Free Trial

Safari Books Online is a digital library providing on-demand subscription access to thousands of learning resources.

Share this Page URL
Help

REALITY > REALITY - Pg. 56

Challenging our Assumptions how we know what we know. It is reminiscent of Nonaka and Takeuchi's "dynamic model of knowledge management, view[ing] knowledge as activity rather than object and focus on knowledge creation, collaboration and practice" (Chatti, M. A., Klamma, R., Jarke, M. & Naeve, A., 2007). It also brings to mind David Gurteen's (1998) paradigm busting question: "what is the relation- ship of our knowledge to reality?" I implied earlier that trust, assumption, and reality were part of my socialization as a scientist- practitioner (that is, psychologist). Trust being requisite to change and assumptions being cogni- tive biases that shape our sense of reality. How does one speak of reality? I am partial to a socially constructed view of it -- a la Jerome Bruner (1990) & Kenneth Gergen (1991). We tend to privilege our sense of what is real and omit what does not fit our mental schema. How does one speak of reality in a way that is not abstract but instead phenomenological? I guess we speak our experi- ence of "reality" -- writing this chapter with two trusted and respected colleagues has been real. Particularly rewarding is the idea that this is not an ending but a beginning. My colleagues came up with the idea of a living chapter perhaps pay- ing homage to post modernism. In other words, our conversations continue and you can become part of it. Reality. Really. For Sal reality is a beginning and not a con- clusion. When the philosopher Martin Heidegger (1926) said: "reality, not the real is dependent upon care," he was in part referencing the Ger- man words, sorg or, besorgen, which can mean taking care with the affairs of our lives. What is real we do not change. Reality is something we share and can affect. We do not want to arrive at a conclusion for our contribution to this book. Rather, it is our intention to provide a beginning and offer readers the ability to carry this conversation forward. Looking into the future depends on what we talk about now. A long time ago, when I was working on a series of videos to look into the future of commu- nication, I was mentored about the democratiza- tion of technology. In fact, I was taken to task to make certain that I did not engage anyone in the creation of these videos who did not understand "the reality" and importance of such probing into where we were going. It was pointed out to me, that legislators in our world needed to view seri- ous perspectives on where technology and social knowledge were headed. That, in fact, they may have little insight when creating regulatory laws. They needed to question their own assumptions to truly understand how technology affects the most fundamental needs of our lives. It was 1990 when I worked on these films. At that time, it was very difficult for such technical references to appear plausible on screen. Prob- lems occurred such as showing a future computer screen on film, which was almost impossible without waving lines and looking like an old sci- ence fiction movie. There was one guy who had developed a technology to overcome this. He was jurisdictional, a control type, and really annoying. We were focusing on future problem solving (in 1990 and projecting beyond 2010) on issues such as surgeons confronting sudden and new problems while operating. It is fascinating to look back and see these films, forecasting doctors using video casting or IM to find expertise during a critical moment in a surgery. Medical professionals, speeding up diagnosis based on accurate history through electronic medical records, as opposed to taking time to ask the same questions of patients over and over again. Getting this cinematic challenge accomplished required the expertise of this one very difficult person who could actually make the picture look plausible. The irony about describing the future of collaboration and needing the skill of someone who had no interest in collaborating was a work- ing reality that was very frustrating. 56