways to handle it, especially by means of information technology, i.e., computers and other electronic devices for rapid transfer, processing, and analysis of large amounts of data" (A Dictionary of Epidemiology, 2014, informatics; Kling & Hara, 2004, p. 225). Note that The Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (2006) limits the term to scientific information (informatics). 7 “Broadly, information theory refers to both Shannon's approach and other probabilistic methods of analyzing communication systems" (Kline, 2004, p. 377) from a capacity measurement perspective.


13

(Nystrom, 1973, p. 3; "What is Media Ecology?," 2014) and mass media (Strate again) and sometimes stands for media culture (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media ecology). Media culture defines (Altheide & Snow, 1979, p. 11) as well as represents the culture (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media logic). Historically focused on the mass media, media theory can lead further afield topics such as communications theory (probably more in its human communication sense than the mathematical study one). Chandler and Munday (2011) cover, almost itemize, media theory’s broad interests and contexts regarding mediated communications with a mass media flavor (media theory). However, the Media Taxonomy Models to be discussed next depict a broad range of unconstrained (more than mass media) media considered, but in separate models. The results of the Chicago School of Media Theory’s Media Taxonomy Models were particularly useful in elaborating the initial taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. TAXONOMIES OF MEDIA In his Taxonomy of Communication Media Bretz (1971) splits media in two main categories, telecommunication and recording. They are then broken into seven groups based on similar attributes: “sound, picture, line graphics, print, motion” (Bretz, 1971, p. 66; Neuendorf, Brentar, & Porco, 1990, p. 101). Advances in communications and recording since 1971 mean that more current devices and media would need to be added to Bretz’s model. While categories may need to be changed or increased, Bretz’s taxonomy presents a good view of telecommunications and recording media from its perspective. The Chicago School of Media Theory models present a wider range of structures, contexts discussed, and sample media. Forms include hierarchical trees, spreadsheets, pictorial


14

and others. Contexts listed in the summary include senses; metaphysics; ranges, neighborhoods and localities and intermedia (W. J. T. Mitchell, de Almeida, & Reynolds, 2004). Figure 1 shows one approach using a Venn diagram based on three senses (“Eye-imageopsis-spectacle;” “ear-music- melos” and “hand- text-lexis-diction”). Looking at mediums in terms of the senses they impact works well to show common and differing mass media aspects. In the top-level model we see common mass media and other sense-related media: writing, painting, architecture (eye); theater, television, music video, cinema (visual-audio); magazine (tactile visual); cell phone, video game, the internet, advertisement (intersection); speech, radio, music (ear); telephone (audio tactile) and braille money (hand). Kasia’s figure 2 (not shown) expands architecture to “stone, brick, wood,” and nails and other media (Houlihan, 2004). Kasia’s model does not address the other two senses (taste and smell) as does Bivar (2003) or Nevin (2004) with his cuisine and hygiene product categories. Viet (2004) includes the nose in her figure 1 (like some others, including touch), but omits smell from her figure 2 showing the different perspectives of the authors. Figure 1. Kasia’s Taxonomy of Media Note: Extract reproduced from Media Taxonomy Models (Houlihan, 2004) Of more interest in terms of representations, storage, and communication are: 1) Knox (2004) relates reality with the sender/receiver in terms of perception and presents four trees of external representation: multimedia, words, music, and image with technology and the body being the first branches. 2) Viet (2004) prepared four figures. The first related sender and receiver such as mouth  speech/spoken and word  ear. The second is unconnected media


15

groups such as photography impacted by photographers and developers. His third and fourth figures compare and contrast attributes. 3) Brendcheidt’s (2003) taxonomy of the arts in terms of linguistic/non-linguistic, spatial/indirectly spatial, and moving in space and time/static offers a different way at looking at media. The Brendcheidt model shows an interesting classification approach where the different media are grouped differently across the categories (see Figure 2). 4) Clinton (2003) adds logic, mathematics, geometry, and physics as part of time/space/form/causality in his model. Linguistic / non-linguistic

Spatial – Indirectly Spatial

Moving in time or space / static

Linguistic (speech, film, etc.)

Spatial (theatre, dance, etc.)

Static (writing, painting, etc.)

Figure 2. Brendcheidt’s media taxonomy model. Note: Major portions of graphic are reproduced in row 2 with labels in row 1 from graphic (Brendcheidt, 2003). Clearly, there are a large number of ways to represent media relationships and contexts from which to consider mediums. Many of these aspects will contribute to the elaboration of the mediumacy taxonomy.


16

TAXONOMY OF MEDIUMACY MEDIUMS (KNOWLEDGE CONTAINERS) A medium, from a KM context, is “a means or instrumentality for storing or communicating information” ("media vs. medium," 2014) - representations of knowledge ("containers of knowledge”8) (McElroy, 2002, pp. 2, 12, 13 & 19), “an agency or means of doing something" (Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage, 2008, medium). The authors suggest mediums as multiple medium(s) for mediumacy as opposed to media with its often mass media connotation. Mediums can be a wide range of categories and elements and mediumacy mediums are the subset that can represent and store and/or communicate knowledge. Initial Development of the Taxonomy Besides Bretz’s Taxonomy of Communication Media and the Media Taxonomy Models, there are other interesting categorizations that can be used as starting points for developing a taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. From the section on computers, information and communication technology, Headrick’s historical technologies provided initial elements for storage and communication mediums. Wijnhoven (2011) identifies “seven storage media ... individuals, culture, transformation, structure, ecology, external environment, and information systems” (p. 1242)9. Allocating individuals to culture based on the cultural literacy discussion and deferring ecology and external environment leaves communication, transformation, structure, culture, storage, information systems and representation as initial mediumacy top-level mediums. Applying Headrick’s postal system technology label requires generalizing

8

McElroy lists opinion, process, strategy, report, e-mail, documentary and speech as examples of ”instantiations of knowledge.” (McElroy, 2002, table 1.1, p. 12) 9 “Walsh and Ungson postulate six potential storage bins, above and beyond information systems:” (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2002, kindle location 2317-2331) “individuals, culture, transformations, structures, ecology, and external archives” (Walsh & Ungson, 1991, p. 81) (former employees and competitors) (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2002, k. 2317-2331).


17

information systems to systems. The label structure was change to framework during the elaboration step that follows. Elaboration of the Model Following the selection of seven starting top-level categories in the previous paragraph, the authors examined Media Taxonomy Models and other relevant descriptions to identify typical elements for the seven categories. They also identified additional categories based on elements that were not previously accommodated or needed to be moved or replicated. See Figure 3, the end result of the observations made during this phase.

Storage

Communication Institutions

Artistic

Framework

Print

Mass Media Education

Transformation

Classifications

Culture

Nervous System

Sciences

Artifacts & Entities

Capture Store

Telegraphy

Preserve TPL – TCP/IP

Delivery

Humanities

Containers

Creative Arts

People

Operational Arts

Groups

Manage

Microwave Air (Light)

Numbers

AI

Senses

Organizational

System Information

Sight

Intuition Interpretation

Touch

Integration

KM Solutions Email

Institutionalization

COPs

Language

Cave Drawings CDs / DVDs

Equations Graphs

Mass Media

Postal

Hearing

Smell

Words Artifacts

Processes

Memory

Symbols / Icons

Mathematics Roles

Sender

Digital

Institutions Quadrivium

Wire

Analog

Diagrams Images

Interpretation Visual Images Mental Model Task Abstraction

Taste

Concepts

Perceived

Space / Time

Representation

Plans & Reviews Frameworks

Figure 3. A collection of medium categories with typical elements (preliminary taxonomy) A discussion of the evolution from observations in storage, communications, frameworks and processes, perception/receivers/senders, representations, and space/time areas follows. Storage media. Five of seven of Wijnhoven’s suggested storage media labels are used directly, but the authors’ use of them as terms vary from Wijnhoven’s definitions. Considering


18

the elements being added to the structure category, the authors chose the label framework over structure. The label “frameworks” has also been included in representations as well. Including more framework/structural media elements and checking for consistency would help clarify the appropriateness of this choice. Ecology (workplace layout, or architecture as listed by Wijnhoven) in the authors’ view can be interpreted as environment and each of the listed media are and imply an environment.10 All the categories shown in the white ovals in the grayed area, exist as represented in the perceived space/time (Knox, 2004; Sabu, 2004; Weg, 2004). People and organizations (as institutions) from Wijnhoven’s external media category are included as culture elements. “Client and market characteristics” (Wijnhoven, 2011, p. 1241) provided as examples of his external category does not need to be added. The five identified transformation media are from Information Management according to AIIM ("AIIM," 2014). Communications. Most of Headrick’s categories are included specifically or by reference. Broadcasting and motion pictures is inferred from mass media, data processing in transformations, and systems. From the Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model (Ince, 2013, open systems interconnection) for network communication, applications and presentation (not necessarily strictly the presentation layer) are represented in the systems category. The session layer is not specifically represented. The network, “data link and the physical layers” are included in the communications category. TCP/IP as an example of a transport protocol layer (TPL) is included as a sample transport media. Telegraphy, (Headrick, 2003, Information and Communication Technology) shown in the communications category, while much reduced is not yet in Sandifer’s

10

“The notion of media as environments is associated with McLuhan and Neil Postman who claim that we unconsciously adapt to different media much as animals adapt to different habitats” (Chandler & Munday, 2011, media ecology) .


19

(2004) taxonomy’s “Dead Media” category. However, Sandifer’s idea of carrier pigeons, although being a dead medium, led to splitting artifacts (Schadlick, 2004) into artifacts and entities. Choi’s (2003) media taxonomy constructed hierarchical relationships partitioning air into light, heat, radio waves and sound, represented by air (light) in the communications category. Frameworks / processes. Archer’s (1978) “world of learning” and “world of action” are reflected in the sciences, humanities, creative arts and operational arts (p. 6) implying gaming, dance, and painting, etc. that show up in the Media Taxonomy Models. The quadrivium11 is representative of an education framework; sciences include physics (identified by (Clinton, 2003)); classifications include taxonomies, ontologies, etc. The term roles was added to frameworks based on Schwandt’s and Marquardt’s (2002) clarification of Walsh and Ungson’s listing of “potential storage bins” with structures as roles (Schwandt & Marquardt, 2002, k. 2317-2331). Because they can be viewed as structuring knowledge, an arrow from framework to processes indicates processes are part of frameworks. McElroy considers processes as an ”instantiation of knowledge” (McElroy, 2002, table 1.1, p. 12). Perception / receivers / senders. Perception, labeled Perceived in Figure 3, captures a number of Media Taxonomy Model sensing concepts as well as a receiver concept. In this model, processes can also perceive as indicated by the dashed arrow between the Perceived and Processes ovals. Artificial Intelligence and Crossan’s (1999) organizational learning model “with four processes - intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing - linking the individual, group, and organizational levels" (p. 522) - extend perception into inanimate entities.

11

The quadrivium is “a group of studies in the Middle Ages consisting of arithmetic, music, geometry, and astronomy, constituting the higher division of the seven liberal arts, and forming the course for the three years of study between the B.A. and M.A. degrees” (MWU, 2013-5, quadrivium).


20

People, groups and institutions are shown as cultural media. Merging the idea of Crossan’s interpreting, with culture providing meaning, resulted in the culture category provisionally being double labeled as interpretation (Culture and Interpretation ovals in Figure 3). Senders are related to communication media in this preliminary model. Mass media and artifacts each show up twice. One meaning is the communication meaning like TV, radio or a painting. The other is as a representation of culture. Representation. "Peirce distinguished three kinds of signs: icons,” … “natural signs (e.g. clouds signify rain); and conventional signs (e.g. red for danger, and at least the majority of words)” (Lyon, 2005, semoitics). One of four of "Roland Barthes's Elements of Semiology” is language/speech (Encyclopedia of Semiotics, 1998, elements of semiology). These, with the addition of numbers, make up the upper grouping in the representation category. From another viewpoint, four concepts make up Te'eni’s (2011) framework for supporting KM communication: “context, levels of abstraction, adaptation, and organizational memory” (p. 562). The idea of levels of abstraction added mental models and task abstraction to the representation category and resulted in visually grouping of other elements. Organizational memory is reflected in institutions (culture/interpretation) and in integration (organizational/processes) categories. Te'eni’s ideas also led to concepts being added to the representation category. Context (the model is mediumacy) addresses the context of the diagram. Context can also be any one of the mediums shown, a combination of them or some other context. For Te’eni, adaptation is matching the medium to the communication situation and is not specifically represented in the taxonomy. The idea of visual literacy as "the ability to read, understand, interpret, critically evaluate, use, and produce messages in visual forms" (Chandler & Munday, 2011, visual literacy)


21

provided sudden, unexpected relevance to DeBray’s mediaspheres. “The videosphere, the era of the visual,” beginning with color television provides a different kind of mental model. Together with the logosphere (“from the invention of writing to that of printing”) and the graphosphere (“from the time of the printing press to that of color television)” (Debray & Rauth, 1995, p. 532) they roughly fit three of the four visual partitions of the representation category as so far elaborated. One change was made during the review of KM competencies in the next section. Plans and reviews were added to representations as management mediums. Messages as a leadership medium were considered being added to the communication category; however, many communication models have a sender, a message and a receiver. A communication without a message is nonsensical. The representation category was shown on the border because, like perception, all the other categories require both representation of the knowledge and perception of the message in practice. Space / Time. Besides Schadlick’s (2004) new concepts12 which mentioned immediacy, immediacy is one of the six spokes of Holsapple and Joshi’s (2004) “web of knowledge attributes” (p. 598) as is perishability. Both point to time (or currency) as being a factor to consider. Brendcheidt’s (2003) three figures (one being Figure 2 in this paper) address space. The first separates mediums which are spatial (dance, sculpture) and those which are indirectly spatial. The other does the same moving in time or space (speech, film) and static (writing, painting). Brendcheidt’s four differentiators are attributes of the media she portrays. In our current taxonomy, Space/Time is shown touching the other parts of the model, but not a part of 12

“In which/through which, immediacy, extension, and amputation” (Schadlick, 2004, para. 1).


22

it. Knowledge is represented, stored, and communicated in space/time, but space/time does not represent, store, or communicate knowledge. From this model’s perspective, space/time can be considered an attribute. Informal Validation Perhaps not surprisingly after looking at the Media Taxonomy Models, mediumacy mediums for representation, storage, and communication of knowledge cover quite a breath of areas. An informal validation of mediumacy was conducted to see if it encompassed the competencies not implied by cognitacy and kennacy. Nine competencies (leadership, management, “human and organizational behavior” (Roknuzzaman & Umemoto, 2010, p. 275), organizational learning, information management, systems engineering, technology, knowledge asset management, and personal/self) were identified by collecting and summarizing concepts from 13 sources (Abell & Oxbrow, 1999; Calabrese, 2000, p. 116; Daniel, 2002; Excerpt Graphics and Tracings for KM Competency Document, 2011; KM Functions Survey Results _20124002, 2012; Knowledge Management Framework for Behavioral Competencies and Attributes, 2011; Mohammad & Mukherjee, 2013; Remez, 2001; Roknuzzaman & Umemoto, 2010; TFPL, 1999; Ternes, 2011, pp. 37-38, 45; Todd & Southon, 2001, p. 320; Wieneke & Phlypo-Price, 2010). In general these “KM competencies” are other disciplines. Management is used by most disciplines and is not a unique KM competency; however, as previously mentioned, identification of these competencies resulted in adding plans and reviews to the representation category of the taxonomy as management mediums. Similarly, system engineering would be a meta-KM competency that could be used in developing KM solutions as finance, HR and other systems are developed. Technology represents a super set of, by example, storage mediums; knowledge asset management is a domain specific common discipline whose


23

knowledge stores may be KM specific while the storage artifacts are not. More work would be required to clarify completely, but mediumacy completes a KM competency picture that was missing when looking only at cognitacy and kennacy, and to a large degree, traditional KM competency listings as well. AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH Altheide and Snow’s (1979) media ecology “selection, transmission, and reception” (p. 11) media includes both the social and technological. KM mediums represent, store and communicate knowledge as "containers of knowledge” (McElroy, 2002, pp. 2, 12, 13 & 19). The Media Taxonomy Models bring them closer together. The intellectual activity engaged in jumping from Gleick’s (2011) discussion of information to IT and culture as KM mediums might be called a probe by McLuhanists beginning as it did in the middle and branching out (McLuhan & Zhang, 2013) to all the examples of KM mediums in Figure 3. Looking at cyber security starting with institutions, considering Internet use as a privilege, not a right (Sisson & Ryan, 2014)13 was an attempt to apply ideas such as affordance, sense ratio, media richness, and modality from media ecology to mediumacy. Can media ecology terms and metaphors such as environment, intermedia relationship, “evolution, interface[, particularly] hybridization,” suggested by Scolari (2012, p. 218), also offer ways to gain insight into KM mediums/mediumacy? The authors believe that media theorists and media ecology methods might help reveal new KM insights when applied to KM with mediumacy context.

13

It also suggests that providers should be legally mandated to take more aggressive administrative actions to remove users, domains, etc. that engage in “misrepresenting the sender (forgery), misrepresenting the content (fraud), bulk acquisition of domain names provided for criminal activity (conspiracy), or continuing to provide a virtual private network which is known to support such activities (accessory),” etc. and use crowd sourcing to help identify such “inappropriate internet activity” related to common law based crimes (Sisson & Ryan, 2014).


24

Similarly, thinking about knowledge, versus information, and media as mechanisms for representing, storing, and communication knowledge might offer some new perspectives for media ecology. Do all the concepts of the ten knows (including overloaded know-why (Sisson & Ryan, 2015c, p. 2) and know-like play appropriately in media studies? In the new internet world, do new thoughts about the innovation process (innate lesson cycle (Lewis, 2013, pp. 53-110; 2015)) help any with media studies formulation? The definition of mediumacy may need to be reviewed and perhaps modified or clarified. Selection could be considered as suggested by Altheide & Snow’s (1979) definition of “a medium is any social or technological procedure or device that is used for the selection, transmission, and reception of information” (p. 11); however, reception, from the Unified Theory of KM perspective, is part of an entity’s environmental stimulus and selection is a part of cognitacy. Is selection as a part of cognitacy sufficient? Does the transformations category in the taxonomy’s model imply selection as a part of the process? The authors are researching many ideas that surfaced during the discovery of the Unified Theory of KM. The interrelation of media ecology and theory and KM is not near the top of that list. The authors welcome others’ investigations into the suggested relationship between media thought and KM mediumacy. CONCLUSIONS Mediumacy offers a way of thinking about how knowledge is represented, stored, and communicated. It encapsulates most, if not all, of KM competencies not included in cognitacy and kennacy. It would be useful if discussions about media clarified the context that is being used. Differentiating between mass media and unconstrained media types would be a good start. By


25

example, the (domain) media taxonomy models are more easily understood when labeled with context as Brendcheidt (2003) does by providing the label “Arts” to set the stage for her media taxonomy model. Models can also provide a lot of clarification by including typical lower level media. By example, in the taxonomy of mediumacy mediums, mediums implied by words like clothing, food and cuisine (although implied by artifacts) do not show up as they do in the Nevin (2004), Whitehead (2004), and Neziroski (2003) models. This provides an example of different foci. Regardless, for KM, the big value of mediumacy is a non- interdisciplinary viewpoint. Many disciplines have interdisciplinary aspects. Cognitive science is interdisciplinary as is media ecology. Nystrom (1973) states that “media ecology is the study of complex communication systems as environments” (p. 1 (i)) and, in 1973, was an emerging metadiscipline (p. 3). Metadiscipline is a term that may apply to KM as well. KM relies on and integrates to apply ideas and implementing concepts of many implementing, supporting and specialty disciplines;14 however, together cognitacy, kennacy, and mediumacy appear to offer a comprehensive competency perspective of KM (Sisson & Ryan, 2016, p. 6). Mediumacy helps visualize such interdisciplinary, yet disciplinary biased concepts of KM as contexts in a situation. Such contextual views remain useful for intellectual consideration and in implementation; however, they may no longer need to vie for consideration as the general model. Mediumacy reflects “cognitive understanding and practical skill with a medium” (Sisson & Ryan, 2016, p. 4). Mediums, as expressed by (W. J. T. Mitchell, 2004), are everywhere, just

14

By example, 1. Implementing: Information Management, Human Resources, Information Management, Engineering, Library and Information Science, Finance, Economics, Sales/Business Development/Marketing. 2. Supporting: Psychology, Sociology, Philosophy, Neuroscience, Anthropology, Biology, Practice Management. And 3. Specialty: Communications, Organizational Behavior / Organizational Development, Change Management, Decision Science, Risk Management, Service Management, Cognitive Science


26

as are the basic KM functions of knowledge use, accumulation, reasoning, and organization. This paper provides a look into the breadth of KM mediums and rationale for some mediums selected for the preliminary taxonomy of mediumacy mediums. Research on the Unified Theory of KM and other observations falling out of investigation of KM generalizations from a systems perspective is ongoing. The authors invite others to suggest classifications, taxonomies, ontologies, or models of KM mediums. REFERENCES Abell, A., & Oxbrow, N. (1999). Skills for the Knowledge Economy: the reality of the marketplace. Business Information Review, 16(3), 115-121. doi:10.1177/0266382994237225. Altheide, D. L., & Snow, R. P. (1979). Media logic. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Archer, B. (1978). Time for a revolution in art and design education - RCA Papers No. 6. Retrieved from http://researchonline.rca.ac.uk/385/1/Time_for_a_Revolution_in_Art_and_Design_Educa tion_1978.pdf. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing. Association for Information and Image Management (AIIM). (2014). Retrieved from http://www.aiim.org/what-is-information-management. Beesley, L. G. A., & Cooper, C. (2008). Defining knowledge management (KM) activities: towards consensus. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(3), 48-62. doi:10.1108/13673270810875859. Bivar, V. (2003). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomybivar.htm.


27

Brendcheidt, D. (2003). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomybrenscheidt.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomybrenscheidt.htm, October 5, 2015. Bretz, R. (1971). A taxonomy of communication media. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications. Buckingham, D. (2003). Media education: Literacy, learning and contemporary culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Calabrese, F. A. (2000). A suggested framework of key elements defining effective enterprise knowledge management programs. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (9970022) Chandler, D., & Munday, R. (2011). A dictionary of media and communication Oxford paperback reference (pp. 472). doi:10.1093/acref/9780199568758.001.0001. Chen, S.-L. S. (2003). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of New Media (pp. 451-453). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412950657.n237. Choi, D. (2003). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomychoi.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomychoi.htm, October 5, 2015 (no longer displays). Clinton, D. (2003). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyclinton.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyclinton.htm, October 5, 2015 (no longer displays).


28

Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An Organizational Learning Framework: From Intuition to Institution. The Academy of Management Review, 24(3). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/259140. Dalkir, K. (2013). Knowledge Management in Theory and Practice (Kindle Version). Retrieved from Amazon.com. Daniel, E. H. (2002). Knowledge Management, Careers in. In J. R. Schement (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (Vol. 2, pp. 506-508). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3402900146&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=aa8e71f1c1637e63f9bdf5969793c6a7. Dave, K. P. (1998). An investigation of knowledge management characteristics: Synthesis, Delphi study, analysis. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (304430909) . Debray, R., & Rauth, E. (1995). The Three Ages of Looking. Critical Inquiry, 21(3), 529-555. doi:10.2307/1343936. A dictionary of education. (2009). S. Wallace (Ed.) Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199212064.001.0001. A Dictionary of Epidemiology. (2014). M. Porta (Ed.), doi:10.1093/acref/9780195314496.001.0001. A Dictionary of Public Health. (2007). J. M. Last (Ed.), doi:10.1093/acref/9780195160901.001.0001. Encyclopedia of Semiotics. (1998). P. Bouissac (Ed.), doi:10.1093/acref/9780195120905.001.0001.


29

Excerpt Graphics and Tracings for KM Competency Document. (2011). Retrieved from http://kmefcompetenciescop.iwiki.kent.edu/file/view/Excerpt%20Graphics%20and%20T racings%20for%20KM%20Competency%20Document%20%282%29.pptx. Gleick, J. (2011). The information : a history, a theory, a flood (1st Vintage Books ed.). New York, NY: Vintage Books. Harmon, C., & Symons, A. K. (2002). Librarians. In J. R. Schement (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (Vol. 2, pp. 525-527). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3402900151&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=f2ee922ae7df70ddd61f151fa463a2e3. Headrick, D. (2003). Information and Communication Technology. In J. Mokyr (Ed.), The Oxford encyclopedia of economic history (e-reference ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780195105070. 001.0001/acref-9780195105070-e-0374. Hobbs, R. (2005). The State of Media Literacy Education. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 865-871. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2005.tb03027.x. Holsapple, C. W., & Joshi, K. D. (2004). A formal knowledge management ontology: Conduct, activities, resources, and influences. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 55(7), 593-612. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/231432531/abstract?accountid=11 243.


30

Houlihan, K. (2004). Interlocked Circles of the Senses: A New Taxonomy of Media. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyhoulihan2.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyhoulihan1.htm, October 5, 2015. Hughes, S. K. (2004). Computer literacy. In A. Distefano, K. E. Rudestam, & a. R. J. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of distributed learning (pp. 77-79). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412950596.n27. Huling, N. (2002). Reference Services and Information Access. In J. R. Schement (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (Vol. 3, pp. 867-874). New York, NY: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3402900240&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=a15fa16ac4343b4bbc3aea3c5fbae5c4. Ince, D., A. (2013). A Dictionary of the Internet. doi:10.1093/acref/9780191744150.001.0001. Irvine, M. (2006-2014). Introduction to Mediology: An Overview of Theory and Method. Retrieved from http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/WhyMediology.html. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765:2010-12-15 Systems and software engineering -- Vocabulary. (2010). (pp. 410): IEEE. Retrieved from http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=5733835. Kamerer, D. (2013). Media literacy. Communication Research Trends, 32(1), 4-25. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1349156012. Kim, D. H. (1993). The Link Between Individual and Organizational Learning. Sloan Management Review, 35(1), 37. Retrieved from http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/224961788.


31

Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2010). Critical Literacy. In T. C. Hunt, J. C. Carper, T. J. I. Lasley, & C. D. Raisch (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Educational Reform and Dissent (pp. 240-242). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412957403.n106. Kline, R. (2004). Information Theory. In W. S. Bainbridge (Ed.), Berkshire Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction (Vol. 1, pp. 377-380). Great Barrington, MA: Berkshire Publishing. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3455100101&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=53f9ecf5e1ca1e90364d385c42edffb7. Kling, R., & Hara, N. (2004). InformaticsEncyclopedia of Distributed Learning (pp. 225-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412950596.n80. KM Functions Survey Results _20124002. (2012). Retrieved from http://kmeffunctionscop.iwiki.kent.edu/file/view/KMEF%20Function%20Survey%20Res ults_20120402.doc/316850678/KMEF%20Function%20Survey%20Results_20120402.d oc. Knowledge Management Framework for Behavioral Competencies and Attributes. (2011). Retrieved from http://kmefcompetenciescop.iwiki.kent.edu/file/view/Behavioral+Competencies+and+Att ributes.docx/268514278/Behavioral%20Competencies%20and%20Attributes.docx. Knox, D. (2004). Non-Evolutionary Media Tree Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyknox1.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyknox1.htm, October 5, 2015.


32

Lambe, P. (2011). The unacknowledged parentage of knowledge management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(2), 175-197. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13673271111119646 Law, J. (2009). A Dictionary of Business and Management. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199234899. 001.0001/acref-9780199234899 doi:10.1093/acref/9780199234899.001.0001. Lewis, J. (2013). The Explanation Age (3 ed.). United States. Lewis, J. (2015). Innate Lesson Cycle™. Retrieved from http://www.explanationage.com/innatelesson-cycle.html. Lyon, A. (2005). Semiotics. In T. Honderich (Ed.), The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acref/9780199264797.013.2317. Marcum, J. (2004). Information Literacy. In A. Distefano, K. Rudestam, & R. Silverman (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Distributed Learning (pp. 228-232). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412950596.n81. Martin, J. (2013). Refreshing information literacy: Learning from recent British information literacy models. Communications in Information Literacy, 7(2), 114-127. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/1496849473/citation. McElroy, M. W. (2002). Excerpt from - The new knowledge management : complexity, learning, and sustainable innovation, xxxi, 246 p. Retrieved from http://www.macroinnovation.com/images/McElroy_nkm.pdf. McLuhan, E., & Zhang, P. (2013). Media Ecology: Illuminations. Canadian Journal of Communication, 38(4), 459-475.


33

Media Taxonomy Models. (2003-4). Retrieved from http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/projects-2/media-taxonomy-models/. media vs. medium. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.gingersoftware.com/englishonline/spelling-book/confusing-words/media-medium. Melinda. (2009). Regis Debray – What is Mediology? Media and performance theory - Part of the Media Studies Research Master at Utrecht University.Retrieved from http://mandptheory.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/what-is-mediology/. Merriam-Webster Dictionary (Academic Edition). (2001). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved from http://academic.eb.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/bps/dictionary?query=Search Mitchell, W. J. T. (2004). Medium Theory: Preface to the 2003 Critical Inquiry Symposium. Critical Inquiry, 30(2), 324-335. doi:10.1086/421127. Mitchell, W. J. T., de Almeida, E., & Reynolds, R. (2004). Towards a Taxonomy of Media. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomynavigation.htm, reditected to https://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/wjtmitchell/ (different information). Mohammad, N., & Mukherjee, B. (2013). Knowledge management competencies required among library and information science professionals. Library Review, 62(6/7), 375-387. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/LR-02-2013-0025. NAMLE. (2014). Media Literacy Defined. Retrieved from http://namle.net/publications/medialiteracy-definitions/. Neuendorf, K. A., Brentar, J. E., & Porco, J. (1990). Media Technology Hardware and Sensory Channels: Cognitive Structures in Multidimensional Space. Communication Research Reports, 7(2), 100-106. Retrieved from


34

http://proxygw.wrlc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&d b=ufh&AN=18443575&site=ehost-live. Nevin, J. (2004). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomynevin.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomynevin.htm, October 5, 2015. Newman, L. (2014). mass media. Retrieved from http://lucian.uchicago.edu/blogs/mediatheory/keywords/mass-media/. Neziroski, L. (2003). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyneziroski.htm, at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyneziroski.htm. Nystrom, C. L. (1973). Toward a Science of Media Ecology: The formulation of integrated conceptual paradigms for the study of human communication systems. (Ph.D. Ph.D.), New York University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/pqdtft/docview/287996744/citation/A4290 DE1483C48A3PQ/1 ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text database. (287996744) Oxford Dictionary of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. (2006). A. R. Cammack, P. P. Campbell, V. A. Smith, & J. Stirling (Eds.). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780198529170. 001.0001/acref-9780198529170-e-9952 doi:10.1093/acref/9780198529170.013.9952. Oxford Dictionary of English. (2010-2015). A. Stevenson (Ed.). Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199571123. 001.0001/acref-9780199571123 doi:10.1093/acref/9780199571123.001.0001.


35

Oxford English Dictionary. (2011-2015). Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com.proxygw.wrlc.org. Park, C., & Allaby, M. (2013). A Dictionary of Environment and Conservation. Retrieved from doi:10.1093/acref/9780199641666.001.0001. Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (2 ed.). (2008). R. Allen (Ed.), doi:10.1093/acref/9780199232581.001.0001. Pondy, L. R., & Mitroff, I. I. (1979). Beyond open system models of organization. Research in organizational behavior, 1(1), 3-39. Retrieved from http://web.archive.org/web/20121021184723/http:/glenn.osu.edu/faculty/brown/home/Or g%20Theory/Readings/Beyond%20Open%20System%20Models%20of%20Organization 1.pdf. Puddlefoot, J. C. (2003). Information. In W. Van Huyssteen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of science and religion. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan Reference US, Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3404200282&v=2.1 &u=wash74137&it=r&p=GVRL&sw=w. Remez, S. G. (2001). Who Will Lead the Knowledge Revolution? An Examination of the Differing Roles of the CIO and CKO. In R. C. BarquiÌ, A. Bennet, & S. G. Remez (Eds.), Knowledge management: The catalyst for electronic government (pp. 285-300). Vienna, VA: ManagementConcepts. Roknuzzaman, M., & Umemoto, K. (2010). KM Education at LIS Schools: An Analysis of KM Master's Programs. Journal of Education for Library and Information Science, 51(4), 267-280. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/docview/759961844/abstract.


36

Sabu, D. (2004). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomysabu.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomysabu.htm, October 5, 2015. Sandifer, P. (2004). Dead Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomysandifer.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomysandifer.htm, October 5, 2015. Schadlick, J. (2004). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyschadlick.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyschadlick.htm, October 5, 2015. Scheibe, C. (2007). Media Literacy, Approaches to. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Children, Adolescents, and the Media (pp. 526-529). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412952606. Schement, J. R. (2002). Information. In J. R. Schement (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (Vol. 2, pp. 421-426). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3402900129&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=afd11a89c5545fefdc9d14f93550c1ee. Schwandt, D., & Marquardt, M. J. (2002). Organizational learning: From World-Class Theories To Global Best Practices. Retrieved from Amazon.com. Scolari, C. A. (2012). Media Ecology: Exploring the Metaphor to Expand the Theory. Communication Theory, 22(2), 204-225. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2012.01404.x.


37

Scott, J., & Marshall, G. (2009). A Dictionary of Sociology. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/10.1093/acref/9780199533008. 001.0001/acref-9780199533008 doi:10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001. Sisson, P. W., & Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2014). Applying Mediumacy in Cyber Security. Sisson, P. W., & Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2015a). Improving Educational Guidelines. Sisson, P. W., & Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2015b). In Pursuit of Kennacy. Sisson, P. W., & Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2015c). What Do We Know? – Building a Knowledge Concept Map. Proceedings from ECKM 2015: 16th European Conference on Knowledge Management. Udine, Italy. Sisson, P. W., & Ryan, J., J.C.H. (2016, September 15, 2015). Towards a Unified Theory of Knowledge Management (KM). Paper presented at the 49th Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences. Skills for knowledge management: building a knowledge economy (TFPL) (1 870889 84 3). (1999). Retrieved from http://www.voced.edu.au/content/ngv11857. Sterne, J. (2003). Education and computers. In S. Jones (Ed.), Encyclopedia of new media: An essential reference to communication and technology (pp. 165-167). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412950657.n85. Strate, L. (1999). President's Message – Understanding MEA. In Media Res, 1(1). Retrieved from http://www.mediaecology.org/publications/In_Medias_Res/imrv1n1.html#President%C2%92s. Strate, L. (2002). Media ecology as a scholarly activity. Paper presented at the Third Annual Convention of the Media Ecology Association, Marymount Manhattan College.


38

Te’eni, D. (2011). Knowledge for Communicating Knowledge. In D. G. Schwartz & D. Te'eni (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 560-569). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1786800066&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=7f48b2ab701bb8765129a439d03cbeb3. Ternes, C. D. (2011). Confirming the Stankosky Knowledge Management Framework. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. (3479076). Tidline, T. J. (2002). Computer Literacy. In J. R. Schement (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Communication and Information (Vol. 1, pp. 161-165). New York: Macmillan Reference USA. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX3402900057&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=13e267785c594f19adce4dd2629e00e9. Todd, R. J., & Southon, G. (2001). Educating for a knowledge management future: perceptions of library and information professionals. The Australian Library Journal, 50(4), 313-326. doi:10.1080/00049670.2001.10755965. Tyner, K. (2007). Media Literacy, Aims and Purposes of. In J. J. Arnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media (pp. 524-526). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Retrieved from http://knowledge.sagepub.com.proxygw.wrlc.org/view/childmedia/n271.xml?rskey=wIj9 oq&row=7. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412952606.n271. Viet, L. (2004). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyveit1.htm at


39

http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyveit1.htm, October 5, 2015 (figures no longer display). Walsh, J. P., & Ungson, G. R. (1991). Organizational Memory. The Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 57-91. doi:10.2307/258607 Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged (MWU). (2013-5). Retrieved from http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/. Weg, A. (2004). Media Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomyweg.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomyweg.htm, October 5, 2015. What is Media Ecology? (2014). Retrieved from http://www.mediaecology.org/media_ecology/index.html. Whitehead, D. (2004). Non-Evolutionary Media Tree Taxonomy. Retrieved from http://hum.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/taxonomy/taxonomywhitehead.htm at http://csmt.uchicago.edu/taxonomy/taxonomywhitehead.htm, October 5, 2015. Wieneke, S., & Phlypo-Price, K. (2010). The Knowledge Management and Application Domain - An encompassing Knowledge Management framework. US: Enterprise Learning and Knowledge Awareness. Wijnhoven, F. (2011). Operational Knowledge Management. In D. G. Schwartz & D. Te'eni (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Knowledge Management (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1237-1249). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CCX1786800131&v=2.1&u=wash74137&i t=r&p=GVRL&sw=w&asid=d029bb1b7814052468ac5f5ee50b7cb4. Wilkinson, A. (1970). The concept of oracy. English journal, 59(1), 71-77. doi:10.2307/811736.


40

Xu, S. (2010). Cultural Literacies. In C. Kridel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Curriculum Studies (pp. 168-169). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxygw.wrlc.org/10.4135/9781412958806.n99.

Developing an Understanding of Knowledge ...

Developing an Understanding of Knowledge ...

Suggest Documents

Metamodeling Knowledge: Developing Students' Understanding of

Developing an Evaluation Framework of Spatial Understanding

DEVELOPING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE ... - NACSW

Developing an understanding of interorganizational systems ...

Developing an understanding of interorganizational systems ...

Developing an understanding of how network ...

challenges of developing an interactive knowledge ...

Understanding Online Knowledge Sharing: An ... - CiteSeerX

Theory of knowledge Understanding knowledge issues

Developing An UnDerstAnDing on the MoMent of Crisis ... - DergiPark

Developing an understanding of fatal child abuse ... - Children's Institute

An evolving approach to developing academics' understanding of ...

Developing an understanding of cross-protection by Citrus tristeza virus

Developing an understanding of cross-protection by ... - BioMedSearch

Developing an understanding of fatal child abuse ... - Children's Institute

Developing an Evaluation Framework of Spatial Understanding ... - rigeo

Developing an understanding of fatal child abuse and neglect: Results

Developing Translation Knowledge and...

Developing rich and quickly accessed knowledge of an ... - Springer Link

understanding knowledge sharing behavior: an examination of ... - Neliti

Understanding the Impact of Interruptions on Knowledge Work: An ...

Geographically Distributed Sensemaking: Developing Understanding ...

Developing Contextual Understanding of Information Security Risks

Developing understanding of mathematical modeling in secondary ...