***According to Ed Swanstrom, KM has been studied as a science since the
1800s starting with Franz Boas (i.e. A or AA = KM??) I may have missed
out on developments in applied anthropology during the past few years, but
as a Fellow of the Society for Applied Anthropology, I have never seen
anthropologists use the vernacular of KM. Perhaps Ed's point is based on
the notion that KM is just a label and that substantively anthropologists
have focused on the same issues that concern KM specialists today.
However, I think there are several conceptual and methodological
differences that need to be recognized.
For example, anthropologists would not presume that organizations 'have
culture'; rather organizations are cultures. To take the former view
leads to presumptions such as - some organizations have more culture than
others, culture can be measured, culture is either good or bad.
***Anthropology is the study of cultures (human social systems) - how they
function (static), and how they have come to be the way they are
(dynamic/process).
***Anthropology is not a theoretically homogenous discipline; there are
many schools of thought. The cluster of Boas, Mead, and Benedict
represent one tradition - classical ethnography. Comparisons between KM
and AA might work better within the framework of a materialist view as
represented in the work of Marvin Harris.
***AA is a 20th century label spawned by the work of Sol Tax and his
action research with the Fox Indians. AA became better known during WWII
when many anthropologists worked for the Federal government in the
American war against the Japanese. AA is not mainstream A.
regards,
Tony DiBella
www.orgtransitions.com
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>