Prácticas de Creación de conocimiento y los diferentes tipos de “ba”   en el programa de “Aprende en Casa con Maloka”

Carlos Blanco Valbuena

doi:10.15332/nkbzzq72

Vol. 17 No. 2 (2024)

Published 2025-08-30

license

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Los autores mantienen los derechos sobre los artículos y por tanto son libres de compartir, copiar, distribuir, ejecutar y comunicar públicamente la obra bajo las condiciones siguientes:

Reconocer los créditos de la obra de la manera especificada por el autor o el licenciante (pero no de una manera que sugiera que tiene su apoyo o que apoyan el uso que hace de su obra).

RIIEP está bajo una licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

La Universidad Santo Tomás conserva los derechos patrimoniales de las obras publicadas, y favorece y permite la reutilización de las mismas bajo la licencia anteriormente mencionada.

ARTICLES PRODUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION

Knowledge Creation Practices and the different types of "ba" in the "Learn at Home with Maloka" program

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15332/nkbzzq72

Carlos Blanco Valbuena Universidad Santo Tomás

PDF (Spanish)

Abstract
References

In the search for certainties about the behavior of the Interactive Center-Maloka in Bogotá, Colombia, in relation to the creation of knowledge from the approach of “ba” as a knowledge space, our intention is to identify the different types of “ba” taking into account counts the frequency and strategies that reaffirm them in the design, development and contextualization of the “Learn at home with Maloka” program, in which researchers from the Science Center, employees of the Ministry of Education, teachers, principals, children participated. , girls and families from various locations in Bogotá. The importance of this project lies in the evidence on the gaps in Access to quality educational resources that strengthen and complement learning environments, since these gaps continue to be a latent need in our educational system. This gap is because in Colombia only 1.7% of spending is allocated to the renewal and improvement of infrastructure, including educational resources for learning environments, while in the other OECD member countries the 7%. To obtain information and knowledge, we have used in-depth qualitative and semi-structured interviews with the different actors who participated in the entire process. The operationalization of the research was carried out because of the systematization between the conceptual elements, the contributions of the authors and the corresponding variables presented in the methodology. According to the findings, we find different types of “ba”, for example: Types and number of ba originators: face-to-face meetings, training and training, social gatherings and informal electronic spaces, Types and number of dialogue partners: formal meetings, committees, strategic decision making and strategy development, Types and quantity of systematic ba: electronic communication spaces, Types and amount of ba exercised: design to strengthen pedagogical practices for internalization and learning, development of new concepts and educational resources, systematization of the Learn at Home with Maloka program process and development of activities with children and families.

keywords: knowledge practices, types of, knowledge of appropriation, knowledge creation

1. Alavi, M., & Leidner, D. (2001). Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly, 25(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250961

2. Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700108

3. Bhagat, R. S., Kedia, B. L., Harveston, P. D. E., & Triandis, H. C. (2002). Cultural variations in the cross-border transfer of organizational knowledge: An integrative framework. Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 204-221. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2002.6588000

4. Canestrino, R. (2004). Cross-border knowledge transfer in international strategic alliances: From cultural variations to asymmetric learning process. Proceedings of I-KNOW’04. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.138.4935&rep=rep1&type=pdf

5. Chua, A. (2002). The influence of social interaction on knowledge creation. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 3, 375-392. https://doi.org/10.1108/14691930210448297

6. Corno, F., Reinmoeller, P., & Nonaka, I. (1999). Knowledge creation within industrial systems. Journal of Management and Governance, 3(4), 379-394. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009936712733

7. Departamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación, Colciencias. (2017). Creación y fortalecimiento de los centros de ciencia (1st ed.). Bogotá, Colombia.

8. Einsiedel, A. A., & Einsiedel, E. F. (2004). Museums as agora: Diversifying approaches to engaging publics in research. In D. Chittenden, G. Farmelo, & B. V. Lewenstein (Eds.), Creating connections: Museums and the public understanding of current research (pp. 73-86). Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662507077512

9. Eskildsen, J. K., Dahlgaard, J. J., & Norgaard, A. (1999). The impact of creativity and learning on business excellence. Total Quality Management, 10(4-5), 523-530.

10. Fayard, P. M. (2003). Strategic communities for knowledge creation: A western proposal for Japanese concept of Ba. Journal of Knowledge Management, 7(5), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310505359

11. Geoghegan, H., Dyke, A., Pateman, R., West, S., & Everett, G. (2016). Understanding motivations for citizen science. Final report on behalf of UKEOF, University of Reading, Stockholm Environment Institute (University of York) and University of the West of England. https://www.ukeof.org.uk/resources/citizen-science-resources/MotivationsforCSREPORTFINALMay2016.pdf

12. Grant, R. M. (1996a). Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 17(Winter Special Issue), 109-122. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250171110

13. Graumann, C. (1990). Introducción a una historia de la psicología social. In M. Hewstone, W. Strobe, J. Codol, & G. Stephenson (Eds.), Introducción a la psicología social: Una perspectiva europea (pp. 21-35). Barcelona: Ariel.

14. Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2007). Knowledge creation and management: New challenges for managers. Oxford University Press. https://books.google.com.co/books/about/Knowledge_Creation_and_Management.html?id=71lMIxdKif4C&redir_esc=y

15. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models: Toward a cognitive science of language, inference and consciousness. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. https://books.google.com.co/books/about/Mental_Models.html?id=FS3zSKAfLGMC&redir_esc=y

16. Kogut, B., & Zander, U. (1992). Knowledge of the firm, combinative capabilities, and the replication of technology. Organization Science, 3(3), 383-397. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.383

17. Lei, D., Hitt, M. A., & Bettis, R. (1996). Dynamic core competences through meta-learning and strategic context. Journal of Management, 22(4), 549-569. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(96)90024-0

18. Michelis, G. (2001). Cooperation and knowledge creation. In I. Nonaka & T. Nishiguchi (Eds.), Knowledge emergence (pp. 124-144). Oxford University Press.

19. Nelson, R. R. (1991). Why do firms differ, and how does it matter? Strategic Management Journal, 12(8), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250121006

20. Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. http://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1980/A1980KD04600001.pdf

21. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14-37. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14

22. Nonaka, I. (2011). Wise leader: Building communities of sustainable innovation. Harvard Business Review (May), 3-11.

23. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of “ba”: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54. https://home.business.utah.edu/actme/7410/Nonaka%201998.pdf

24. Nonaka, I., & Nishiguchi, T. (2001). Knowledge emergence. Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780195130638

25. Nonaka, I., & Toyama, R. (2002). A firm as a dialectical being: Toward a dynamic theory of a firm. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(4), 995-1009.

26. Nonaka, I., & Von Krogh, G. (2009). Perspective-tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science, 20(3), 635-652. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.0412

27. Nonaka, I., & Teece, D. (2001). Managing industrial knowledge: Creation, transfer and utilization. Sage Publication. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235700804_Managing_Industrial_Knowledge_Creation_Transfer_and_Utilization

28. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2000). SECI ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. Long Range Planning, 33(1), 5-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6

29. Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., & Konno, N. (2002). SECI, ba and leadership: A unified model of dynamic knowledge creation. In S. Little, P. Quintas, & T. Ray (Eds.), Managing knowledge an essential reader (pp. 41-67). Sage. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(99)00115-6

30. Nonaka, I., von Krogh, G., & Voelpel, S. (2006). Organizational knowledge creation theory: Evolutionary paths and future advances. Organization Studies, 27(8), 1179-1208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840606066312

31. Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

32. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Routledge and Kegan Paul. http://www.philpapers.org/archive/POLTTO

33. Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competence of the corporation. Harvard Business Review, 68(3), 79-91. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-30763-X_14

34. Rosenfeld, S. A. (1997). Bringing business clusters into the mainstream of economic development. European Planning Studies, 5(1), 3-23.

35. Salas, E., Dickinson, T. L., Converse, S. A., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In E. Salas & R. W. Swezey (Eds.), Teams: Their training and performance (pp. 3–29). Ablex.

36. Schultze, U., & Leidner, D. E. (2002). Studying knowledge management in information systems research: Discourses and theoretical assumptions. MIS Quarterly, 26, 213-242. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132331

37. Soo, C., Devinney, T., & Midgley, A. (2002). Knowledge management: Philosophy, processes and pitfalls. California Management Review, 44(4), 129-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166146

38. Spencer, J. W. (2003). Firms’ knowledge-sharing strategies in the global innovation system: Empirical evidence from the flat panel display industry. Strategic Management Journal, 24(3), 217-233. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20060526

39. Suchman, L. (1985). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University Press. http://bitsavers.trailingedge.com/pdf/xerox/parc/techReports/ISL6_Plans_and_Situated_Actions.pdf

40. Tsai, W. (2002). Social structure of ‘co-opetition’ within a multiunit organization: Coordination, competition, and intra-organizational knowledge sharing. Organization Science, 13(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.2.179.536

41. Von Krogh, G., Ichijo, K., & Nonaka, I. (2000). Enabling knowledge creation: How to unlock the mystery of tacit knowledge and release the power of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195126167.001.0001

license

How to Cite

Blanco Valbuena, C. (2025). Knowledge Creation Practices and the different types of "ba" in the "Learn at Home with Maloka" program . Revista Interamericana De Investigación Educación Y Pedagogía RIIEP, 17(2), 105-146. https://doi.org/10.15332/nkbzzq72