About BRINT | News About BRINT | Help & FAQs | Users Guide | Advertise Here |
Welcome to the World's No. 1 Resource for Business Technology Management and Knowledge Management

Services: Knowledge Portals · Knowledge Map · Knowledge Network · Book of Knowledge · NEWS· INFORMATION Channels: General Business · Business Technology · E-Business · Knowledge Management Community: Join the Network! · Global Network · Events Calendar · Executive Jobs	SEARCH [HELP]

Knowledge and its Construction
- Bruce Gold

Discussion Forum on This Topic

Introduction

In addressing the subject of knowledge and knowledge management we are addressing age-old philosophical questions and translating them into the contentious context of organizational/political life and action. This process involves basic issues relating to the nature of knowledge and reality, and in particular it addressed the issues of what can be known, how it can be known, and how we can know that we know. This is particularly true in an era of re-structuring, globalization, re-inventing government and contending knowledge maps of the world.

To examine knowledge management we must first give some shape and definition to what is meant by the term knowledge. Since our primary interest is related to management and the organizational aspects of knowledge this paper will examine knowledge from a collective rather than an individual viewpoint. From a collective viewpoint knowledge can be viewed as an artifact that is socially connected and socially constructed. From this viewpoint knowledge is seen as an organizational/historical structure tied to existential factors and particularized by different social/organizational groups.

This approach to knowledge is not new and can be seen in insights such as Francis Bacon's notion of "idols." This notion traced distorted knowledge to human nature (idols of the tribe), individual biases (idols of the cave), social influences (idols of the market-place) and false philosophies (idols of the theater).

It should be noted that this paper will also address knowledge from a realist position. It steers a middle ground between the postmodern collapse of positivism and the intellectual chaos of relativism. This realist position acknowledges the structuring that people impose on the world and also acknowledges that the world has its own reality that pushes back against the human practice of shaping and naming what is.

A Social Theory of Knowledge

This paper attempts to analyze the relationship between knowledge and reality. It addresses the problem of the social conditioning of knowledge by explicitly recognizing the relationship of knowledge to social existence The subject matter of this paper is not deliberate deceptions as such spin-doctoring or dis-information, but the varying ways of viewing objects and how these views relate to social factors.

Hence this paper is primarily concerned with the problem of how people actually think, not in textbooks of logic, but in organizations and in public life. This paper stems from the belief that the examination of the existential, social underpinnings of ideas and beliefs will clarify some of the issues of knowledge formation and knowledge management. The explicit understanding that there are social and organizational basis for different viewpoints often allows people to "translate" across different perspectives and so overcome the problem of people "talking past" one another.

Problem driven knowledge

The basic understanding of knowledge as a social artifact is the realization that different historical/social experiences have led to different understandings of the world. This view emphasizes that different social groups, in the process of repeatedly dealing with their own typical problems, have developed particular modes of thought and types of knowledge to deal with these problems. Consequently, the structures of knowledge as well as the contents of knowledge differed for different social, organizational and professional groups. This process results in the same object taking on different forms, values and meanings. This phenomenon, the social variability of knowledge, raises the question of when and where social structures come to express themselves in the structure of knowledge and in what sense they determine the shape of knowledge. The different viewpoints that arise from the social roots of knowledge can be described as worldviews or perspectives, defined as a persons whole mode of conceiving things. These socially generated worldviews have also been described as "ideologies'' or "cultures".

This understanding of the social construction of knowledge leads us to the realization that the analysis of knowledge can take place at different "levels". In its simplest form knowledge can be analyzed at the level of content by examining a given selection of data while taking the assumptions, categories, criteria of validity and style of reasoning as a given. However a more sophisticated analysis would be at the level of structure and include a questioning of assumptions, categories and style of thought as well as its contents. This structural analysis of knowledge can be expanded to include an analysis of the entire worldview of the subject. In this more complete form of examination the search for meaning is tied to the whole structure or worldview that underlies a particular piece of "knowledge".

Theory and Methodology

Because there are two levels of analysis a social theory of knowledge can be used as either a methodology of empirical research, or as a theory of knowledge. As a methodology of empirical investigation it can use description and structural analysis to examine how social relations influence thought. In this process one can conceptualize different styles of thought as Weberian ideal-types and as use them as working hypotheses. As a theory of knowledge the theory's insights can be used to explain how social/existential factors influence the construction of knowledge and shape the development of qualitative assessments. Both these approaches stress that the conceptualization of knowledge is a more or less explicit intellectual act tied to particular worldviews.

These understandings lead us to the realization that each factual form of knowledge has its own implicit or explicit theoretical foundation. From this viewpoint knowledge can only be understood in terms of a theoretical structure, and the categories, concepts and assumptions of that structure. This structure, which shapes and holds the contents of knowledge, is tied to the social realities of its bearer. With these understandings a structural analysis of knowledge examines the social realities underlying systems of thought and reduced truisms and points of view to the more fundamental philosophical differences that underlie them. These philosophical differences are, in turn, linked to the experiences, interests and competitions of social and organizational groups.

These conceptual systems are often the result of active economic, political and social competition. They represent an intellectual expression of the attempt to shape the world to conform to the group's values, needs and desires. They are attempts to shape the world intellectually and establish intellectual maps that will then guide the social and physical shaping of the world.

Group Consciousness and the Intentionality of Knowledge

From the viewpoint of a theory of the social construction of knowledge the penetration of the social process into the intellectual sphere is created by forces arising out of lived experience and shapes the organization of thought. This social genesis of knowledge in turn implies that human will, especially as expressed by groups, can not be separated from knowledge. Every formulation of a problem is based on a human act and guided by a group's experience with similar problems. In every selection of data there must be an act of will on the part of the knower. Knowledge therefore can not be determined solely by the object "in itself" but must also be determined by the different expectations, purposes and impulses arising out of different group experiences. This understanding of knowledge and knowledge formation rejects any positivist assumptions that knowledge is an insight into "eternal truths" or arises from purely theoretical or philosophical roots. Knowledge is an instrument for dealing with life-situations as experienced by individuals and social groups as they interact with the social an physical world. Therefore, human knowing can not be located in some separate ideal sphere, because the only kind of knowing that is available to us is knowing as a human activity and as a human act.

Knowledge formation is shaped by the specific knowledge structure that is being used and our own (or our groups) social/organizational viewpoint. As a social/organizational activity thinking and knowledge formation are a mix of individual and group activity. Although only individuals can "think" in the strict meaning of the term it is also true that it is "incorrect" to say that the single individual thinks. Rather one can insist that individuals participate by thinking further what others have thought before. In a general sense individuals always find themselves in an inherited situation with patterns of thought which are more or less appropriate to their situation and from this position attempt to think further.

Social Continuity of Knowledge

This process of "thinking further" does not imply a group mind or a collective consciousness. It refers to a socialization of meanings that shapes the perceptions of group members. The inherited assumptions, categories, concepts and mode of thought of a group stabilized its identity and shaped its members' consciousness. The individual is the bearer of knowledge, but this knowledge is conditioned by the group's collective understandings. These collective understandings, expressed in the structure and contents of the group's knowledge, are disseminated through the process of socialization and communication. In every organization intellectual communities and communities of practice form, both shaping and being shaped by the organization. This shaping takes place at both the formal level of rule books and procedures and at informal levels of group activity. We should note here that the concept of collective viewpoints or worldviews is being used in the sense of Weberian ideal-types, not as a description of any particular group member's consciousness.

We should also understand that these insights are not advanced as an argument for a determinist process of knowledge formation. For in a fundamental sense we belong to a group not because we are born into it, or because we profess to belong to it, or because we give it our loyalty and allegiance, but primarily because we see the world and certain things in the world the way it does and in terms of the meanings of the group in question. It is one's choice of meanings that established one's group memberships

World Views and Perspectives

World views and perspectives can be defined as the manner in which one views an object, what one perceives in it and how one constituted it in one's thinking. As such they represent willful elements in thought and knowledge. These willful elements, have a "qualitative" nature that is often overlooked by theorists and by purely formal logic. This pragmatic character in human thought and knowledge construction reflects the human tendency to organize the world by interests, an ontological factor that is fundamental to understanding how people construct knowledge. From different perspectives "the 'object" has a more or less different meaning because the perception of the object grows out of the whole of the observer's frame of reference. This qualitative factor, the presence of "meaningful" elements in the perception of objects, is a basic characteristic of all knowledge formation and analysis. This element of meaningfulness in the contents of knowledge is a source of analytical insight and a problem. For, the presence of "meaningful" elements in knowledge makes the problem of interpretation fundamental.

Structures of Thinking

The understanding that knowledge can be examined at the level of content or at the level of structure raises epistemological issues because behind every definite question and answer is implicitly or explicitly to be found a model of how fruitful thinking can be carried on. Knowledge is related to human and social roots and can only be properly understood in terms of these roots. This relational quality of knowledge makes in possible to trace the concrete, empirical connections, of specific ideas to specific social groups and makes it possible to draw an intellectual map of knowledge where a specific group's "perspective" would constitute a cultural and intellectual index of its historical/social or organizational position. Recognition of the existential, relational aspect of all thought does not mean that one must deny the existence or possibility of formalized and abstract thought. But that one has to recognize the social roots of all, even abstract, thought.

Knowledge and Language

The socially constructed nature of knowledge is the reason that a particular word or concept can mean different things to different groups. That even in the formulation of concepts, the angle of vision is guided by the observer's interests. The absence of a concept, the absence of certain points of view, can also indicate the absence of a definite drive to come to grips with certain life-problems. To understanding a particular piece of knowledge an analysis of the concepts that underlie it provides the most direct approach to understanding the structure that shapes the knowledge. As a Weberian ideal type, a perspective can be identified by its traits and by criteria that would locate it in relation to a situation or an organizational interest. A perspective can be defined by an analysis of the meaning of its concepts, by the phenomenon of the counter-concept, by the absence of a concept, by the structure of categorical apparatus, by the dominant mode of thought, by characteristic levels of abstraction and by the assumptions that that perspective presupposed.

Knowledge and Objectivity

This understanding of the social and relational aspect of knowledge raises the problem of objectivity and the danger of relativism. If we reject positivism and all notions of objectivity based on an ideal of an absolute detached, impersonal point of view and advocate instead the ideal of a human point of view we must find an appropriate criteria for establishing the validity of our knowledge. However, our understanding of the relational aspect of knowledge is also the key to a proper understanding of objectivity. By comparing different perspectives, the observer, can widen their base of knowledge towards an increasingly inclusive understanding. This is a process founded on the recognition of the partiality of each particular perspective and tied to the construction of a more comprehensive perspective. We can note that in practice the wider view also tends to be more abstract as the more inclusive view moves away from particular instances. This formalizing tendency tends to placed the analysis of concrete qualitative assertions in context of a more overarching viewpoint or intellectual structure. This process of progressive abstraction is the intellectual result of group contact and interpenetration. A perspective became more inclusive by becoming more abstract, by dissolving the earlier more particular and concrete points of view into a more abstract formulation. In the wider perspective the qualitative, organizational particulars of specific perspectives are incorporated into the general and abstract. This progression from the particular to the general culminates in philosophies, perspectives, " isms" and in organizational cultures.

Objectivity and a Perspectivist Approach to Knowledge

The use of a perspectivist approach to knowledge allows objectivity to be examined in two ways. Objectivity can be studied within the boundaries of a single perspective or objectivity can be studied across the boundaries of multiple perspectives. Observers within a single system would, by definition, share an identical conceptual and categorical apparatus and would participate in a common universe of discourse. Accordingly their analysis would tend towards similar results, and common criteria could be used to eradicate as an error everything that deviates from this unanimity. However, if the observers have different perspectives they can still arrive at objectivity in a more roundabout fashion. Differences in perception, by being understood in the light of their different structures, allow understandings to be reached across perspectives. Therefore an effort can be made to find a formula for translating the results from one perspective to another, to discover a common denominator for these varying insights. Once done, this new perspective would allow for a more inclusive understanding of the situation and address the problem of "talking past one another". This process can be seen in current efforts to move knowledge across organizational "silos" and in the use of multidisciplinary teams. In this process objectivity is increased by the translation of one perspective into the terms of another. As to the question of which is the best perspective, pre-eminence is given to the perspective that gives evidence of the greatest comprehensiveness and the greatest fruitfulness in dealing with empirical materials. The standard for measuring the "correctness" of a viewpoint can be tied to viewpoints that moved closer to a "totality" of vision, as well as ones that had a greater analytical "utility" .

Relationism

The understanding that knowledge is a social artifact is tied to the understanding that the validity of knowledge can not be separated from social existence. These two understandings underlie the concept of relationism according to which knowledge can only be constructed in relationally to particular viewpoints. This process ties the construction, analysis and validity of knowledge to a social/organizational base thereby giving it an "objectivity" in relation to a particular social/organizational setting. This understanding of knowledge and knowledge formation establishes a middle ground between an positivist "absolute" criterion of truth and a rootless relativism that ties "truth" to criteria that are infinitely variable and therefore pragmatically useless. Relationism, by tying "truth" to concrete historical, social and organizational situations allowed the formation of truth and validity criteria that are, if not absolute at least finite, identifiable and hence usable.

Relationism also ties knowledge to the real world of empirical phenomena as a second point of reference. As a realist position it assumes a "real" world that, in a sense, pushes back against the knower's ordering of knowledge. Hence empirical knowledge of "the facts" is possible but only through a filter of conceptualization and qualitative elements. This awareness can be seen in the truism that the "Question shapes the answer" and in the understanding that data is inevitably shaped not only by the thing measured but also by the decision on what to measure and how to measure it.

Relationism's recognition of the inevitable qualitative/quantitative mix in all knowledge also recognizes different distributions of qualitative/quantitative elements in different spheres of knowledge. Knowledge that is closely tied to inanimate objects and the natural world tends to be more quantitative in nature reflecting the "inert" characteristic of its subject. Knowledge that is more human oriented, socially, politically or organizationally, tends to reflect the "active" nature of its subject by being more qualitative in nature. This understanding is reflected in the differences of approach and methods of analysis in the natural and social sciences.

Some Understandings Related to a Social Theory of Knowledge

1. At the organizational level knowledge is an implicitly or explicitly created social artifact.

2. Knowledge always exits in relationship to something. No view without a viewpoint

3. Knowledge, since it is a social artifact and tied to existential factors contains both qualitative and quantitative elements

4. Knowledge can be constructed or analyzed at two levels, at the level of content or at the level of structure

5. Knowledge has a historical dimension. While only people "think" it is also correct to say that they "think further" from an inherited context of assumptions, viewpoints, values and methods.

6. The existence of different views is not necessarily an indication of the existence of errors

Some Implications of a Social Theory of Knowledge

1. Since knowledge is tied to particular viewpoints and intentions it can only be constructed in relationship to some viewpoint and purpose (knowledge for what and for whom?). This implies that knowledge must be understood and constructed from a specific strategic viewpoint.

[Knowledge management must be tied to an organizational purpose]

2. All viewpoints contain both quantitative and qualitative elements. The quantitative elements are subject to falsification by empirical analysis. The qualitative elements can only be reduced to social/organizational understandings of group history, position and purpose.

[Knowledge management must manage knowledge across a qualitative/quantitative continuum.]

3. The awareness that there are different systems of knowledge opens the possibility of choice in how to structure and manage knowledge.

[Knowledge management is about systems of knowledge as well as information and data]

4. Knowledge construction and knowledge management will only be successful if they include an understanding of the organizations intellectual history and culture.

[Knowledge management is a socially/organizationally located activity]

5. Knowledge formation and management needs to be located across a continuum from the unique particular to all encompassing aspects.

[Knowledge management must deliver knowledge at the level of specificity or abstraction appropriate for its users]

Discussion Forum on This Topic

Mr. Bruce Gold has Master's degree in Intellectual History (mostly working on the Sociology of Knowledge) and is completing the last phase of his Master's in Public Administration. He is a resident of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Reprinted with permission of the author