A bland review of a meainingless term. Knowledge work. I swear they just make these things up.

Posted by: on February 22, 2003 06:59 AM

---

 

"Chief Editor of elearningpost, "an intelligent digest of daily links to articles and news stories about Corporate Learning, Community Building, Instructional Design, Knowledge Management, Personalization and more."

Fancypants words for "he blogs".

Posted by: on February 22, 2003 08:46 AM

---

 

I agree with the posts above (particularly the first). The sad part is this guy may have some useful things to say about learning but having to trudge through the gobbledygook makes it impossible to know. Take for instance the following quote:

"It's interesting to observe that most elearningpost readers share a similar philosophy--learning as emergent--with regards to learning in general and e-learning in specific."

What exactly does it mean to say 'learning is emergent'? As opposed to what? The rest of the sentence "with regards to..." says nothing either. These are just 'high-falutin' sounding words that are meant to impress while conveying no meaning whatsoever.

And what does the following mean?

"Unless we start empathizing with the values and meaning our knowledge workers attach to their work, we are going to go around in circles."

Do all 'knowledge workers' attach the same value and meaning to their work? Does this mean we have to empathize with all of them? What if we disapprove of their values and the meaning they subscribe to their work? What then? Just what is he talking about here?

Posted by: on February 22, 2003 09:12 AM

---

 

"Just what is he talking about here?"

If knowledge work actually worked, you wouldn't have to ask these questions. You'd know. That's the test of knowledge work.

This fails.

Posted by: on February 22, 2003 07:28 PM

---