Abstract
'While there is increasing discussion of knowledge-based economies, knowledge-intensive firms and knowledge societies - or in Queensland's case, the Smart State - little attention has been given to rigorous and foundational social analysis of what these terms mean. Queensland is not alone in this. Research on the assumptions underpinning contemporary knowledge-related public policy from around the world (Graham and Rooney 2001) has shown that there is little evidence of such assumptions being well informed by any appropriate knowledge-related theoretical framework, and that as a consequence, basic conceptual errors in policy formulation are common. Policy prescriptions that focus on science, technology and engineering as the foci of knowledge-related public policy are common. Knowledge embodied in culture, the arts, humanities, social sciences, social skills, entertainment, spirituality and many other aspects of normal life, are not considered as central knowledge policy concerns. The implicit assumption in such a view is that knowledge only has instrumental value and only in the context of economy, industry, and commerce. Such technocratic concerns deal only with the surface features of knowledge systems. There are much deeper social, cultural and communication processes that act to bring about knowledge creation and use, as well as innovation and commercialisation of technology (Rooney et al. forthcoming). These are, however, ignored in current policy discourse surrounding the Smart State.' (Introduction)
