Prácticas de Creación de conocimiento y los diferentes tipos de “ba” en el programa de “Aprende en Casa con Maloka”
Knowledge Creation Practices and the different types of "ba" in the "Learn at Home with Maloka" program
Práticas de Criação de Conhecimento e os diferentes tipos de "ba" no programa "Aprenda em Casa com Maloka"
Resumen (es)
En la búsqueda de certezas sobre el comportamiento del Centro Interactivo-Maloka en Bogotá, Colombia, en relación con la creación de conocimiento desde el enfoque de “ba” como espacio de conocimiento, nuestra intención es identificar los diferentes tipos de “ba” teniendo en cuenta la frecuencia y las estrategias que los reafirman en el diseño, desarrollo y contextualización del programa “Aprende en casa con Maloka”, en el cual participaron los investigadores del Centro de Ciencia, los empleados de la Secretaría de Educación, docentes, rectores, niños, niñas y familias de varias localidades de Bogotá. La importancia de este proyecto radica en las evidencias sobre las brechas de acceso a recursos educativos de calidad que fortalezcan y complementen los ambientes de aprendizaje, ya que estas brechas continúan siendo una necesidad latente en nuestro sistema educativo. Esta brecha se debe a que en Colombia se destina solo el 1,7% del gasto a la renovación y mejoramiento de la infraestructura, incluidos los recursos educativos para los ambientes de aprendizaje, mientras que en los demás países miembros de la OCDE se destina el 7%. Para la obtención de la información y los conocimientos, hemos utilizado entrevistas cualitativas y semiestructuradas en profundidad con los diferentes actores que participaron en todo el proceso. La operacionalización de la investigación se llevó a cabo sobre la base de la sistematización entre los elementos conceptuales, los aportes de los autores y las variables correspondientes que se presentan en la metodología. Según los hallazgos, encontramos diferentes tipos de “ba”, por ejemplo: Tipos y cantidad de ba originadores: reuniones cara a cara, formación y capacitación, reuniones sociales y espacios electrónicos informales; Tipos y cantidad de ba dialogantes: encuentros formales, comités, toma de decisiones estratégicas y desarrollo de estrategias; Tipos y cantidad de ba sistemáticos: espacios de comunicación electrónica; Tipos y cantidad de ba ejercidos: diseño para fortalecer las prácticas pedagógicas para la internalización y el aprendizaje, desarrollo de nuevos conceptos y recursos educativos, sistematización del proceso del programa Aprende en Casa con Maloka y desarrollo de actividades con los niños, niñas y familias.
Resumen (en)
In the search for certainties about the behavior of the Interactive Center-Maloka in Bogotá, Colombia, in relation to the creation of knowledge from the approach of “ba” as a knowledge space, our intention is to identify the different types of “ba” taking into account counts the frequency and strategies that reaffirm them in the design, development and contextualization of the “Learn at home with Maloka” program, in which researchers from the Science Center, employees of the Ministry of Education, teachers, principals, children participated. , girls and families from various locations in Bogotá. The importance of this project lies in the evidence on the gaps in access to quality educational resources that strengthen and complement learning environments, since these gaps continue to be a latent need in our educational system. This gap is because in Colombia only 1.7% of spending is allocated to the renewal and improvement of infrastructure, including educational resources for learning environments, while in the other OECD member countries the 7%. To obtain information and knowledge, we have used in-depth qualitative and semi-structured interviews with the different actors who participated in the entire process. The operationalization of the research was carried out because of the systematization between the conceptual elements, the contributions of the authors and the corresponding variables presented in the methodology. According to the findings, we find different types of “ba”, for example: Types and number of ba originators: face-to-face meetings, training and training, social gatherings and informal electronic spaces, Types and number of dialogue partners: formal meetings, committees, strategic decision making and strategy development, Types and quantity of systematic ba: electronic communication spaces, Types and amount of ba exercised: design to strengthen pedagogical practices for internalization and learning, development of new concepts and educational resources, systematization of the Learn at Home with Maloka program process and development of activities with children and families.
Resumen (pt)
Na busca por certezas sobre o comportamento do Centro Interativo-Maloka de Bogotá, Colômbia, em relação à criação de conhecimento a partir da abordagem do “ba” como espaço de conhecimento, nossa intenção é identificar os diferentes tipos de “ba” tendo em conta conta a frequência e estratégias que os reafirmam na concepção, desenvolvimento e contextualização do programa “Aprenda em casa com Maloka”, no qual participaram investigadores do Centro de Ciências, funcionários do Ministério da Educação, professores, diretores, crianças , meninas e famílias de vários locais de Bogotá. A importância deste projeto reside na evidência das lacunas no acesso a recursos educativos de qualidade que fortaleçam e complementem os ambientes de aprendizagem, uma vez que essas lacunas continuam a ser uma necessidade latente no nosso sistema educativo. Esta lacuna deve-se ao facto de na Colômbia apenas 1,7% dos gastos serem atribuídos à renovação e melhoria das infra-estruturas, incluindo recursos educativos para ambientes de aprendizagem, enquanto nos outros países membros da OCDE os 7%. Para obter informação e conhecimento, utilizamos entrevistas qualitativas em profundidade e semiestruturadas com os diferentes atores que participaram de todo o processo. A operacionalização da pesquisa foi realizada a partir da sistematização entre os elementos conceituais, as contribuições dos autores e as variáveis correspondentes apresentadas na metodologia. De acordo com os resultados, encontramos diferentes tipos de “ba”, por exemplo: Tipos e número de originadores de ba: reuniões presenciais, treinamentos e treinamentos, confraternizações e espaços eletrônicos informais; Tipos e número de parceiros de diálogo: reuniões formais, comités, tomada de decisões estratégicas e desenvolvimento de estratégias; Tipos e quantidade de ba sistemáticos: espaços de comunicação eletrônica; Tipos e quantidade de ba exercidos: desenho para fortalecer práticas pedagógicas de internalização e aprendizagem, desenvolvimento de novos conceitos e recursos educacionais, sistematização do processo do programa Aprenda em Casa com Maloka e desenvolvimento de atividades com crianças e famílias.
Referencias
Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108
Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D. E., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588000
Canestrino, R. (2004). Cross-border knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances: From cultural variations to asymmetric learning process. Proceedings of I-KNOW’04. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.4935&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3, 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210448297
Corno, F., Reinmoeller, P., & Nonaka, I. (1999). Knowledge creation within industrial systems. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(4), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009936712733
Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Colciencias. (2017). Creación y fortalecimiento de los centros de ciencia (1st ed.). Bogotá, Colombia.
Einsiedel, A. A., & Einsiedel, E. F. (2004). Museums as agora: Diversifying approaches to engaging publics in research. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, & B. V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 73-86). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507077512
Eskildsen, J. K., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Norgaard, A. (1999). The impact of creativity and learning on business excellence. Total Quality Management, 10(4-5), 523-530.
Fayard, P. M. (2003). Strategic communities for knowledge creation: A western proposal for Japanese concept of Ba. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310505359
Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S., & Everett, G. (2016). Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. https://www.ukeof.org.uk/resources/citizen-science-resources/MotivationsforCSREPORTFINALMay2016.pdf
Grant, R. M. (1996a). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110
Graumann, C. (1990). Introducción a una historia de la psicología social. In M. Hewstone, W. Strobe, J. Codol, & G. Stephenson (Eds.), Introducción a la psicología social: Una perspectiva europea (pp. 21-35). Barcelona: Ariel.
Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.co/books/about/Knowledge_Creation_and_Management.html?id=71lMIxdKif4C&redir_esc=y
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com.co/books/about/Mental_Models.html?id=FS3zSKAfLGMC&redir_esc=y
Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383
Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Bettis, R. (1996). Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90024-0
Michelis, G. (2001). Cooperation and knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge emergence (pp. 124-144). Oxford University Press.
Nelson, R. R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(8), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121006
Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980KD04600001.pdf
Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
Nonaka, I. (2011). Wise leader: Building communities of sustainable innovation. Harvard Business Review (May), 3-11.
Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. https://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf
Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge emergence. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195130638
Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A firm as a dialectical being: Toward a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 995-1009.
Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective-tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635-652. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0412
Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. (2001). Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization. Sage Publication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235700804_Managing_Industrial_Knowledge_Creation_Transfer_and_Utilization
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2002). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. In S. Little, P. Quintas, & T. Ray (Eds.), Managing knowledge an essential reader (pp. 41-67). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6
Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606066312
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://www.philpapers.org/archive/POLTTO
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-30763-X_14
Rosenfeld, S. A. (1997). Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development. European Planning Studies, 5(1), 3-23.
Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In E. Salas & R. W. Swezey (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex.
Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 26, 213-242. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132331
Soo, C., Devinney, T., & Midgley, A. (2002). Knowledge management: Philosophy, processes and pitfalls. California Management Review, 44(4), 129-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166146
Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217-233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20060526
Suchman, L. (1985). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press. http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/xerox/parc/techReports/ISL-6_Plans_and_Situated_Actions.pdf
Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘co-opetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536
Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195126167.001.0001}
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Revista Interamericana de Investigación Educación y Pedagogía RIIEP
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Los autores mantienen los derechos sobre los artículos y por tanto son libres de compartir, copiar, distribuir, ejecutar y comunicar públicamente la obra bajo las condiciones siguientes:
Reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciante (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o que apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).
RIIEP está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)
La Universidad Santo Tomás conserva los derechos patrimoniales de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia anteriormente mencionada.