A KNOWLEDGE DOMAIN
At INNOVERSITY COPENHAGEN we define a "difference" as a knowledgeable identity domains, which makes diversity being about the use of several domains at the same
time.
What if ALL available "differences" in a group (such as gender, profession, discipline, generation, cultural identity etc) are perceived to represent not only a certain identity, but also a certain
domain of knowledge, thus labelling all such possible differences as "knowledgeable identity domains".
Secondly, what if these different domains were all merely perceived to be "available" to a group, and exist only latently; thus, need to be actively leveraged and used for combination and exchange (innovation practice) within the group?
Thirdly, what if each "knowledgeable identity domain" is viewed as "coated" with an outer layer of identity, which needs to be permeable if the group is to "get access" to the available knowledge (here defined as perspectives and heuristics) underneath this coated layer?
The thickness of the coating (i.e. whether it is permeable or not) is interpreted by the degree of interpersonal (or intergroup) congruence (Poltzer, 2002) in the group, i.e. high degree of intergroup congruence provides for a thin, thus, permeable identity coating, whereas a high degree of intergroup incongruence provides for a thicker, thus, impermeable identity coating.
An example of this is the engineer who specialises in the application and usage of a particular technology (let's call it technology Y). He spends his whole career working with different aspects of technology Y, and being an expert in using it -- a well-known expert within the national technology Y community. When he is working with or talking about technology Y, one can easily hear how the perspectives and heuristics he is using become an important part of who he is.
One important part of this knowledgeable identity domain associated with technology Y is how highly he not only thinks of the technology itself, but also the company developing the technology. He describes himself as a skilled and competent practitioner within the domain of technology Y (self view), and describes the usage and application of this technology as
one of the key competitive advantages of his company.
A group in which several group members would describe (through appraisals) the technology in a manner which is highly incongruent with his view of the technology would, over time, bring about a thickening of the identity coating (of the technology Y knowledgeable identity domain), which would eventually prevent him from combining and exchanging perspectives and heuristics, and instead, merely cause him to engage in the exchange of identity affirming claims.
DEFINING THE KNOWLEDGEABLE IDENTITY DOMAIN
The term "domain" is used here to describe a specific area of knowledge and expertise of an expert system. The term "identity domain" is used to indicate the "availability" of a particular set of different identity domains within a group. The available knowledgeable identity domains within a group each represent a unique set of perspectives (cognition and values) and a unique set of heuristics (skills and abilities) - coated by identity.
Each domain is defined to have its own set of relatively autonomous micro-cosmos or competence regime, each defining what competent participation is within this particular domain, defined by particular rules, norms, values, and interests, and the sharing of a unique set of perspectives and heuristics. The shared negotiation of the competence regime within each domain, the regime "defining the domain" can also be described using Giddens (1984) who defines the particular competence regime as a fluid and re-negotiable structure constructing both possibilities and limitations for the practitioners within this particular domain.
In this view, a domain prescribes and commands a particular set of continually negotiated rules and resources, which the practitioner draws upon in the production and reproduction of social life, and also the production of the competence regime within the domain.
Rules defining the domain and "sanctioned" by the regime of competence within a given domain are understood very broadly, as Wittgenstein defined them as skills and formula embedded in practice and in our actions. Rules, as they are negotiated by the competence regime, thus. refer to Wittgenstein's (1953) formula or grammar, i.e. "how to go on in social life".
But before getting too deep into this discussion, let us first have a quick look at how to analyse the knowledgeable identity domains, by taking a closer look at their mutually constructive components, i.e. the unique set of perspectives and heuristics that I propose each knowledgeable identity domain to represent.
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES
Perspective, as it is used in the context of the domain, is defined as a particular context or a reference from which to sense, categorize, measure, or codify experience, and is used for forming a coherent belief or assumption about a particular situation (Hong & Page, 2004).
Another useful term for describing what is meant by domain-specific perspectives is "point of view", or maybe even "weltanschauung". When proposing that every knowledgeable identity domain possesses a unique set of perspectives, it is insisted that such perspective rests on a certain value system and paradigm, thus, unavoidably, an associated belief system.
Perspectives in this sense can be used to define what someone knows about himself, and describes beliefs, perceptions, ideals, values, and emotions as they are constructed in conversations within the domain. When a diversity of different knowledgeable identity domains are able to co-exist within a group, this may lead to the availability and salience of multiple conflicting perspectives, and ensure that group members "approach problems and
decisions drawing on different information, from different angles, and with different attitudes" (Sessa, Jackson & Rabani, 1995).
Senge (1991) uses the term mental model to describe a particular set of perspectives associated with a particular domain. This can also be applied and used in interpreting and defining the unique perspectives of a knowledgeable identity domain as "deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behaviour" (Senge, 1991:8).
Thus, when claiming that every (salient) knowledgeable identity domain represents a unique set of perspectives, it may, when made salient in a group setting, provide for multiple interpretations of a particular situation or problem at hand, when such diversity is actively made salient within the group, and exchanged and combined among group members.
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC HEURISTICS (SKILLS AND ABILITIES)
In psychology, simple, efficient rules, hard-coded by processes of learning and experience are called heuristics. These propose to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information (Hong & Page, 2004).
Professional practice cannot do without heuristics. Perspectives are used to understand a particular situation or problem, whilst heuristics are the unique set of skills possessed within a knowledgeable identity domain and can be used to apply to the problem and eventually solve it. Heuristics here is also used as a term describing how individuals become competent practitioners in a given domain through a process of legitimate peripheral participation, in which they learn to master the unique set of skills and competences.
A unique set of heuristics, thus, describes a certain repository of technical knowledge, skills, and experience. According to Drucker (1993:24), "the only way to master new heuristics is through apprenticeship and experience", because many skills and abilities will usually be tacitly possessed. This non-codifiable character of a set of heuristics often represents difficulties when the "owner" seeks to articulate the principles behind the heuristics.
In order to realize the potential diversity of heuristics within a group, a certain degree of similarity of shared language can be important for the group to be able to exchange and combine different heuristics. "A group is more likely to be cohesive and productive to the extent that group members have diverse task-related skills and similar work-related values" (Raghuram &
Garud, 1996:161).
"COATING" OF THE KNOWLEDGEABLE IDENTITY DOMAIN
This part of the definition of the knowledgeable identity domain especially evolved from struggling with making sense of the patterns of interaction in some of the groups. In some of the groups, group members simply refrained from making use of most of the available knowledgeable identity domains in the group.
When any of these domains were actually made visible within the group, all they ended up leveraging was the identity pertaining to that domain, without seemingly being able to benefit from the unique set of perspectives and heuristics pertaining to that domain.
It seemed that the groups would only engage in combination and exchange of identity-affirming preferences. Group members would often collaborate and present their arguments based solely on identity affirming statements (identity claims), seemingly without being able to either explore or even exploit any of the resilient perspectives or heuristics. This meant that the shared domain was only rarely challenged, as only few knowledgeable identity domains were ever made salient in the group.
Using this new approach now allowed for an interpretation in which the construction of diversity in innovation practice could possibly be difficult, in accordance with Polzer et al (2002), because of a high degree of interdomain incongruence amongst the domains in the group.
Secondly, what if these different domains were all merely perceived to be "available" to a group, and exist only latently; thus, need to be actively leveraged and used for combination and exchange (innovation practice) within the group?
Thirdly, what if each "knowledgeable identity domain" is viewed as "coated" with an outer layer of identity, which needs to be permeable if the group is to "get access" to the available knowledge (here defined as perspectives and heuristics) underneath this coated layer?
The thickness of the coating (i.e. whether it is permeable or not) is interpreted by the degree of interpersonal (or intergroup) congruence (Poltzer, 2002) in the group, i.e. high degree of intergroup congruence provides for a thin, thus, permeable identity coating, whereas a high degree of intergroup incongruence provides for a thicker, thus, impermeable identity coating.
An example of this is the engineer who specialises in the application and usage of a particular technology (let's call it technology Y). He spends his whole career working with different aspects of technology Y, and being an expert in using it -- a well-known expert within the national technology Y community. When he is working with or talking about technology Y, one can easily hear how the perspectives and heuristics he is using become an important part of who he is.
One important part of this knowledgeable identity domain associated with technology Y is how highly he not only thinks of the technology itself, but also the company developing the technology. He describes himself as a skilled and competent practitioner within the domain of technology Y (self view), and describes the usage and application of this technology as
one of the key competitive advantages of his company.
A group in which several group members would describe (through appraisals) the technology in a manner which is highly incongruent with his view of the technology would, over time, bring about a thickening of the identity coating (of the technology Y knowledgeable identity domain), which would eventually prevent him from combining and exchanging perspectives and heuristics, and instead, merely cause him to engage in the exchange of identity affirming claims.
DEFINING THE KNOWLEDGEABLE IDENTITY DOMAIN
The term "domain" is used here to describe a specific area of knowledge and expertise of an expert system. The term "identity domain" is used to indicate the "availability" of a particular set of different identity domains within a group. The available knowledgeable identity domains within a group each represent a unique set of perspectives (cognition and values) and a unique set of heuristics (skills and abilities) - coated by identity.
Each domain is defined to have its own set of relatively autonomous micro-cosmos or competence regime, each defining what competent participation is within this particular domain, defined by particular rules, norms, values, and interests, and the sharing of a unique set of perspectives and heuristics. The shared negotiation of the competence regime within each domain, the regime "defining the domain" can also be described using Giddens (1984) who defines the particular competence regime as a fluid and re-negotiable structure constructing both possibilities and limitations for the practitioners within this particular domain.
In this view, a domain prescribes and commands a particular set of continually negotiated rules and resources, which the practitioner draws upon in the production and reproduction of social life, and also the production of the competence regime within the domain.
Rules defining the domain and "sanctioned" by the regime of competence within a given domain are understood very broadly, as Wittgenstein defined them as skills and formula embedded in practice and in our actions. Rules, as they are negotiated by the competence regime, thus. refer to Wittgenstein's (1953) formula or grammar, i.e. "how to go on in social life".
But before getting too deep into this discussion, let us first have a quick look at how to analyse the knowledgeable identity domains, by taking a closer look at their mutually constructive components, i.e. the unique set of perspectives and heuristics that I propose each knowledgeable identity domain to represent.
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC PERSPECTIVES
Perspective, as it is used in the context of the domain, is defined as a particular context or a reference from which to sense, categorize, measure, or codify experience, and is used for forming a coherent belief or assumption about a particular situation (Hong & Page, 2004).
Another useful term for describing what is meant by domain-specific perspectives is "point of view", or maybe even "weltanschauung". When proposing that every knowledgeable identity domain possesses a unique set of perspectives, it is insisted that such perspective rests on a certain value system and paradigm, thus, unavoidably, an associated belief system.
Perspectives in this sense can be used to define what someone knows about himself, and describes beliefs, perceptions, ideals, values, and emotions as they are constructed in conversations within the domain. When a diversity of different knowledgeable identity domains are able to co-exist within a group, this may lead to the availability and salience of multiple conflicting perspectives, and ensure that group members "approach problems and
decisions drawing on different information, from different angles, and with different attitudes" (Sessa, Jackson & Rabani, 1995).
Senge (1991) uses the term mental model to describe a particular set of perspectives associated with a particular domain. This can also be applied and used in interpreting and defining the unique perspectives of a knowledgeable identity domain as "deeply ingrained assumptions, generalisations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action. Very often, we are not consciously aware of our mental models or the effects they have on our behaviour" (Senge, 1991:8).
Thus, when claiming that every (salient) knowledgeable identity domain represents a unique set of perspectives, it may, when made salient in a group setting, provide for multiple interpretations of a particular situation or problem at hand, when such diversity is actively made salient within the group, and exchanged and combined among group members.
DOMAIN-SPECIFIC HEURISTICS (SKILLS AND ABILITIES)
In psychology, simple, efficient rules, hard-coded by processes of learning and experience are called heuristics. These propose to explain how people make decisions, come to judgments, and solve problems, typically when facing complex problems or incomplete information (Hong & Page, 2004).
Professional practice cannot do without heuristics. Perspectives are used to understand a particular situation or problem, whilst heuristics are the unique set of skills possessed within a knowledgeable identity domain and can be used to apply to the problem and eventually solve it. Heuristics here is also used as a term describing how individuals become competent practitioners in a given domain through a process of legitimate peripheral participation, in which they learn to master the unique set of skills and competences.
A unique set of heuristics, thus, describes a certain repository of technical knowledge, skills, and experience. According to Drucker (1993:24), "the only way to master new heuristics is through apprenticeship and experience", because many skills and abilities will usually be tacitly possessed. This non-codifiable character of a set of heuristics often represents difficulties when the "owner" seeks to articulate the principles behind the heuristics.
In order to realize the potential diversity of heuristics within a group, a certain degree of similarity of shared language can be important for the group to be able to exchange and combine different heuristics. "A group is more likely to be cohesive and productive to the extent that group members have diverse task-related skills and similar work-related values" (Raghuram &
Garud, 1996:161).
"COATING" OF THE KNOWLEDGEABLE IDENTITY DOMAIN
This part of the definition of the knowledgeable identity domain especially evolved from struggling with making sense of the patterns of interaction in some of the groups. In some of the groups, group members simply refrained from making use of most of the available knowledgeable identity domains in the group.
When any of these domains were actually made visible within the group, all they ended up leveraging was the identity pertaining to that domain, without seemingly being able to benefit from the unique set of perspectives and heuristics pertaining to that domain.
It seemed that the groups would only engage in combination and exchange of identity-affirming preferences. Group members would often collaborate and present their arguments based solely on identity affirming statements (identity claims), seemingly without being able to either explore or even exploit any of the resilient perspectives or heuristics. This meant that the shared domain was only rarely challenged, as only few knowledgeable identity domains were ever made salient in the group.
Using this new approach now allowed for an interpretation in which the construction of diversity in innovation practice could possibly be difficult, in accordance with Polzer et al (2002), because of a high degree of interdomain incongruence amongst the domains in the group.