a reflection on the definition and evaluation of knowledge creation processes
Development in the academy can be seen as a continuing act of reducing rhetorical distance between the individual scholar's knowledge and accepted knowledge shared in discourse communities through identification as discussed by Burke (1969). This accepted knowledge can be understood in terms of "public knowledge" as discussed by Miller (1982), and the language used for engaging in the action of practicing science as a member of the community "shorthand for situations" from Burke's discussion of entitlement in Language as Symbolic Action. In the shared situations inherent to participation in knowledge creation processes, an element of personal knowledge (Polyani, 1958) on behalf of the participants as individuals can be understood to be present as well, reflected in Burke's notion of "terministic screens," which, in turn, plays a key role in selecting and deflecting ideas as a reductive process at the individual level. Approaching knowledge from an individual perspective necessarily implies division. However, these two processes blur in Burke according to Ciesielski (1999). Bringing together community based entitlement as "shorthand for situations" as a productive knowledge process with the personal, reductive language process inherent in terministic screens offers an opening to reflect on both the definition and evaluation of knowledge creation processes in Ph.d. education. Although entitlement and terministic screens appear to be opposing processes, they can be understood to intersect in the formation of a scholar who must at once be accepted by the community for following genre conventions and disciplinary lines of thought as well as be the contributor of work that is original in nature. Thus, the definition and evaluation of knowledge creation processes depends on a combination of reductive and productive language practices. To approach these knowledge creation processes in action, we examine methodology sections of Ph.d. dissertations as an intersection of entitlements and terministic screens through a combination of a four part framework for genre proposed by Paré and Smart (1994) with models for knowledge creation (Nonaka et al. 2000). This synthesis of perspectives offers insight into the connection between rhetoric and academic knowledge communication processes. Burke, K. (1966). Language as Symbolic Action: Essays on Life, Literature and Method. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Ciesielski, Daniel. (1999) "Secular Pragmatism Kenneth Burke and the [Re]socialization of Literature and Theory." in Brock, Bernard ed. Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. SUNY Press. p.262. Miller, C. (1982). Public Knowledge in Science and Society. Pre/Text. Vol. 3 pp.31-49. Nonaka I.; Toyama R.; Konno N. (2000). SECI, Ba and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, Volume 33, Number 1. pp. 5-34(30). Paré, A. and Smart, G. (1994). Observing Genres in Action: Towards a Research Methodology. in eds. Freedman, A. & Medway, P. Genre and the New Rhetoric. Bristol, PA: Taylor & Francis. Polyani, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press.