Welcome to World's No. 1 Business, Information Technology, and Financial Risk Management Resource
Recommended by Business Week, Computerworld, Forbes, Fortune, Inc., Information Week, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Others

Channels: BUSINESS · MANAGEMENT · STRATEGY · TECHNOLOGY · IT SECURITY · SYSTEMIC RISK · FINANCE · TRADING · E-BIZ Services: FINANCIAL RISK · MONEY SANTA · KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT · REFERENCE · NEWS · JOBS · PORTALS · DIRECTORY Community: JOIN NOW · GLOBAL NETWORK · EVENT CALENDAR · SUCCESS GIVEAWAY · GIVING TO BRINT · ABOUT BRINT · HELP · Register for Learning Events Worth Thousands of Dollars in 'Giveaway for Success'	SEARCH [HELP]

Your Products & Services and World of Possibilities?	Just the Domain Name You Have Been Looking For?

Join Community of Practice Discussions in Knowledge Management Think Tank.

Wednesday, September 08, 2010

Definition of Knowledge and Knowledge "Experts"

In thinking about Knowledge, how does one distinguish between "subjective" and "objective" knowledge? How does one reconcile the divergent views into a more holistic view of knowledge on any specific topic? How does this relate to "empirical" knowledge?

The real empiricism lies in experiencing the theory in real life, i.e., testing its validity in the 'rough and tumble' of the world out there.

Most of us are developing and testing theories everyday in our personal and professional lives in the form of decisions and choices that we make. Many of us may not realize the meta-cognition to be aware of 'beneath the surface' processes that go into decision-making [more specifically, into 'routine' decision-making] aspects of everyday activities.

The issue of the 'subjective' versus 'objective', however, needs more careful thought. Many things that many of us may not necessarily "know to be true," may still be real parts of the socially constructed reality within which we live. Consider for instance, notions such as "myths" and "fads."

Considering the "sum" of all opposing elements, will it be accurate to depict the "total sum" as a "zero sum game"? Often we see contradictory findings reported by "rational scientists" - often findings which jive with the sensationalism of the media get reported while others may lie unattended in arcane research journals. [Someone has argued somewhere that the case of scientific research may itself be depicted as "Science as Marketing"]. How often have we seen lobbying efforts supported by "scientific findings" which may not explicitly consider contrarian "scientific findings" reported by other / rival / nonpartisan groups.

Still the point that "the big picture depends upon WHO is doing the drawing" seems to have merit. Some issues that come to mind include those of legitimization of myths and legitimization of fads. However, empiricism may involve repeated verification of phenomena - including verification of the non-exact repetition or non-repetition of the same phenomena. In other words, the temporal and contextual aspects of the "reality" of a theory are relevant for a formal scientist and a "lay" scientist [For details, one may delve into the notion of "humans as scientists" suggested by George Kelly, the proponent of Personal Constructivism. One may also find parallels in observations of other authors such as Jerome Bruner - see for instance, his book "Beyond the Information Given."]

However sharing the "personal constructions" of "what is out there" may help us develop better awareness and understanding of the diversity of the views that are out there and their possible merit in various contexts and circumstances. A similar process has been explained by Arie de Geus in his accounts of strategic planning process at Royal Dutch Shell. Some details about such knowledge-creating processes have been discussed in the following article:

http://km.brint.com/km.htm

Knowledge Management in Inquiring Organizations

Join for discussions in the Online Community Network.