I’ve been thinking some more about Bosco, the kid who knows all about meth labs and not a lot else.
It’s a problem that demands anthropology, ethnography, design thinking, strategy, marketing, several of the intellectual practices we now have on tap. (See the preliminary posts here and here.)
One approach: transfer the knowledge possessed by kids of privilege. So that Bosco does not suffer that pernicious disadvantage of constrained horizons or what we might call a “cosmopolitan gap.”
There’s an inclination to say, “Perfect! It’s a simple transfer. We find out what Tommy (child of privilege) knows and send this knowledge to Bosco.”
But of course it’s not this simple. Knowledge is not data organized according to a single scheme. It is not something that exists independent of communities and practices of knowledge.
So it’s NOT the case that Bosco’s knowledge of the world looks like this on a grid of knowledge. (B = the things on the grid of knowledge that Bosco grasps.)
Tommy’s richer knowledge of the world does NOT look like this:. (Where T would stand for the [many more] things Tommy understands.)
So it’s NOT the case that all we need to do is to communicate Tommy’s knowledge to Bosco.
Instead, knowledge is variously assembled and framed so that what is knowledge in one system may not show as knowledge in another system. Or knowledge in one system may show in another, but it takes on a new place or significance. This is an elaborate way of saying we don’t just need to know what Tommy knows but what Bosco knows. And then we have to build a translation table. Not a Rosetta stone, but something more complicated and calculating. Less a translation table, more a translation machine.
Notice that we are not taking the postmodernist bait and sliding into that sophomoric relativism that says Tommy and Bosco live in worlds so different that communication or transfer is impossible. This is good fun to debate in a university seminar. But when it used to frustrate our rescue mission, specious nonsense turns dangerous too.
Off the bat, I can see two ways that cultural creatives can help.
architecture of knowledge
This is what ethnography is for, after all. We can sit down, and capture the categories of Bosco’s knowledge, how these go together, what assumptions they rely on. We can build a rough model of the inside of Bosco’s head. And with this we can begin to figure out when, whether and how to begin the transfer of knowledge from Tommy to Bosco. We noted in previous post that this transfer will have real implications for Bosco’s relationships with friends and family, but that’s not the problem we are solving here. Our task is to discover what Bosco knows and the way he thinks and to use this to prepare the way for a transfer of knowledge.
visualization of knowledge
This is the really interesting part. And now I am at the edge of my competence. The idea here is to represent Bosco’s existing knowledge and to help Bosco see how new knowledge attaches. Because as we know knowledge is adhesive. This is why it’s easier to get knowledge if you have knowledge. And of course knowledge is also hierarchical. It’s hard to learn some things if you don’t already know other more general things.
This is a job for the designer, to create a visualization of what Bosco knows and to use that to introduce him to new knowledge and show how he can “attach” it to existing knowledge. Where necessary we will build some intermediating pieces of knowledge, so that Bosco can learn something for which his existing system of knowledge does not yet have points for adhesion. (Or we hold back knowledge until other knowledge is in place.)
Effectively, the cultural creatives will occupy a lab that might as well be called “the inside of Bosco’s head.” We will know what he knows, what he is ready to learn, and what he has to learn to learn something new. We will constantly be working on a grand visualization that helps Bosco assimilate new and useful Tommy knowledge.
These are thoughts only. Your comments, please!