the 60 minutes meetings on unesco and knowledge...

Foreword

Since 2005, the weekly « 60 Minutes » meetings have become a well-established and much appreciated occasion for information sharing, discussion and debate. Open to members of the Secretariat, the Permanent

Delegations and to partners of the Organization, these sessions put the spotlight on a wide range of topics: not only activities, but also issues; not only programmes, but also trends; not only projects, but also structures such as the Institutes.

Participants regularly discover initiatives previously unknown or little known to them and – almost always – discover at the same time just how much their own experience has in common with that of colleagues working in quite different fi elds. Across the Organization, we all work within the same rapidly changing global environment; we face the same challenges and tackle similar problems.

That is why the Bureau of Public Information decided to stage a special cycle of meetings on knowledge sharing – so that colleagues facing the same challenges can share solutions and best practice. After six case studies were explored over three successive weeks, a debate, entitled “How Can UNESCO Become a Better Knowledge Broker?”, closed the cycle in the fourth week, chaired by Elizabeth Longworth, Director of the Offi ce of the Director-General.

The fi ve information sheets from the knowledge sharing cycle which feature in this publication offer the beginnings of an answer to this crucial question. A full range of multimedia materials from the cycle are available on the “60 Minutes” website, as are the materials from all 100-plus sessions listed at the end of this publication that have taken place so far (http://intranet.unesco.org/60minutes).

Good knowledge management is vital for any organization to retain its comparative advantage in today’s world and all the more so for a “knowledge agency” like UNESCO. I would like to express my thanks to all the colleagues from across UNESCO and its Institutes who contributed to the success of this cycle and in doing so, demonstrated effective knowledge management in action.

Nino Muñoz Gómez, Director, Bureau of Public Information

789_60minutes_EN.indd 2789_60minutes_EN.indd 2 29/03/08 11:30:1129/03/08 11:30:11

BPI-2008/WS/1

http://intranet.unesco.org/60minutes

Introduction to the debate by Elizabeth Longworth, Director of the Offi ce of the Director-General

Knowledge is a core concept for UNESCO, embedded in the Consti-tution and at the heart of our “rai-

son d’être”. The concept of “knowledge workers” was evident in the debates when the Organization was set up over 60 years ago. Even back then, the references were to knowledge, not information. Today, in a fast moving era of UN reform and of change in the multilateral environment, knowledge remains at the centre of our strategic thinking, because in it lies the key to our comparative advantage as a special-ised agency.

Our reservoir of technical expertise is what sets us apart from the ‘Funds’ and ‘Pro-grammes’; specifi cally, how we apply and disseminate knowledge. This is where the demand is; this is what is being asked of UNESCO by Member States. We are able to make a difference in ways that cannot be achieved simply through funding. If less than 10% of all development aid goes through the UN system, we cannot be considered as a source of funding, but of expertise. We must see this as an asset. As one management guru said: “Knowledge is the dominant and perhaps the only source of competitive advantage.”

The C/4 and C/5 and our interdisciplinary approach must therefore place great strategic emphasis on knowledge. The implications and responsibilities of such a knowledge strategy, for example our ability to generate and build capacities in knowledge, must permeate all our thinking at the moment. The priority for the Organization is to ensure quality delivery of technical assistance. We must try to capture all our own tacit knowledge and institutional knowledge and

be able to take our normative knowledge and translate it into something meaningful at the local level. The challenges faced by the Directors of Field Offi ces and Sectors that work on programmes for fi eld delivery is exactly that, because normative knowledge (whether in the form of global standards, benchmarks, practices or policies) quickly becomes irrelevant unless it translates into credible action at country level.

A mission and a strategy founded on the importance of knowledge raises funda-mental organisational questions. A mod-ern performing organization must invest in knowledge management, which raises questions on the way in which we appraise what we know, what we can do with what we know, and what else we need to know. In order to address these questions, we have to inculcate the whole concept of knowledge sharing and revisit our existing knowledge and business processes. Ulti-mately, we need to make knowledge shar-ing a fundamental precept of our organiza-tional culture so that the default position is that we do share and want to share knowledge. In seeking to attain this, the people factor is crucial. Even with good technology and good processes, one can-not be effective without capturing and har-nessing the creative and innovative capac-ity of people.

I am told that the key to creating new knowledge is that one has to be humble, to listen and receive knowledge. This goes to the heart of being a “knowledge bro-ker”. Therefore, I think it is now time for us to create some new knowledge and so I have the very great pleasure of opening this debate.


UNESCO and Knowledge Sharing: An IntroductionFor over 60 years, UNESCO has had a mandate to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge” (Constitution, Art 1. 2 (c)). In response to the challenges of globalisation and the Information Society, it advocates a vision of “Knowledge Societies”. But what do we mean by “knowledge” at UNESCO and what links are there between the Organization’s knowledge sharing programmes and its knowledge management (KM)?

UN

ESC

O a

nd K

now

ledg

e Sh

arin

g

Knowledge is defi ned in a recent report by the UN Joint Inspection Unit on KM (see box on opposite page) as follows: “Knowledge

is [the universe of] what is known. Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, learning, communication, association, and reasoning.” Stressing that UN organizations often confuse information and knowledge, the report argues for a clear differentiation between data, information and knowledge, the latter being “built on data and information, and created within the individual or the organisational unit”.

A Decade of DevelopmentsWhile UNESCO has been pursuin g its mandate to “maintain, increase and diffuse knowledge” since 1946, knowledge management has only been an established discipli ne since the mid-1990s. The World Bank launched its “knowledge bank” strategy in 1996, in order to enhance organisational capacity through the provision and sharing of KM tools and practices for development. Its Development Gateway initiative aims to promote knowledge sharing and information related to all aspects of development. Over the same period, knowledge activities have increasingly become based on collaborative practices. The “Ivory Tower” and solitary thinker of yesterday is a long way from “Internet 2”, virtual communities of practice, networks and other forms of collaborative initiative.

Towards Knowledge Societies UNESCO’s concept of knowledge societies (see UNESCO World Report: Towards Knowledge Societies [Paris: UNESCO; 2005]), has a development-oriented and pluralistic perspective that captures the complexity and dynamics of globalization processes. Recognizing that new technologies offer remarkable possibilities for advancing development, its focuses on freedom of expression, universal access to information, education for all and cultural diversity.

A Set of Case StudiesHow is the new thinking about knowledge and knowledge sharing over the past decade affecting UNESCO and its programmes? The UN Joint Inspection Unit recommendation for a common defi nition of Knowledge Management throughout the UN system and for common guidelines for all the Agencies’ KM strategies makes good sense. But what unique or specifi c characteristics does knowledge have at UNESCO? The question is particularly signifi cant in the context of UN reform. Also, how can UNESCO’s experience in pursuing its “knowledge” mandate inform its knowledge management practices? To begin to answer such questions, the “60 minutes” sessions in February 2008 ask concretely, at the level of specifi c programmes, what is meant by “knowledge”, who the knowledge is shared with, both internally and externally, what the

© SASI Group and Mark Newman – source: Worldmapper.org: net royalty infl ows from intellectual property


Extracts from the Joint Inspection Unit Report, “Knowledge Management in the United Nations System”There is little understanding of what “knowledge” is in the context of the United Nations system. Knowledge Management (KM) is perceived differently by different organizations....

The effective utilization of a primary United Natins system asset — its knowledge — is critical to meeting the objectives of the different system organizations.

Knowledge management can be defi ned as the systematic processes, or range of practices, used by organizations to identify, capture, store, create, update, represent, and distribute knowledge for use, awareness and learning across the organization.

Changing people’s behaviour, or the development of an appropriate organizational culture which facilitates and encourages the sharing of knowledge, is considered by the UN organizations surveyed in this review to be one of the…most important factors supporting the implementation of KM.

Read the Report: http://www.unjiu.org/data/reports/2007/en2007_06.pdf

▶

▶

▶

▶

Contact: Stella Hughes, [email protected]

Links: “60 Minutes” meetings http://intranet.unesco.org/60minutes

Infosheet/Unesdoc: www.unesco.org/en/60minutes

technologies (ICTs) and others which began well before the arrival of ICTs and which have been merely facilitated rather than transformed by their advent.

It is one of the paradoxes of KM that, even as its emergence and rapid development have been spurred by the widespread use of ICTs, it is repeatedly stressed that the technology is only a minor part of Knowledge Management. Knowledge Management is, rather, an organizational process that seeks synergistic combination of data and information processing capacity, and the creative and innovative capacity of human beings. New technology can never be fully effi cient without changing, re-thinking and re-engineering the processes: the way people work, their habits and working culture.At UNESCO, the new Enterprise Portal Platform (EPP) – coming soon – will offer new collaboration tools that will support decision-making, the sharing of best practice and knowledge transfer. They include:-

Real-time tools for ad hoc communicationsTeam-oriented tools that add permanence and structure to ad hoc communicationsCoordination functionality that varies from agenda management, issue tracking and dynamic discussion groups to more complex project support

The introduction of these new tools will, according to Knowledge Management theory, change the way UNESCO’s “knowledge workers” work.

▶

▶

▶

knowledge requirements of these users are and how the knowledge is shared with them, using what tools.

Making the link with Knowledge Management, these sessions also seek to establish which KM problems are encountered and what KM practices are used by programme managers, such as updating knowledge and eliminating outdated or irrelevant knowledge. The case studies examined in the sessions include programmes managed at Headquarters and examples from the Institutes.

A “Knowledge” FrameworkUNESCO offers a range of services to its Member States, from “upstream” normative activities to “downstream” projects, based on expertise in its areas of competence: education, the sciences, culture, communication and information

In its Medium-Term Strategy, UNESCO identifi es fi ve established functions: i) laboratory of ideas, including foresight; ii) standard-setter; iii) clearing house; iv) capacity-builder in Member States in

UNESCO’s fi elds of competence; v) catalyst for international cooperation.

While all fi ve functions clearly involve knowledge, three of the fi ve in particular emerge as being essentially knowledge-driven and knowledge-focused: the laboratory of ideas, clearinghouse and capacity-building functions. The next three sessions of “60 minutes” meetings and the related fact sheets, take these three functions as frameworks within which to explore knowledge issues.

What about the Technology?The case studies have been chosen to cover a wide range of activities, some of which are entirely dependent on new information and communication

UN

ESC

O a

nd K

now

ledg

e Sh

arin

g


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.unesco.org/en/60minutes

http://www.unjiu.org/data/reports/2007/en2007_06.pdf

UNESCO and Knowledge Sharing: The Capacity-Building FunctionThe fi rst of this four-part series of meetings examines two case studies, from the Education and the Communication and Information Sectors, to explore key concepts and issues connected with capacity-building.

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Cap

acit

y-B

uild

ing

Func

tion

Case Study: The Open Training Platform In March 2007, UNESCO launched the Open Training Platform, a website for sharing and accessing English-language capacity-building resources for development.

Objective: The Platform aims to support better provision of knowledge and skills to meet local people’s needs in developing countries through a collaborative effort involving the UN and other development partners. Points for discussion: How did awareness of this knowledge gap emerge and how was consensus achieved on how to tackle it?

The Process: It involves identifying, gathering and organizing free and open source training materials (currently, 1,820 learning resources in English) from development partners worldwide (630, including UNESCO Sectors and Field offi ces, other UN agencies, NGOs and Foundations) involved in capacity-building in domains contributing to development, such as agriculture, health, entrepreneurship and gender. Once validated, described and organized into categories by a back offi ce team, the materials are made available for trainers, local development actors or learners. Points for discussion: Are these formal, structured partnerships or loose, self-selecting communities of practice?Does the web option create “digital divide” access problems and, if so, how can this be mitigated?

Contact: Armelle [email protected]

Link:http://www.opentrainingplatform.org

Two roles In offering this service, UNESCO acts both as a knowledge broker and as an information manager for capacity-building:

1/ Knowledge-broker: The Open Training Platform mediates between sources of knowledge (producers of open learning resources) and users of knowledge (trainers and learners). It promotes open license materials. Development stakeholders support this effort informally by web posting or through formal partnerships, while trainers and learners benefi t from free, guided consultation and use of relevant materials. By encouraging trainers and learners to contact producers for additional language versions and/or localised content, it encourages communities of practice and the production of new knowledge.Points for discussion: Can and should UNESCO expand its role to lead or structure these emerging additional knowledge activities (knowledge production, communities…)? Can and should UNESCO itself provide multilingual versions of materials?

2/ Information managementThe Platform uses IT tools to collect, process and organise information on training materials pro-duction. This enables more effi cient management by development actors of their learning resource activities, as they can consult the Platform when planning learning projects, to avoid duplication and so fi ll gaps in resource development. Part-ners can work together in a process of collective knowledge creation, evaluation and learning from successes and failures. Finally, the Platform facili-tates dialogue and cooperation between stake-holders with common aims regarding knowledge transfer in specifi c areas.Points for discussion: How is this experience being captured and shared within UNESCO? Did it build on previous projects and does it feed into other projects?

Evaluation The fi rst assessment of how the Platform is being used will take place in March 2008 on the basis of key performance indicators, on-line feedback and surveys of target user groups. Points for discussion: What are the main obstacles to be overcome in this activity? What are the lessons learned from UNESCO’s knowledge-broker role and what is its added value?



http://www.opentrainingplatform.org

Technical consultations on key issues – The consultation process brings together a range of stakeholders with different perspectives to engage in an in-depth examination of a particular issue in order to advance knowledge and capacity to act. Recent consultations have addressed the issues facing HIV-positive teachers in East and Southern Africa, and the role of schools as centres of care and support. Points for discussion: How do Field Offices, Sectors and Institutes interact in this activity? How does the “new knowledge” generated feed into capacity for action ? How is it captured and shared with others?

EDUCAIDS capacity-building workshops – Language-specifi c capacity-building workshops with UNESCO staff, ministry counterparts, UNAIDS cosponsors and civil society representatives aim to strengthen capacity and teamwork among UNESCO and its partners in the HIV and AIDS response at country level. Points for discussion: Do communities of practice emerge to continue knowledge sharing after the workshop? How do you handle rapidly evolving knowledge requirements? How do you feed knowledge created within other activities (e.g. the two above) into the workshops? How do you measure workshop impact and effectiveness?

Case Study: Knowledge Sharing to Support Comprehensive Education Sector Responses to HIV and AIDS Objective: These activities aim to help Member States move towards provision of universal access to HIV prevention programmes, treatment, care and support. The importance of knowledge-sharing cuts across all core action areas that provide the strategic focus of UNESCO’s Strategy for Responding to HIV and AIDS:

Advocacy and support for evidence-informed policies and practicesPolicy and programmatic guidanceTechnical support and capacity enhancementCoordination and harmonizationMonitoring, assessing and evaluating progress

The following are examples of knowledge sharing for capacity-building through which knowledge is captured and shared with different audiences to build commitment and capacity to develop and implement comprehensive Education Sector responses to the epidemic. Points for discussion: What kinds of partnerships underpin these activities? What is UNESCO’s particular niche in knowledge sharing on HIV and AIDS?

Good Policy and Practice in HIV & AIDS and Education series - Intended for a wide audience, this publication series addresses key themes in HIV & AIDS and education in booklets drawing on knowledge and programming experience to highlight issues and lessons learned and suggest policy and programming strategies and actions in developing countries. Upcoming booklets focus on effective learning and partnerships in practice. Points for discussion: How are the information needs of the target audience identified? Is the information regularly updated and is it indexed? Which parts of the process involve partners (providing information on HIV?) and which involve UNESCO expertise (tailoring information to needs?)

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Cap

acit

y-B

uild

ing

Func

tion

Contact: Chris Castle: [email protected]

Links: HIV and AIDS portal: www.unesco.org/aids

UNESCO’s Strategy for Responding to HIV and AIDShttp://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=33533&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Good Policy and Practice in HIV & AIDS and Education Serieshttp://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35444&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html



http://www.unesco.org/aids

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=33533&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35444&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Cle

arin

g H

ouse

Fun

ctio

n

Case Study: The General and Regional HistoriesThe fi rst of the UNESCO History projects dates back to 1952. These are some of UNESCO’s knowledge sharing activities with the longest continuity – 56 years for the History of Humanity and 35 years for the General History of Africa. This extensive exper ience offers unique insights into the achievements and the challenges of undertakings of such complexity and scope, and into UNESCO’s approach to its knowledge role over the decades.

What Knowledge? History is a knowledge that offers the epistemological advantage of increasing our understanding of the evolution of other kinds of knowledge. The History collections are based on interdisciplinary, collaborative production of historical works, refl ecting multiple viewpoints, confronting differing perspectives, elaborated over lengthy periods. This approach to knowledge production corresponds closely to the approach to the knowledge needs (see below), in that both exemp lifi ed the effort of fostering better understanding. This inclusive approach, the search for consensus and the resulting protracted duration of the knowledge production led to problems of obsolescence, as new research invalidated or threw fresh light onto the knowledge so painstakingly gathered. Updating the works did not mean speeding up the process: the fi rst edition of the History of Humanity took 16 years, but the revised second edition took 40 years.

What Knowledge Needs Does It Meet? The needs are those set out in UNESCO’s Constitution: the Histories aimed to provide a basis for greater mutual understanding between peoples, to ident ify the roots of misunderstandings and confl icts, and so to “construct the defences of peace”. They sought to “disarm history” by highlighting our common heritage and different cultures’ contributions to human progress. They also sought to “decolonise history” by bringing forward the perspectives of experts from the formerly colonised regions and challenging the dominant versions of events given by external experts. While such goals refl ected specifi c preoccupations of the times, they have also proved to have enduring relevance, not least with the renewed concern to foster inter-cultural dialogue.

Contact: Ali Moussa [email protected]

Link: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en

Who Are The Users? The complete versions of the Histories, each between fi ve and nine volumes of up to 1,000 pages, were aimed at teachers, students, historians and researchers. From the start, it was also foreseen to adapt the material in order to make the knowledge accessible to the general public and to school children.

How is the Knowledge Shared? The Histories are a well-appreciated source of information in the academic context (teaching, study and research). But although from the outset, abridged and illustrated versions were planned for the general public, it has proved much harder to make a publishing success of these versions and to reach readers in developing countries with affordable publications. Similarly, diffi culties arose in implementing plans to re-use the material in curriculum development, within the framework of school text book reforms. While the original knowledge production can be considered as an achievement, the rest of the knowledge cycle – dissemination, updating, popularisation and transformation into educational materials - still presents a challenge to UNESCO today. New information and communication technologies offer unprecedented opportunities to develop fresh strategies to maximise the potential of this monumental intellectual heritage and share the knowledge as fully and effectively as it deserves to be shared. The new concern to foster inter-cultural dialogue gives a new impetus for sharing this knowledge.

UNESCO and Knowledge Sharing: The Clearing House FunctionThe second in this four-part series examines two case studies – one of the longest-standing and one of the newest knowledge sharing initiatives of the Organization – to explore key concepts and issues connected with UNESCO’s role as a clearing house

© UNESCO



http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en

How is the Knowledge Shared? Knowledge sharing is through online, free and multilingual access. Users can search and retrieve material according to dedicated thematic policy-analysis frames. They can recombine material through extraction and compilation. A high level of comparisons between countries and experiences is provided.

Knowledge Sharing within UNESCO: MAB (Man and the Biosphere Programme) is currently reinforcing the use of biosphere reserves and their networks as learning sites for sustainable development. MAB is in the process of selecting fi ve sites in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves to test the comparative policy analysis framework developed by MOST. The aim is to spearhead the integ ration of environmental and development issues into policy making. Data from three selected biosphere reserves will be analysed to study their governance arrangements for implementing sustainable development. This will shed light on different governance approaches, including the emergence of ‘bridging’ institutions in implementing sustainable development.

Issues: Impact assessment: MOST is waiting for the next web usage statistics to be published in March 2008 for assessing the impact at launching; the outreach on the other hand is to be assessed through the number and the type of actors buying into the tool. The question remains how to foster spontaneous feedback from users.

Multilingualism: The tool interface is currently in English, French and Spanish and will be expanded to Arabic, Chinese and Russian; the content however is currently in both English and French but is not translated, as MOST does not have funds for content translation. The question remains how to develop content translation.

Case Study: MOST Policy Research ToolThe MOST Programme (Management of Social Transformations) transfers relevant social science research fi ndings and data to decision-makers and other stakeholders. The new Policy Research Tool is piloting the provision of online access to policy-relevant comparative information, enabling users to obtain customized replies to trans-disciplinary questions by drawing on select content from original documents.

What Knowledge? The content covers a wide range of areas related to social transformations, with material originating from various UNESCO Sectors and units (SHS, HED, MAB, etc.) and partner UN agencies (WHO, UNU, etc.) The tool distils “evidence” information from the material, on contexts and issues, policies and programmes, research results, recommendations, and operational aspects of policy implementation; this is complemented by abstracts and bibliographies and also documented with indicators and news.

Who Are The Users?The service is primarily targeted towards policy-makers (decision-making actors and technical teams in national and local governments) and IGO actors. It is also relevant to civil society, NGO, advocacy actors and researchers, and may be of interest to students and to society at large.

What Knowledge Needs Does It Meet? For policy research, there is a lack of accessible international, interdisciplinary, comparative knowledge with transferable implementation models. The tool uses a “translation” mechanism to transform “research reports” into “policy briefs”. The gaps and redundancies in knowledge availability in this area are identifi ed, thus providing paths for adaptability over time.

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Cle

arin

g H

ouse

Fun

ctio

n

Contact: Vincent Maugis [email protected]

Link: http://www.unesco.org/shs/most/tool



http://www.unesco.org/shs/most/tool

UNESCO and Knowledge Sharing:The Laboratory of Ideas FunctionThe third in this four-part series examines the work of two UNESCO Category One Institutes to explore their role as laboratories of ideas.

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Labo

rato

ry o

f Ide

as F

unct

ion

Case Study: The International Institute for Educational Planning (IIPE)IIEP is a Category I Institute. As such, it is institutionally part of UNESCO, and contributes to UNESCO’s objectives through an annual programme that a Governing Board approves in coherence with UNESCO’s overall objectives. Among IIEP’s purposes and functions, is the laboratory of ideas in the areas of educational planning and management. This function plays a key role in IIEP’s overall mission: to build and strengthen the capacities of Member States in educational planning and management.

Audiences. Our primary target audiences (planners, managers, and decision-makers) need up-to-date and state-of-the-art information to support plan preparation and implementation. Our secondary target audience is among our UN partners and bi- and multi-lateral agencies with whom we seek synergies to advance national development agendas.

What knowledge? IIEP identifi es new issues, through consultations with stakeholders and through its own experiences and observations; and develops knowledge where there is a need to contextualize what is generically known or where there is a knowledge gap. Concretely, we look into core issues such as planning the fi nancing of education, decentralization, and the design and management of higher education systems.

How is the knowledge shared? IIEP shares its fi ndings by disseminating good practices; coaching and training planners and managers in the fi eld; and infl uencing stakeholders’ agendas through IIEP-organized events, participation in conferences, and electronic and paper publications. IIEP also

Contact: Mark Bray. [email protected]

Link: http://www.unesco.org/iiep

structures the information and knowledge it gathers, and creates and makes them available in online databases. Key features for knowledge sharing are the acknowledgement that different audiences need different formats and that dissemination goes beyond the publishing activity, involving technical assistance and advocacy.

How is the laboratory of ideas function different in an Institute? The specifi c mandate in educational planning and management allows IIEP to focus its contribution and therefore to cover the ground extensively. Also, the Institute has the fl exibility to explore emerging themes it considers important as a specialist entity. Some of these themes might not yet have reached the top of political agendas in Member States. Among the areas that benefi ted from this fl exibility are HIV and AIDS; entrepreneurship in higher education; education in emergencies; external quality assurance mechanisms; virtual universities; and corruption. IIEP’s management fl exibility and functional autonomy allow the Institute to anticipate, analyze, and (re-)act.

Assets and obstacles. The following features facilitate IIEP’s function as a laboratory of ideas: ownership of what we do; strong links with professional networks which act as relays; credibility with our stakeholders stemming from our expertise; and the trust of our partners. IIEP faces a number of constraints, including the political sensitivity of some of the issues tackled, and the cost of producing different formats for different audiences. IIEP must also pay attention to its opportunity costs, and therefore prioritize its actions.



http://www.unesco.org/iiep

Processes: The processes of knowledge production and sharing on curriculum issues (mainly visions, contents, practices and learning resources) imply different levels (inter, intra and national ones) that interact under various settings (Ministries, universities and civil society) and frameworks (South-South and South-South-North cooperation).

Under a comprehensive framework, the knowledge sharing is done through face to face and on-line activities encompassing international seminars and conferences on core issues, capacity building workshops, inter-regional exchanges, worldwide and regional e-forums, a weekly animation activity of documentation and information sharing, weekly on-line alert, downloads of IBE publications and documents and access to learning resources.

The data and knowledge is gathered thorough face to face and on-line interaction between the COP global coordination, 11 Regional Focal Points covering the fi ve UNESCO regions and the COP members. It is systematized and shared in various languages through the COP Section of the IBE website.

The main barriers to knowledge sharing are principally the common understanding of core concepts such as inclusive education and competency-based approaches, and the overcoming of language barriers to effectively generate a fl uid horizontal communication among COP members. One COP asset is the inter-regional sharing of concepts out of which new concepts and terminology are being appropriated by educators and curriculum specialists from regions.

Case Study: Community of Practice (COP) in Curriculum Development The Community of Practice (COP) in Curriculum Development is a global IBE-UNESCO initiative to support regions and countries in their design and implementation of curriculum changes within the framework of Education for All (EFA) goals. As an open, plural, multilingual, proactive setting for knowledge production and exchange, it offers and facilitates the following:

opportunities to share visions, approaches, experiences, innovative practices, research results and analytical studiespossibilities for jointly undertaking programmes and projects for institutional capacity building around curricular themes, chiefl y on the basis of requirements and needs identifi ed in the fi eld by educators and curriculum specialists.

Actors: The knowledge is produced and shared within and outside UNESCO with nearly 800 policy-makers, educators, curriculum specialists and developers, teachers trainers, supervisors, principals, teachers, researchers and scholars from 90 countries covering the fi ve UNESCO regions.

Needs: Their main requirements are the understanding and clarifi cation of key educational and curriculum concepts, the access to current trends, comparative research and updated documentation on curriculum change, and the identifi cation of valuable practices and useful learning resources at the school and classroom levels (i.e. curriculum approaches and tools).

▶

▶

Kno

wle

dge

and

the

Labo

rato

ry o

f Ide

as F

unct

ion

Contact: Renato Opertti [email protected]

Link: www.ibe.unesco.org/COPs.htm).

International Bureau of Education, Geneva



http://www.ibe.unesco.org/COPs.htm

UNESCO and Knowledge Sharing:How Can UNESCO Become a Better Knowledge Broker?The fi nal session in this four-part series looks at some of the issues raised, asks how UNESCO can improve its brokerage role between creators and users of knowledge and explores possible ways to enhance its knowledge management.

How

Can

UN

ESC

O B

ecom

e a

Bet

ter

Kno

wle

dge

Bro

ker?

Knowledge Sharing: UNESCO’s Niche

Among UN Agencies, UNESCO has a unique mandate arising from the breadth of the areas in which it works, as well as the depth of specialisation within each area. These areas are highly strategic, as education, the sciences, culture and communication all interconnect and make up the very fabric of society. UNESCO seeks to provide “knowledge services” that are non-prescriptive, inclusive and that draw on diversity. Rather than impose policy lines, the Organization’s role is to gather information and knowledge, offer scenarios and propose agendas to its constituencies through different types of knowledge sharing processes. This supports UNESCO’s “upstream” role, developing its capacity for foresight, identifying trends early, exploring them with experts, capitalising on idea generation, acting as an expert authority on innovative implications of knowledge. This could be its comparative advantage in a rapidly evolving competitive fi eld.

Putting the Focus on Knowledge Sharing Processes?

From discussions on the case studies presented in the fi rst three sessions (see previous fact sheets), it became clear that to comprehend knowledge sharing, it is essential to identify and analyse, not so much the content of a programme or the modalities of programme delivery, but the processes used.

For example, UNESCO’s meetings and publications on HIV/AIDS offer an example of knowledge sharing as a learning and preventive process. The Community of Practice for Curriculum Development of the International Bureau of Education operates as an open collaborative process. The General Histories offer the example of knowledge sharing as a dialogue process resulting in an authoritative publication. The “laboratory of ideas” function, illustrated by the overall work of the Institutes, confi rms the generative/creative process.Each modality – for example, meetings – may involve entirely different and specifi c processes ranging from capacity-building to knowledge creation. The publications modality may engage different processes ranging from simple information transfer (e.g. brochures) to foresight (e.g. World Reports). Crucially, the content of a publication may have to be offered in a whole variety of formats, lengths and languages before it achieves its purpose of sharing and increasing the knowledge of all its different target audiences. Many excellent knowledge products have limited impact due to poor or inexistent knowledge sharing processes (which form the bedrock of good knowledge management practice). Lack of resources and/or lack of prioritisation for the multi-versioning of the product greatly diminish the effectiveness of the initial investment.

Some Key Concepts The case studies presented in the fi rst three sessions showed that there are no water-tight compartments

Illiterate young women: territory size is proportional to the number of illiterate females aged 15 to 24 years, minus the number of illiterate males of the same age in the same territory.© SASI Group and Mark Newman – source: Worldmapper.org


Report compiled by:Mary-Louise Kearney, Director, UNESCO Forum for Higher Education, Research and KnowledgeAxel Plathe, Chief, Executive Offi ce, Communication and Information SectorJens Boel, Chief ArchivistStella Hughes, Chief, Internal Communication and Networks

Conversely, there is a need to avoid mission creep and undue “spread”. How to encourage knowledge sharing within UNESCO? The involvement of colleagues, recognition of their contribution, their ownership of knowledge sharing processes, professionalization of knowledge sharing (metadata systems, classifi cation, licensing…) are all part of the answer and can help overcome “silo” mentalities.Quality and quality control are core issues: how can quality be recognised and supported? The exact location of UNESCO activities within the complete knowledge cycle needs to be well understood (see diagram above) to ensure relevance and effectiveness, notably through bench-marking and evaluation.Understanding of an activity’s relative “upstream” or “downstream” nature, and its connection to other activities, upstream or downstream, is particularly important in the context of UN Reform which obliges each member of the UN family to revisit and redefi ne its value added.How can staff become better knowledge brokers? How should human resources be structured to achieve the right balance between substantive expertise and management skills?Are new organisational processes needed to improve knowledge sharing – e.g. workfl ows, management structures, technology?UNESCO’s own history, including refl ections on lessons learnt, analysis of the Organization’s role, impact, successes and failures and the relevance of the Constitution in today’s world, should feed into efforts to improve UNESCO’s knowledge sharing role.

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

▶

between the core functions. A programme activity may fulfi l – simultaneously or successively – more than one function. It also became clear that a common understanding of these core functions, based on practical working defi nitions of each one, is essential for effective knowledge management.

Clearing House: gathering, transferring, dis-seminating and sharing available information, knowledge and best practices in UNESCO’s fi elds of competence, identifying innovative solutions and testing them through pilot projects. Laboratory of Ideas: creating the conditions for the generation of new knowledge in UNESCO’s fi elds of competence – both innovative and even ground-breaking knowledge via foresight – to anticipate future trends, and assuring the effective transmission of current relevant knowledge to concerned publics and stakeholders.Capacity Building: knowledge sharing processes in support of creating enabling environments in UNESCO’s fi elds of competence including appropriate policy and legal frameworks, institutional development and community participation.New knowledge: new to whom? UNESCO has a mandate to foster and disseminate newly created knowledge, but also has a duty to ensure that all its stakeholders have access to knowledge that is new for them. Knowledge for refl ection and knowledge for action: UNESCO’s mandate covers both areas, with practical, technical and scientifi c action-oriented knowledge as well as open-ended, philosophical and social-science based refl ection. It has particular added value when these two combine in a full knowledge process culminating in delivery of knowledge services tailored to meet Member States’ needs.Filtering and Endorsing Information and Knowledge: UNESCO’s role as a fi lter and as an authority offering endorsement of valid, relevant and high quality information and knowledge takes on increasing importance, given the challenge posed by the sheer volumes of information available today. Knowledge Systems: Expertise regarding knowledge systems (with their key components of policies, infrastructure, human resources and investment) enables UNESCO to tackle issues at the systemic level. For instance, it addresses the issue of brain drain as a consequence of problems within the knowledge system that allows brain drain to occur.

Issues Raised, Questions Posed

The following are a selection of the issues and questions that came up in earlier sessions.

UNESCO needs to ensure a sharp focus and well-defi ned role in knowledge activities to give it a competitive advantage

▶

How

Can

UN

ESC

O B

ecom

e a

Bet

ter

Kno

wle

dge

Bro

ker?

Create

Capture

Organize

Access

CollaborateUse

KM promotes a strategic,collaborative and integrative

approach to the creation,capture, organization, accessand use of intellectual capital

The KM Process Model

Source: Gartner (February 2006)

KM Involves Managing and Leveraging Your Intellectual Capital


Titles of « 60 Minutes » Meetings between September 2005 and February 2008. Multimedia materials for all these sessions can be consulted on http://intranet.unesco.org/60minutes and the fact sheets are also available on www.unesco.org/en/60minutes

Education for AllHuman SecurityEducation for CitizenshipBroadening Access to KnowledgeTeachersNatural DisastersEradicating PovertyPublic DomainPromoting Advancement of Scientifi c KnowledgeNational Education PoliciesUNESCO’s Founding PrinciplesIntangible Heritage HIV/AIDS Prevention EducationHuman RightsInformation TechnologyObserving and Understanding OceansMuseums and Memory of the WorldManagement of Social TransformationsCrafts and DesignScience and Technology for DevelopmentSecondary and Vocational EducationMedia DevelopmentMan and the Biosphere MultilingualismCultural IndustriesEducation of Girls and WomenWorld HeritageWater ManagementCombating RacismHigher EducationSmall IslandsCopyrightCivil SocietyFreedom of Information and the PressAnticipation and ForesightCultural DiversityPriority AfricaDistance LearningEducation for Sustainable DevelopmentDesertifi cation and DrylandsInternational Civil ServiceThe Doping Crisis in SportLibraries and ArchivesEthics of Science and TechnologyEducation through SportMedia PluralismCultural PoliciesTraditional KnowledgeActing with and for YouthStruggle against SlaveryTowns and Human HabitatsBioethicsLearning to Live TogetherScience and Technology PoliciesNon-formal EducationPost-confl ict ReconstructionArts EducationDialogue among Cultures, Civilizations and PeoplesScience and Technology EducationKnowledge Societies

1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.21.22.23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31.32.33.34.35.36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50.51.52.53.54.55.56.57.58.

59.60.

Translation and Interpretation at UNESCOInstitute for StatisticsInternational Institute for Educational PlanningDivision of Information Systems and TelecommunicationsPublic Information and Communication – What for?UNESCO and ClimateA Debate on UN ReformUNESCO in CyberspaceEFA & Multi-stakeholder CooperationDecentralizationWomen and ScienceLanguages and MultilingualismTrends & Issues in Knowledge ProductionSecretariat of Executive BoardWater ScarcityTheatre and DevelopmentGender EqualityCommunication for DevelopmentIntangible Heritage Greening UNESCO Press FreedomSports and Sustainable DevelopmentSISTER 2Getting UNESCO into the PressUNESCO InternshipsUNESCO and UN ReformThe impact of UNESCO programmes on national policies: The Case of the Slave Route ProjectMediation at UNESCOBiosphere ReservesNew World Heritage SitesPreserving our Documentary Heritage in the Digital AgeBuilding the Case for Gender EqualityUNESCO on TVPeace Building in Post-Confl ict CountriesUNESCO and the Millennium Development Goals Making Virtual Conferencing WorkUNESCO’s Green AuditUnitwin-UNESCO Chairs: Towards New Strategic Orientations and New Tools Inter-Faith DialogueThe 1OOth “60 Minutes” Meeting with the DDG: UNESCO – Looking AheadYou and Human Rights – Hidden Treasures from the UNESCO Film ArchiveOpen Content: with the winners of the “Use of ICT in Education” prizePhilosophy in Tomorrow’s World – UNESCO’s roleICTs for Development in Tomorrow’s World – UNESCO’s RoleKnowledge and the Capacity-Building FunctionKnowledge and the Clearing House FunctionKnowledge and the Laboratory of Ideas FunctionHow can UNESCO become a Better Knowledge-Broker?

61.62.63.64.

65.

66.67.68.69.70.71.72.73.74.75.76.77.78.79.80.81.82.83.84.85.86.87.

88.89.90.91.

92.93.94.95.

96.97.98.

99.100.

101.

102.

103.

104.

105.106.107.108.

This publication is not an offi cial UNESCO document.It aims to provide the public with information on the “60 minutes” meetings of February 2008.



http://www.unesco.org/en/60minutes

the 60 minutes meetings on unesco and knowledge...

Documents