Types and uses of PKM
I was thinking about PKMs, their types and uses and came up with the approach below and wanted to try these ideas out for size......
A PKM is defined as follows:
Personal knowledge management (PKM) is a process of collecting information that a person uses to gather, classify, store, search, retrieve and share knowledge in their daily activities (Grundspenkis 2007) and the way in which these processes support work activities (Wright 2005) - Personal knowledge management - Wikipedia
Alternative Definitions and Roles
An alternative definition for Personal Knowledge Management would be to define a PKM by its use. Looking at the definition of a Zettelkasten, we have:
A Zettelkasten is a personal tool for thinking and writing. It has hyper-textual features which enables the creation of networked thoughts. The difference to other systems is that a network of thoughts is created, instead of categories of notes (of arbitrary size and form). The emphasis being on connection, rather than collection - Zettelkasten.de.
Using these definitions, we can conclude that there are two fundamental types of PKM:
1. Based on the philosophy of Luhmann's Zettelkasten i.e. a tool for thinking and the use of networked ideas to create emergent thoughts, and
2. A tool for the collection, organisation and categorisation of information i.e. facts that is archived and may be retrieved to support various activities.
In other words:
- The PKM based on networked thoughts could be considered as an 'Active PKM'. Its purpose being the generation of emergent ideas, and
- The Organisational PKM could be considered as a 'Passive PKM' for the archiving and retrieval of facts.
Howdy, Stranger!
Comments
A useful distinction. In regard to the latter, I've found various methods for organizing and categorizing that are quite effective (and the process of categorization itself helps you to think about the information), but I haven't found one yet that was very good at retrieving information - at least, not until some sort of keyword or tag system came along, to supplement the normal categorization process.
But that's why I like a ZK - it can combine three ways of accessing information:
When you combine 1 and 3 or 2 and 3, you get a very powerful way of finding information in your ZK. For example, Structure notes provide one or several ways of accessing a certain topic in your ZK (they act as "entry points" into your ZK), and then following links from the first zettel thus accessed provides the real insight into the entirety of your information.
I don't quite understand the distinction you're making here. I look at my own implementation of the PKM and see (1) and (2) as one and the same. It's a tool for the collection, organization and categorization of knowledge so that I can then use it to solve problems or achieve outcomes more effectively.
(1) uses, and depends on an effective implementation of (2)
A passive PKM is purely for the archiving / curating of facts and an a PKM, such as Luhmann's Zettelkasten, stores ideas and is used to actively generate more ideas. These are the extremes and there is everything in between.
My purpose for the theorising is to develop a mental model for myself.
In actual fact, I have a hybrid PKM split between Reference, Literature Notes and Zettels, and use your three methods for access as follows:
Heading you off at the pass.... My difference between Tags and Keywords is the degree of tailoring to that particular note..... the degree to which it is bound to that note. The looser the association the closer to categorisation, it becomes a tag; conversely the more specific the association, it becomes a Keyword. On reflection producing a Keyword requires significantly more thought than a Tag. hence confined to Zettels, where it is of most use.
It seems to me that the "active" system is almost impossible to create without create also a passive system to support the active part.
Luhmann's Zettelkasten was an example of an active system that had very limited value as a passive system. At least, compared to what we have digitally now.
I am a Zettler
Yes I would agree, but I keep it segregated .... to minimise the 'collectors syndrome.'
On further reflection.... historically PKM's have in the main been passive, as books were expensive and relevant information hard to come by.... hence the practice of maintaining a commonplace book to capture these nuggets of information. I suppose no real progress was made until PKM apps became adequate and gave birth to the active PKM.
How does it look in practice?
I am not so sure about that. There is Twyla Tharp's Box as well as Eminem's box. Luhmann's Zettelkasten, of course. And Arno Schmidt's ZK.
I guess we'd have to ask the Archivist @chrisaldrich who would be the best address for checking historical incidences of active systems.
I am a Zettler
Consult the Archivist by all means, however the historical perspective that I was conveying was a little more distant than Eminem - see commonplace book
Almost every well known writer/composer/creative throughout history had some sort of note taking or knowledge system of one sort or another (florilegium, commonplace books, notebooks, diaries, journals, zettelkasten, waste books, mnemonic techniques, etc.), which would put them into your "active" category. I think you'd be hard put to come up with evidence of a "sudden" emergence of an "active" PKM system beyond the choice of individual users to actively do something with their collections or not.
If you want to go more distant than Eminem, try looking closely at Ramon Llull's practice in the 11th century, or Homer in the c. 8th century BCE. Or to go much, much farther back, there's solid evidence that indigenous peoples in Australia had what you call both passive and active PKM systems as far back as 65,000 years ago. These are still in use today. Naturally these were not written, but used what anthropologists call orality. (See Walter Ong, Milman Parry, Lynne Kelly, Margo Neale, Duane Hamacher, et al.)
website | digital slipbox 🗃️🖋️