In our work as lecturers, teachers, researchers, coaches or managers in a university of applied sciences, we do feel that the amount and variety of societal challenges on higher vocational education (HVE) is growing. Institutions in HE are in a process of transforming from traditional ‘either or’ research or education institutions into more complex hybrid knowledge institutions. Nowadays, universities of applied sciences (as institutions for HVE) in The Netherlands have three main objectives: providing education, conducting practice-oriented research to add to the professional knowledge base, and contributing to innovation in the professional fields of work. Education, research and innovation form the three pillars in the strategy of Dutch Universities of Applied Sciences (Educational Council of The Netherlands, 2015). These changing societal demands form an impetus for educational reform and innovation at both organizational and individual employee levels (Cummings & Shin, 2014). Changes in context and roles lead to questions: As a teacher/lecturer/researcher, how do I relate to the different stakeholders? What is the real meaning of being a ‘good’ lecturer or researcher in creating added values, and for whom? Some propose that the new challenges concern everybody and thus should be everyone’s job. But when everything becomes everyone’s job, how can we really realize the required added values? Others promote a more differentiated approach of accurately fitting talents and tasks to create the flow and employee satisfaction that is needed to realize the desired outcomes. But then how do we work together and cooperate with such an individualistic approach? These opposing positions in the discourse concern the question of how to define the ‘professional me’ amongst the ‘we’. In other words, the challenge is how we define and navigate our professional identities within the context of a dynamic multiple-identity organization with increasing pressures for professional diversity (Foreman & Whetten, 2002; Aangenendt, 2015).
This paper will describe the rationale and findings from a multinational study of online uses and gratifications conducted in the United States, Korea, and the Netherlands in spring 2003. A survey research method of study was conducted using a questionnaire developed in three languages and was presented to approximately 400 respondents in each country via the Web. Web uses and gratifications were analyzed cross-nationally in a comparative fashion and focused on the perceived involvement in different types of on-line communities. Findings indicate that demographic characteristics, cultural values, and Internet connection type emerged as critical factors that explain why the same technology is adopted differently. The analyses identified seven major gratifications sought by users in each country: social support, surveillance & advice, learning, entertainment, escape, fame & aesthetic, and respect. Although the Internet is a global medium, in general, web use is more local and regional. Evidence of media use and cultural values reported by country and online community supports the hypothesis of a technological convergence between societies, not a cultural convergence.
The purpose of the paper is to start a dialogue about differences between Western and Eastern cultures in the way they conceptualize knowledge and discuss the implications of these differences for a global intellectual capital (IC) theory and practice. A systematic metaphor analysis of the concept of knowledge and IC is used to identify common Western conceptualizations of knowledge in IC literature. A review of philosophical and religious literature was done to identify knowledge conceptualizations in the main streams of Asian philosophy. Fundamental differences were found in the way knowledge is conceptualized. In Western IC literature common metaphors for knowledge include knowledge as a thing and knowledge as capital. In Asian thought, knowledge is seen as unfolding truth based upon a unity of universe and human self and of knowledge and action. The research was performed on a limited sample of literature. More research is needed to identify how knowledge is conceptualized in the practice of doing business in Asia and to test the effects of introducing IC theories to Asian businessmen and managers. Moreover, it might be questionable whether different types of resources (Western management literature on IC and Asian cultural philosophies) can be put in a comparative perspective to extract conclusions out of it. This methodological starting point has its confinements, but is plausible partly as long as IC theories originating from an Asian background are still missing, partly as far as philosophical notions within Western IC publications are contrasted with Asian notions of knowledge. Despite this restriction we would like to emphasize that Western conceptualizations of knowledge, embedded in terms like intellectual capital and knowledge management, can not be transferred to Asian business without considering the local view on knowledge. Asian conceptualizations of knowledge should play an important role in the further development of a knowledge-based theory and practice of the firm. We choose deliberately to contrast Western philosophy with cultural and religious connotations in Asian philosophy, as the underlying paradigm is strongly influenced by these notions. This is clearly perceivable in revivalist and reformist tendencies in Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam. Religious notions within these traditions have a strong paradigmatic function in a cognitive and normative sense. Not only in anthropology but also in epistemology, contemporary Asian thought is dominated by a discourse deeply embedded in religious and cultural traditions, in which the dimensions of 'nature', 'subjectivity' and 'history' have well defined boundaries. Anthropologically and epistemologically, all spheres of human reality are analyzed and described within the perspective of an integral and monolithic unity, in which all dimensions and spheres of being are bound. In Western philosophy these spheres of being have been separated from religious notions because of a longstanding secularization due to which religion and culture, metaphysics and philosophy have become separate disciplines.(Boom, 1993)
