This week, I run the second prototype of Strategic IA workshopAnd I evolve some of the ideal work ideas. This is typical of how ideas take shape, with the wide initial landscape, in something more structured, but seeking to preserve the most dynamic collaborative spaces of this structure.
Overall, the first prototype went well, but as I expected, I destroyed too much and so I lacked time towards the end. For this iteration, I am more closely concentrated on three central activities: consider the “ epistemic fracture ” (a light analytical framework to move our general discomfort towards insight), “thought and manufacturing” (which explores thought and artifacts of the higher order, and the value of our larger lenses and organizational msters), and finally “tensions”. I realize that it may not yet have much sense: I am completely on a member with it, but I start at least to clarify the structure and the experience (at least in my own head).
The “epistemic fracture” is really a key decision point for any leader operating in gray, in an indefinite period of change. We must maintain the ability to operate in a conception inherited from “truth”, while exploring several potential alternative interpretations. This requires a deliberate strategy for “creating meaning” and disruption. A desire to maintain ambiguity and to engage through difference and dissent.
An “epistem” is an underlying structure of knowledge and “realization” within a period and a cultural context. The epide elimation which can be known.
An epistem forms the “rules of the game” for knowledge, but is largely invisible for those who are there.
There is no truth arbiter except what we choose to believe.
The epismes persist not because they are intrinsically “true”, but rather by consensus (belief) and structurally codified forces (within our systems and institutions). They are even anchored in our construction environments and our belief systems.
An epistem does not simply concern the “truth”, but rather the power – which can define what is “true”. It is a question of knowing whose voice is understood, which indicates why the type of paradigmatic change that we enter is so difficult, because it cancels many of the fundamental principles on which our social context is constructed.
It may seem too philosophical, but is actually a fairly pragmatic characteristic. This directly concerns central questions, such as: what is the truth, what is confidence, what are our resources, what do we consume, what do we create, what do we have, what are our rights and how are we recognized or rewarded?
I will share more about this tomorrow when the second iteration takes shape.
At Learnopoly, Finn has championed a mission to deliver unbiased, in-depth reviews of online courses that empower learners to make well-informed decisions. With over a decade of experience in financial services, he has honed his expertise in strategic partnerships and business development, cultivating both a sharp analytical perspective and a collaborative spirit. A lifelong learner, Finn’s commitment to creating a trusted guide for online education was ignited by a frustrating encounter with biased course reviews.